Emulation of a Target Trial From Observational Data to Compare Effectiveness of Casirivimab/Imdevimab and Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab for Early Treatment of Non-Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.
COVID-19
SARS-COV-2
bamlanivimab/etesevimab
casirivimab/imdevimab
early treatment for COVID-19
monoclonal antibodies
Journal
Frontiers in immunology
ISSN: 1664-3224
Titre abrégé: Front Immunol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101560960
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
01
02
2022
accepted:
24
03
2022
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Comparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta. Allocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7.Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period. COVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p<0.001) on D7. In a pre-Omicron epidemiologic scenario, CAS/IMD reduced risk of clinical progression of COVID-19 compared to BAM/ETE. This effect was not associated with a concomitant difference in virological response.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35514955
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.868020
pmc: PMC9066636
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Antibodies, Neutralizing
0
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
imdevimab
2Z3DQD2JHM
bamlanivimab
45I6OFJ8QH
casirivimab
J0FI6WE1QN
etesevimab
N7Q9NLF11I
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
868020Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Mazzotta, Cozzi-Lepri, Colavita, Lanini, Rosati, Lalle, Mastrorosa, Cimaglia, Vergori, Bevilacqua, Lapa, Mariano, Bettini, Agrati, Piselli, Girardi, Castilletti, Garbuglia, Vaia, Nicastri and Antinori.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220957
pubmed: 35834252
Cell. 2021 Jun 10;184(12):3086-3108
pubmed: 34087172
J Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 28;224(8):1278-1286
pubmed: 34279629
JAMA. 2021 Nov 23;326(20):2043-2054
pubmed: 34734975
Cell. 2022 Feb 3;185(3):467-484.e15
pubmed: 35081335
Nature. 2022 Feb;602(7898):671-675
pubmed: 35016199
N Engl J Med. 2021 Nov 18;385(21):1941-1950
pubmed: 34706189
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Oct;40:101102
pubmed: 34485873
Cell Rep. 2021 Jul 20;36(3):109415
pubmed: 34270919
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7870):103-108
pubmed: 34153975
Cell Rep Med. 2021 Apr 20;2(4):100255
pubmed: 33842902
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 23;8(7):ofab331
pubmed: 34327256
J Infect Dis. 2022 Feb 15;225(4):598-602
pubmed: 34791298
N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 7;385(15):1382-1392
pubmed: 34260849
Nature. 2021 May;593(7857):130-135
pubmed: 33684923
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e440-e449
pubmed: 34718468
Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:
pubmed: 33112236
Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 May;96(5):1250-1261
pubmed: 33958056
Nature. 2022 Feb;602(7898):664-670
pubmed: 35016195
Cell. 2021 Apr 29;184(9):2384-2393.e12
pubmed: 33794143
JAMA. 2021 Feb 16;325(7):632-644
pubmed: 33475701
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 2;385(23):e81
pubmed: 34587383
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7871):276-280
pubmed: 34237773
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 24;8(8):ofab398
pubmed: 34409125
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 21;384(3):238-251
pubmed: 33332778
Lancet. 2022 Jan 8;399(10320):152-160
pubmed: 34741818
Nature. 2022 Feb;602(7898):657-663
pubmed: 35016194