RESUMO
IMPORTANCEThe effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab, for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from the Delta variant is unknown. OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs for the Delta variant compared to no treatment, and the comparative effectiveness between mAbs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSTwo parallel studies among patients who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria for mAbs from July 14, 2021 to September 29, 2021: i.) prospective observational cohort study comparing mAb treatment to no mAb treatment and, ii.) Bayesian adaptive randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab versus sotrovimab. In the observational study, we compared eligible patients who received mAb at an outpatient infusion center at UPMC, to nontreated patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly allocated casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab to patients presenting to infusion centers and emergency departments, per system therapeutic interchange policy. EXPOSUREIntravenous mAb per their EUA criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFor the observational study, risk ratio estimates for hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment to no mAb treatment using propensity matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day) in a Bayesian cumulative logistic model, adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio <1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. RESULTSAmong 3,558 patients receiving mAb, the mean age was 54 (SD 18 years), 1,511 (43%) were treated in an infusion center, and 450 (13%) were hospitalized or died by day 28. In propensity matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR)=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). Both casirivimab and imdevimab (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.50), and sotrovimab (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00) reduced hospitalization or death compared to no mAb treatment. Among patients allocated randomly to casirivimab and imdevimab (n=2,454) or sotrovimab (n=1,104), the median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28-28) for both groups, 28-day mortality was 0.5% (n=12) and 0.6% (n=7), and hospitalization by day 28 was 12% (n=291) and 12% (n=140), respectively. Compared to casirivimab and imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab. This odds ratio yielded 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were both associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04790786 Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, what is the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to no treatment, and what is the comparative effectiveness between mAb? FindingsAmong 3,069 patients, mAb treatment (casirivimab and imdevimab or sotrovimab) was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 28 days compared to no treatment (risk ratio=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). In a Bayesian randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab and imdevimab vs. sotrovimab in 3,558 patients, the median hospital-free days were 28 days for both groups. Compared to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab, an 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. MeaningIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.
RESUMO
ImportanceMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but association with patient outcomes is understudied. ObjectiveTo evaluate whether or not, i.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization/death than non-treatment among mAb-eligible patients, and ii.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective cohort study of outpatients in a learning health system in the United States with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021 who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also selected. InterventionSubcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of casirivimab 600mg and imdevimab 600mg. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios/differences of hospitalization, death, composite endpoint of ED admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. ResultsAmong 1,956 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization/death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in nontreated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28-day adjusted risk differences (subcutaneous - intravenous) for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide. Conclusions and RelevanceSubcutaneously administered casirivimab-imdevimab is associated with reduced risk-adjusted hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 compared to no treatment and indicates low adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSAmong outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, is subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab associated with improved risk-adjusted 28-day clinical outcomes compared to non-treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and clinically similar association compared to intravenously administered casirivimab and imdevimab? FindingsAmong 1,956 propensity-matched adults, outpatients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in non-treated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 outpatients who received subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28-day adjusted risk differences comparing subcutaneous to intravenous route for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide. MeaningSubcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab is associated with reduced hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 compared to no treatment, and has a small, adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously.
RESUMO
BackgroundNeutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. Yet, their clinical use is limited, and comparative effectiveness is unknown. MethodsWe present the first results of an ongoing, learning health system adaptive platform trial to expand mAb treatment to all eligible patients and evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available mAbs. The trial launched March 10, 2021. Results are reported as of June 25, 2021 due to the U.S. federal decision to pause distribution of bamlanivimab-etesevimab; patient follow-up concluded on July 23, 2021. Patients referred for mAb who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria were provided a random mAb allocation of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, or casirivimab-imdevimab with a therapeutic interchange policy. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model of all patients treated at an infusion center or emergency department, adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. ResultsPrior to trial launch, 3.1% (502) of 16,345 patients who were potentially eligible by an automated electronic health record (EHR) screen received mAb. During the trial period, 23.2% (1,201) of 5,173 EHR-screen eligible patients were treated, a 7.5-fold increase. After including additional referred patients from outside the health system, a total of 1,935 study patients received mAb therapy (128 bamlanivimab, 885 bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 922 casirivimab-imdevimab). Mean age ranged from 55 to 57 years, half were female (range, 53% to 54%), and 17% were Black (range, 12% to 19%). Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR, 28 to 28) for each mAb group. Hospitalization varied between groups (bamlanivimab, 12.5%; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 14.7%, casirivimab-imdevimab, 14.3%). Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval (CI), 0.30 to 1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.24) for the bamlanivimab and bamlanivimab-etesevimab groups, respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab respectively, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, at the prespecified odds ratio bound of 0.25. Twenty-one infusion-related adverse events occurred in 0% (0/128), 1.4% (12/885), and 1.0% (9/922) of patients treated with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. ConclusionIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, bamlanivimab, compared to bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, resulted in 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority with regards to odds of improvement in hospital-free days within 28 days. There was an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab at an odds ratio bound of 0.25. However, the trial was unblinded early due to federal distribution decisions, and no mAb met prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786).
RESUMO
ObjectivesImmunocompromised patients were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to measure antibody responses, levels, and neutralization capability after COVID-19 vaccination among immunocompromised patients and compare these variables to those of immunocompetent healthcare workers. MethodsThis is an interim analysis of an ongoing observational, prospective cohort study which launched on April 14, 2021 across Western Pennsylvania. Participants were healthy healthcare workers (HCW) and immunocompromised patients who had completed their COVID-19 vaccination series. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 were not eligible. Serum was collected to measure for the presence of IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein using a semi-quantitative assay; antibody levels were available for comparisons. A quasi-random subset of patients was selected for pseudovirus neutralization assays. Seropositivity with 95% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence intervals and distribution of antibody levels were measured. To identify risk factors for seronegativity, clinical characteristics were univariately compared between antibody reactive and non-reactive individuals within the immunocompromised group. Results107 HCW and 489 immunocompromised patients were enrolled. Compared to HCWs, seropositivity was significantly lower (p<.001) among immunocompromised patients with Solid organ transplant (SOT), autoimmune, hematological malignancies, and solid tumors (HCW=98.1%; SOT=37.2%; autoimmune=83.8%; hematological malignancies=54.7%; and solid tumor=82.4%, p < 0.05). Over 94% of patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus were seropositive. Among seropositive patients, antibody levels were much lower among SOT (4.5 [2.1,13.1], p=.020). Neutralization titers tightly correlated with antibody levels (Spearman r = 0.91, p < 0.0001). ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccines based on underlying immunosuppressive condition and highlight an urgent need to optimize and individualize COVID-19 prevention in these patients. These findings also have implications on public health guidance, particularly given revised Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations permitting vaccinated individuals to abandon masking and social distancing in most settings. Future studies are warranted to determine assessment of cellular immunity, longitudinal measurement of immune responses, and the safety and efficacy of revaccination.
RESUMO
BackgroundMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment may prevent complications of COVID-19. We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monotherapy on hospitalizations and mortality, as well as Emergency Department (ED) visits without hospitalization, among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. MethodsWe compared patients receiving mAb to patients who met criteria but did not receive mAb from December 2020 through March 2021. The study population selection used propensity scores to match 1:1 by likelihood to receive mAb. The primary outcome was hospitalization or all-cause mortality within 28 days; the secondary outcome was hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization within 28 days. Odds ratios (OR) calculation used logistic regression modeling including propensity score and mAb receipt predictors. ResultsThe study population included 234 patients receiving mAb and 234 matched comparator patients not receiving mAb. Patients receiving mAb were less likely to experience hospitalization or mortality (OR 0.31, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.17-0.56, p=0.00001) and hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.43-0.83, p=0.007). The impact of mAb was more pronounced in prevention of hospitalization (among all age groups, OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.19-0.66, p=0.001) than mortality or ED visit without hospitalization, and most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older (primary outcome OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.14-0.56, p=0.0003). ConclusionsBamlanivimab monotherapy was associated with reduction in the composite outcome of hospitalizations and mortality in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. The benefit may be strongest in preventing hospitalization in patients ages 65 years or older.
RESUMO
Background/Aims: We reviewed demographic and clinical profiles, along with measures of hospital-based clinical practice to identify temporal changes in clinical practice that may have affected in-hospital outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Methods: Data consisted of sociodemographic and clinical data captured in University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) electronic medical record (EMR) systems, linked by common variables (deidentified). The analysis population included hospitalized patients (across 21 hospitals) with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection during the period March 14-August 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mechanical ventilation/mortality. We compared temporal trends in patient characteristics, clinical practice, and hospital outcomes using 4 time-defined epochs for calendar year 2020: March 14-March 31 (epoch 1); April 1-May 15, (epoch 2), May 16-June 28 (epoch 3); and June 29-August 31 (epoch 4). We report unadjusted survival estimates, followed by propensity score analyses to adjust for differences in patient characteristics, to compare in-hospital outcomes of epoch 4 patients (recently treated) to epoch 1-3 patients (earlier treated). Results: Mean number of hospital admissions was 9.9 per day during epoch 4, which was ~2- to 3-fold higher than the earlier epochs. Presenting characteristics of the 1,076 COVID-19 hospitalized patients were similar across the 4 epochs, including mean age. The crude rate of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (17%) than in epoch 1-3 patients (23% to 35%). When censoring for incomplete patient follow-up, the rate of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (p<0.0001), as was the individual component of mechanical ventilation (p=0.0002) and mortality (p=0.02). In propensity score adjusted analyses, the in-hospital relative risk (RR) of mechanical ventilation/mortality was lower in epoch 4 patients (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.93). For the outcome being discharged alive within 3, 5, or 7 days of admission, adjusted odds ranged from 1.6- to 1.7-fold higher among epoch 4 patients compared to earlier treated patients. The better outcomes in epoch 4 patients were principally observed in patients under the age of 75 years. Patient level dexamethasone use was 55.6% in epoch 4 compared to 15% or less of patients in the earlier epochs. Most patients across epochs received anticoagulation drugs (principally heparin). Overall steroid (81.7% vs. 54.3%, p<0.0001) and anticoagulation use (90.4% vs. 80.7%, p=0.0001) was more frequent on the day or day after hospitalization in epoch 4 patients compared to earlier treated patients. Conclusions: In our large system, recently treated hospitalized COVID-19 patients had lower rates of in-hospital mechanical ventilation/mortality and shorter length of hospital stay. Alongside of this was a change to early initiation of glucocorticoid therapy and anticoagulation. The extent to which the improvement in patient outcomes was related to changes in clinical practice remains to be established.
