Article Type : Research Article
Authors : Weimer LE1, Cattari G, Fanales Belasio E, Cuccuru E and Vidili G
Keywords : Combination Therapy; Monoclonal Antibodies, Sars-Cov-2; Early Treatment
COVID-19
is highly transmissible with potentially serious health outcomes, underscoring
the need for effective prevention and treatment strategies. Vaccines are highly
effective at preventing COVID-19 for the general population; however, efficacy
is often impaired in immunocompromised patients given insufficient response to
initial exposure and/or memory for secondary exposures. Risk factors for
COVID-19 include older age, obesity, underlying medical conditions such as
diabetes, inadequate vaccination, and/or being immunocompromised. People living
with immunocompromising conditions including but not limited to active
treatment for solid tumor and hematologic malignancies, solid organ transplant
recipients, or people living with human immunodeficiency virus, even with
appropriate vaccination, are at a greater risk for adverse outcomes from
COVID-19 including hospitalization, time in the intensive care unit (ICU), and
mechanical ventilation. Consequently, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mabs),
developed rapidly as a part of the global response to COVID-19, have been
crucial. Nevertheless, the evolving VOCs have reduced the effectiveness of
current abs, necessitating the development of new ones effective against
various sarbeco viruses. This Mini review explain the importance of
Prophylaxis, Therapy with Monoclonal Antibodies as The First Major Therapeutic
Opportunity to change the Clinical History in the Sars-Cov-2 Variants Era for
elderly and immunocompromised persons.
COVID-19 is highly transmissible with potentially
serious health outcomes, underscoring the need for effective prevention and
treatment strategies. Vaccines are highly effective at preventing COVID-19 for
the general population; however, efficacy is often impaired in
immunocompromised patients given insufficient response to initial exposure
and/or memory for secondary exposures. Risk factors for COVID-19 include older
age, obesity, underlying medical conditions such as diabetes, inadequate vaccination,
and/or being immunocompromised [1]. People living with immunocompromising
conditions including but not limited to active treatment for solid tumour and
hematologic malignancies, solid organ transplant recipients, or people living
with human immunodeficiency virus, even with appropriate vaccination, are at a
greater risk for adverse outcomes from COVID-19 including hospitalization, time
in the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation [2]. Consequently,
therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), developed rapidly as a part of the
global response to COVID-19, have been crucial. Nevertheless, the evolving VOCs
have reduced the effectiveness of current mAbs, necessitating the development
of new ones effective against various sarbecoviruses. This mini review explain
the importance of Prophylaxis, Therapy with Monoclonal Antibodies as The First
Major Therapeutic Opportunity to change the Clinical History in the Sars-Cov-2
Variants Era for elderly and immunocompromised persons.
Vaccination in elderly and in many immune-compromised
persons is less effective where immunogenicity and clinical data show
considerably impaired responses to vaccination. Thus Monoclonal antibodies
targeting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein are prescribed in high-income
countries to prevent severe disease in at-risk patients. Although studies
report efficacy as between 50–85% [3-4]. Global access is currently largely
inequitable. Multivariate omicron (B.1.1.529) and sub variant (BA.2 followed by
BA.4 and BA.5) dominance has challenged the treatment landscape for
mild-to-moderate disease, introducing considerable certainty on the efficacy of
monoclonal antibodies [5-7] and leading to changes to initial recommendations
for some of them. Contemporaneously, oral, direct-acting antivirals with a
reported efficacy ranging from 30% (molnupiravir) to 89–90%
(nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) have recently received conditional or emergency
approval in some countries and been recommended in international guidelines
such as the World Health Organization guidelines [8-9]. S-217622, also known as ensitrelvir, a 3CL
protease inhibitor that has been shown to significantly reduce the infectious
viral load, is currently in phase 3 trials and waiting for emergency approval
in Japan and should be submitted soon in China. The main purpose of this
opinion paper is to highlight the possible strategies to optimize and protect
current and future therapeutic options to treat the most vulnerable patients.
[10].
Monoclonal Antibodies Aprovation as Prophylaxis-Therapy in the Ederly and Immonocompromised Sars-Cov-2 population at October 2023
Currently, most mAbs are ineffective at providing an
immune response to Omicron strains post BA.2. Recently, the US Food and Drug
Administration and provinces in Canada have found tixagevimab plus cilgavimab
ineffective against Omicron variants [11]. Similar decisions in the US have
been made previously for bamlanivimab monotherapy, which was revoked in April
2021 because of low efficacy against newer COVID-19 variants [12]. In the
context of increasing prevalence of resistant SARS-CoV-2 subvariants, the
decision to administer tixagevimab plus cilgavimab, or any other mAbs to a
given patient should be based on regional prevalence of resistant variants,
individual patient risks, available resources, and logistics. Further, patients
who receive mAbs as a prophylactic for COVID-19 should continue taking
precautions, including proper hand hygiene, physical distancing, and mask
wearing to avoid exposure (Table 1). Although mAbs demonstrated effectiveness,
concerns have been raised regarding the potential for creating spike protein
resistance-associated viral mutations, particularly in immunocompromised
patients. A study conducted from January to February 2022 investigated whether
resistance-associated mutations developed after treatment with sotrovimab in
high-risk patients. Out of the high-risk patients, specimens were collected at
three time points from 14 of the 18 patients (78%). Genomic analysis revealed
that all 18 (100%) patients were infected with the Omicron variant; 17 with
BA.1 (94%) and one with BA.2 (6%). Ten patients (56%) developed
receptor-binding domain mutations at spike position E340 or P337 within 3-31
days after treatment. The researchers identified six mutations in the spike
protein S: E340K/A/V/D/G/Q and three in S: P337L/R/S. Mutations increased over
time, exceeding 50% between days 5 and 28. Patients with mutations had
significantly delayed time to viral clearance (mean, 32 [SD, 8.1] days vs 19.6 [SD,
11.1] days for those without mutations; HR, 0.11 [95% CI,
0.02-0.60]). No S: E340 or S: P337 mutations were found in the Omicron variant
from sequences in the general population. The four patients with the sotrovimab
resistance-associated S: E340K mutation were immunocompromised [13]. Evidence
of how Fc-dependent antibody functions may impact infection consequences within
immunocompromised populations is still limited, requiring a more robust
framework for evaluation.
Sotrovimab is one of the few mabs that demonstrated
retained favourable clinical outcomes against the Omicron variant and as such
it is crucial to understand Fc-mediated effects in order to evaluate and
improve application of antibody therapy. The Omicron variant presents a
heightened risk to patients that are immunocompromised due to their inability
to mount a sufficient antibody response, even when they are vaccinated and/or
have previous COVID-19 infections. This reality places immunocompromised patients
at risk of death and hospitalization due to increased likelihood of high viral
load and their difficulty in eliminating the virus. There is a continued need
for research supporting multiple COVID-19 prophylaxis. The medical and
scientific community can best serve their immunocompromised patients by
updating their understanding of COVID-19 prophylaxis and its utility in
supporting immunocompromised patients. Moreover, there is an urgent need for
new randomized controlled trials in vaccinated, immunocompromised subjects,
during current strains of COVID-19 to support the development of more effective
mAbs [Table 2]. Cowan J., Amson A., et al. Monoclonal antibodies as Covid-19
prophylaxis therapy in immunocompromised patient populations. International
Journal of Infectiuos Diseases Vol.134:P228-238, (2023). AE, adverse event;
ARD, absolute risk difference; CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized control
trial; RRD, relative risk difference; RRR, relative risk reduction; RR,
relative risk.. Amson A., et al. Monoclonal antibodies as Covid-19
prophylaxis therapy in immunocompromised patient populations. International
Journal of Infectious Diseases Vol.134:P228-238, (2023). AE, adverse event;
aOR, adjusted OR; BAU, binding antibody unit; CI, confidence interval; HR,
hazard ratio; ICU, intensive care unit; IM, intramuscular; IQR, interquartile
range; IV, intravenous; KTR, kidney transplant recipients; mAb, monoclonal
antibody; MS, multiple sclerosis; NP, nasopharyngeal; OR, odds ratio; RRR,
relative risk ration; SOTR, solid organ transplant recipients.
ECDC Variant Classification Criteria and Recommendations at October 2023
New evidence is regularly assessed on variants detected through epidemic intelligence, rules-based genomic variant screening, or other scientific sources. If a decision is made to add, remove, or change the category for any variant, the tables are updated to reflect this change. The tables are regularly sent for consultation to ECDC and WHO Regional Office for Europe’s joint virus characterisation working group.
Category
Variant of concern (VOC), variant of interest (VOI), or variant under monitoring (VUM).
WHO label
As of 31st May 2021, WHO proposed labels for global SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest (link is external) to be used alongside the scientific nomenclature in communications about variants to the public. This list includes variants on WHO’s global list of VOC and VOI, and is updated as WHO’s list changes
Lineage and additional mutations
The variant designation specified by one or more Pango lineages and any additional characteristic spike protein changes. An alternate description may be used if the variant is not easy to describe using this nomenclature. For updated information on Pango lineages and definition of lineages and for instructions on how to suggest new lineages, visit the Pango lineages website (link is external). Each lineage in then table is linked to the respective lineage page on the Pango lineages website
Country first detected
Only present if there is moderate confidence in the evidence relating to the first country of detection.
Spike mutations of interest
Not all spike protein amino acid changes are included – this is not a full reference for assignment of the variants. It includes changes to spike protein residues 319-541 (receptor binding domain) and 613-705 (the S1 part of the S1/S2 junction and a small stretch on the S2 side), and any additional unusual changes specific to the variant.
Year and month first detected
As reported in the GISAID EpiCoV database. This can be
adjusted backwards in time if new retrospective detections are made.
Evidence
Concerning properties in three different categories:
·
Transmissibility
·
Immunity
·
Infection severity
Each category is annotated as increased, reduced, similar, unclear, or no evidence depending on the currently available evidence. Increased or reduced means that there is evidence demonstrating that the property is different enough for the variant compared to previously circulating variants that it is likely to have an impact on the epidemiological situation in the EU/EEA. Similar means that there is evidence that demonstrates that the property is not different enough for this variant compared to previously circulating variants that it is unlikely to have an impact. Unclear means that the current evidence is preliminary or contradictory enough to make the assessment uncertain. No evidence means that no evidence has yet been evaluated for this category. The evidence is further annotated with v or m to indicate whether the evidence is available for the variant itself (v) or for mutations associated with the variant (m).
Transmission in the EU/EEA
Categorised as dominant, community, outbreak(s), and sporadic/travel. The categories are qualitative, and the assessment is based on surveillance data collected in TESSy, GISAID EpiCoV data, epidemic intelligence data, and direct communications with the affected countries.
Variants of Concern (VOC)
As of 3 March 2023, ECDC has de-escalated BA.2, BA.4
and BA.5 from its list of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC), as these
parental lineages are no longer circulating. ECDC will continue to categorise
and report on specific SARS-CoV-2 sub-lineages in circulation that are relevant
to the epidemiological situation.
There are currently no SARS-CoV-2 variants meeting the VOC criteria.
Variants of interest (VOI)
X: including its sub-lineages (BN, CH and
others). Omicron-Omicron Recombinants XBF and XBK that share the same spike as
BA.2.75 are monitored under BA.2.75 lineages
Y: W152R, F157L, I210V, G257S, D339H, G446S, N460K,
Q493 (reversion)
A: Monitoring an umbrella of SARS-CoV-2 lineages that
have similar Spike protein profiles and characterised by a specific set of
mutations (S: Q183E, S: F486P and S: F490S). For the full list of lineages,
please look at the table here.
Figure 1: Reported protection and antibody concentration from RCTs of monoclonal antibodies in preventing COVID-19.
Figure 2: Potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs optimization in protecting available antivirals in the shifting landscape of new variants.
B: Monitoring an umbrella of SARS-CoV-2 lineages that
have similar Spike protein profiles and characterised by a specific set of
mutations (S: F456L, S: Q183E, S: F486P and S: F490S). For the full list of
lineages, please look at the table here.
All sub-lineages of
the listed lineages are also included in the variant
Reported protection and antibody concentration from RCTs of monoclonal antibodies in preventing COVID-19
Stadler et al. [14] searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for randomized placebo-controlled trials of SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) used as pre-exposure and peri-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19. They was included only studies where both protection from symptomatic infection and pharmacokinetic information of the monoclonal antibody were provided within the same study. They was identified six eligible studies assessing monoclonal antibodies as pre-exposure and peri-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-. The antibodies used in these studies were casirivimab/imdevimab (three studies), bamlanivimab, cilgavimab/tixagevimab, and adintrevimab. Omicron variants were the dominant circulating variants. One study assessed protection in two time periods; firstly in a pre-Omicron period when the Delta variant was the dominant circulating variant, and separately later when Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.1.1 were the dominant variants13. The overall efficacies against pre-Omicron variants in the included studies ranged from 68.6% to 92.4%. Stadler et al.was identified a trend for lower efficacies with increasing time since administration and against the escaped variant, the latter being reported previously by Schmidt et al. [15] (Figure. 1). Stadler,E.et al. Monoclonal antibody levels and protection from COVID-19. Nature Communications volume 14: 4545 (2023).The efficacy at each time interval is shown in blue (points indicate observed efficacy, horizontal error bars indicate time interval and vertical error bars represent 95% CIs of efficacy). The antibody concentration is shown in black. an Antibody concentration (n?=?1776 individuals) and efficacy data (n?=?5172 individuals) for cilgavimab/tixagevimab was extracted from Levin et al.13 b Single administration of casirivimab/imdevimab data are a combination of data from O’Brien et al.14 and Herman et al.15 who report on the same clinical trial over different follow-up intervals. Efficacy data were reported weekly over the first four weeks in O’Brien et al. (diamonds) (n?=?1505), and monthly for eight months in Herman et al. (circles) (n?=?1683). Antibody concentration data was reported up to day 168 in O’Brien et al. (solid line, b n?=?12), and modelling of the pharmacokinetic profile of the antibody concentration, reported in Herman et al., was used to inform the antibody concentration between 168 and 240 days (dashed line, b). C Isa ET al.16 reported efficacy (n?=?969) and in vivo concentration after repeated administration of 1.2?g of casirivimab/imdevimab every 4 weeks (n?=?723). Hence, the antibody concentration did not decline as in the other studies. D The modeled concentration of adintrevimab after a single administration was extracted from the study by Schmidt ET al.12. The efficacy of adintrevimab was reported both when the delta variant was dominant (circles) (n?=?1267) and when Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.1.1 were dominant (triangles) (n?=?378).
Protecting Emerging Treatment Options
Several crucial issues warrant urgent attention to
optimize the use of these emerging treatment options e (Figure 2). First, as
proven to be transformational for HIV, rapid, affordable access to early
antiviral treatment to slow the tide of new variants is critical to effective
“test-and-treat” strategies to protect the most fragile patients and avoid a
severe and/or persistent infection. After more than 2 years of pandemic,
progress has been slow [17] and public health attention has recently been
attracted by the low-profile agreement during the) in Geneva in May 2022.
Together with vaccination, early diagnosis and treatment have the ability to
reduce disease worsening, to reduce transmission and to constrain variability
in viral sequences. Figure 2. Potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs
optimization in protecting available antivirals in the shifting landscape of
new variants. Second, although the combined effect of omicron and increasing
vaccine deployment in some regions has shifted the demand response from
hospital to outpatient care, considerable uncertainty exists about who is now
at risk for severe omicron disease [18]. While the risk/benefit ratio across
at-risk subpopulations has unquestionably changed in vaccinated populations,
gains made can only be preserved if those at highest risk are rapidly diagnosed
and receive treatment in less than one week. Third, high levels of antiviral
efficacy will be critically important, especially in immunocompromised patients
who are grossly underrepresented in registration trials [19]. Causes of
immunosuppression are diverse (including organ/stem cell transplants, cancer,
immunosuppressive medications or uncontrolled HIV) and these patients represent
a significant proportion of the population, e.g., 7 million adults in the USA
[20] , but also in low- and middle-income countries due to the high prevalence
of uncontrolled HIV. Overall, the mortality risk with omicron is still unclear,
but protection of those who cannot be effectively vaccinated or protected by a
prior SARS-CoV-2 infection remains imperative. Importantly, in regions where
HIV is highly prevalent, there is a clear need and opportunity to reinforce HIV
epidemic control by prompt diagnosis and sustained viral suppression with
antiretroviral, key factors to also enable the control of SARS COV-2 spread in
this group.
Although there are many other causes for variant emergence (host jump or adaptation, vaccine exposure, to name the most frequent), data confirm that immunocompromised patients with long-term SARS-CoV-2 replication are particularly susceptible to resistance and transmissible variant emergence. The emergence of resistance mutation thus impacting treatment efficacy is more likely if a patient has been exposed to specific antiviral drugs. In addition, it remains unclear if the small percent rebound occurrence (2%) observed with nirmatrelvir/r in the EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) trial, performed in the delta variant era, is underestimating a risk that would be particularly of concern in patients harbouring an impaired immune system and in the omicron era. In one recent case series, one out of 7 patients who had a virologist rebound also had an immunosuppressing condition. Another recent case series revealed that all three patients with viral rebound were highly immunocompromised. This potentially raises concerns about the need of longer antiviral courses, especially in these patients. Preclinical data have clearly demonstrated that virological efficacy is higher for combinations of existing antiviral drugs than single agents. To achieve the goal of changing the treatment guidelines in SARS-CoV-2-infected immunocompromised individuals, independent and academic clinical trials for drug combinations should be considered as an urgent, unmet research priority. Today, collaboration with industry to allow early access to antiviral drugs to be combined has been an objective still to be achieved. Certain potent monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, cannot even be accessed for research or for routine care outside of the USA [21].
Early Treatment Optimization
Treatment optimization has been truly transformational
for other viral diseases [e.g., HIV/hepatitis C virus and was only achieved
when antiviral drug combinations became the mainstay. With few drugs currently
available, the opportunity must be seized prior to the emergence of resistance
to drugs deployed widely as monotherapies. Combinations of polymerase inhibitors
and polymerase/protease inhibitors have proven highly successful for other
viruses and in animal models for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, as drugs that are
appropriate to combine are available, there is no good reason not to study them
clinically. In addition to the opportunities that combinations present for a
more potent antiviral response (individual benefit), there can be no doubt that
the rate at which resistance emerges will also be reduced (public health
benefit). Higher potency will result in a lower variability in sequences
through a lower degree of replication. In addition, the probability of the
occurrence of multiple mutations to drive resistance to multiple antivirals
simultaneously is much lower than for a single agent. This is particularly the case
where concentrations achieved are close to the therapeutic efficacy threshold
or in the case of low compliance. It is incumbent upon the international
research community and the pharmaceutical industry to pool knowledge and
provide the critical information that the World Health Organization and
country-level authorities so urgently require, as well as early diagnosis and
increased access to vaccines and antiviral therapy. The resistance risk for
existing drugs has been woefully understudied throughout development, making it
extremely challenging to rationalize during policy development. Looking beyond
efficacy, drug combinations will unquestionably reduce the rate at which
resistance and new variants impacting treatment options emerge and could be made
available and accessible to those in need if timely efforts are made. In
conclusion, we call for combination therapies to be tested in adequately
powered clinical trials in the target population of immunocompromised patients,
both in wealthy and in low-income countries where HIV-driven immunosuppression
is prevalent. If higher efficacy is confirmed, the diversity of possible
combinations will enable the tailoring of therapeutic options to individual
patient needs (e.g., avoiding drug-drug interactions in transplant patients) as
well as their specific regional context (e.g., oral-only combinations).
Does their use as a prophylactic or treatment potentially affect natural long-term immunity?
Considering the large doses used and the relative half-life of antibodies (~3 weeks for IgG molecules), there is a pertinent consideration whether the presence of circulating neutralizing mAbs could impact active immunity, whether through memory from infection or vaccination. From the collective clinical data with MAb114, REGN-EB3 and palivizumab, the general benefits and risks associated with neutralizing mAbs are similar to those observed with traditional passive immunization against infectious agents. The agents themselves are relatively tolerable for patients, efficacious during the early onset of disease symptoms and in certain cases as a prophylactic, but with limited efficacy once infections are severe. The distinctions between these therapies are largely logistical; CPT is more rapidly implemented during an emerging pandemic when few therapeutic options are yet available, while neutralizing mAbs take time to discover and it takes time for regulatory approval for their use to be obtained as well as to scale up manufacturing capacity. The use and promise of passive immunization during the coronavirus outbreaks of the twenty-first century (that is, with SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2) have re-emphasized these past lessons while also highlighting additional insights, as we discuss next [22]. Fortunatly today, the process to mass-produce recombinant mAbs has become scalable to meet demand and is cost-competitive with other treatments. Neutralizing mAbs overcome limitations intrinsic (for example, the risk of blood-borne diseases, time to development of detectable high-affinity antibodies and risk of low antibody titres, as well as variable epitope specificity. Furthermore, a high titre of neutralizing antibodies — which current evidence indicates is necessary for the efficacy— is inherent with neutralizing mAbs. As of April 2021, at least 20 neutralizing mAb therapies were being tested in late-stage clinical trials or had already been approved for use in nine infectious diseases, including RSV infection and Ebola.
Association with Several SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Therapies with Adverse Outcomes of COVID-19
Elsewhere in JAMA Network Open, Ambrose et al.
[23-25]. evaluated the association of several SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing mAb
therapies with adverse outcomes of COVID-19 in subpopulations at high risk of
poor outcomes and across multiple variant epochs. A population of 167?183
patients met study inclusion criteria, of whom 25?241 (15.1%) received mAb
treatment. All patients were nonhospitalized, had a EUA-defined risk factor for
progression to severe disease, and received no other outpatient therapy for
COVID-19. From November 2020 through January 2022, mAb treatment was associated
with reductions in the odds of hospitalization of almost 50% and the odds of
emergency department visits by 24% compared with no mAb treatment. The odds of
30-day all-cause death were reduced by 86% (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20). After
adjusting for confounders, the number needed to treat (NNT) to
prevent the composite outcome of hospitalization or death at 30 days was 42.
This association was observed against a backdrop of remarkable safety, with
only 0.2% of patients experiencing any kind of adverse event.The association of
mAb therapy with improved outcomes was not uniform across all SARS-CoV-2
variants or across all patients. Patients who were unvaccinated or
immunocompromised benefited the most from mAb therapy. The NNT to prevent 1
hospitalization at 14 days was 35 in the unvaccinated group and 17 in the
immunocompromised group compared with 60 in the fully vaccinated group. In
addition, the authors found that the mAb treatment effect size increased
incrementally among patients with greater probability of poor outcomes (ie,
those with multiple or more severe comorbidities). It is unclear whether any
patient in the study received tixagevimab-cilgavimab for prevention of
COVID-19; however, this long-acting mAb combination was granted EUA in early December
2021 and was not widely distributed until February 2022. Therefore, it is
unlikely that its use substantially overlapped with the study period.
Regardless, the authors’ findings are consistent with most other studies of
COVID-19 therapies wherein patients who were seronegative at baseline were more
likely to progress to severe disease and benefit from treatment. For
immunocompromised individuals, the safety and efficacy of mAbs are especially
notable because many of these patients have drug interactions or
contraindications to other recommended outpatient COVID-19 therapies.5
unfortunately, at the time of publication, there are no mAb therapies available
for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. All EUAs were revoked or paused
due to the emergence of substantial in vitro drug resistance among currently
circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.
The question of whether in vitro potency directly
correlates with clinical efficacy remains unanswered. In the absence of
clinical data, regulatory bodies had to make decisions to offer or withdraw
therapies relying on laboratory data alone. For example, the EUAs for both
bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab were revoked on January 26,
2022, due to inability to neutralize Omicron variants. Intriguingly, Ambrose et
al4 found that casirivimab-imdevimab was associated with decreases in 14-day
hospitalization (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.42) in a small sample of 115 patients
infected with sequence-confirmed Omicron BA.1 despite the significantly reduced
in vitro neutralizing ability of this mAb against this variant. Only 7.6% of
patients received sotrovimab (which was expected to retain in vitro
neutralization against early Omicron variants) despite approximately 25% of the
patients being diagnosed in the Omicron era. When the Omicron-era analysis was
limited to patients who received sotrovimab, the treatment was associated with
significant reductions in the odds of death within 30 days
(bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab were not).What should
clinicians and researchers do with these results, which describe 14 months of
safe and effective therapy that is no longer available? Monoclonal antibodies
provide important lessons that inform our future research and practice. First
is the salient reminder to evaluate both the relative and absolute treatment
effects when allocating scarce health care resources and/or determining the
economic value of any given treatment. For instance, while the relative odds of
14-day hospitalization were exactly 49% lower in both unvaccinated and fully
vaccinated groups, the NNT was notably smaller and more impactful in the
unvaccinated group (NNTs of 35 vs 60, respectively).
Table 1: Overview of randomized control trials of monoclonal antibodies as pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in immunocompromised populations.
Study |
Regimen |
Study population |
Study period and/or variants of concern |
Study design |
Efficacy outcomes |
Safety outcomes |
Preventative studies |
||||||
Cohen et al. BLAZE
|
Bamlanivimab Single IV infusion of Bamlanivimab 4200 mg (N = 588) or placebo
(N = 587)
|
Unvaccinated residents and staff of 74 skilled
nursing and assisted living facilities in the US w/ at least one confirmed
SARS-CoV-2 index case |
August 2 to November 20, 2020 |
RCT double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose
phase III trial |
Bamlanivimab reduced incidence of COVID-19 vs
placebo (8.5% vs 15.2%; P <0.001; ARD, -6.6% [95% CI,
-10.7 to -2.6]) |
AEs: 20.1% (bamlanivimab) vs 18.9% (placebo) Most common AEs: urinary tract infection (2% bamlanivimab vs 2.4% placebo);
hypertension (1.2% bamlanivimab vs 1.7% placebo)
Five deaths in placebo arm
|
Levin et al. PROVENT
|
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (AZD7442) Single 300-mg AZD7442 dose (two intramuscular injection, 150 mg each of
tixagevimab and cilgavimab)
AZD7442 (N = 3460) placebo (N = 1737)
|
Unvaccinated adults without prior SARS-CoV-2
infection |
Nov 2020 to May 2021 |
2:1 RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III
trial |
AZD7442 reduced risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by 77%
(95% CI 46.0, 90.0) vs placebo (P <0.001). Incidence of infection = 0.2%
|
AEs: 35% (AZD7442); 34% (placebo). One case of severe/critical COVID-19; and two COVID-19-related deaths w/
placebo arm
|
Levin et al. STORM CHASER
|
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (AZD7442) 1121 participants
(AZD7442, single 300 mg dose, N = 749; placebo, N = 372)
|
Participants ?18 with potential exposure within 8
days to a symptomatic or asymptomatic individual with confirmed SARS-CoV-2
and who were at risk of developing COVID-19 Nine (0.8%) were on immune-suppressive treatment
|
December 02, 2020 and March 19, 2021 |
RCT, phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
multi-center study |
Symptomatic COVID-19 occurred in 23/749 (3.1%) and
17/372 (4.6%) (AZD7442 and placebo, respectively) (RRR, 33.3%; 95% CI, -25.9
to 64.7; P = 0.21) |
AEs: 162/749 (21.6%) and 111/372 (29.8%) (AZD7442
and placebo, respectively), mostly mild/moderate No deaths related to the study intervention
|
O'Brien et al. REGEN-COV
|
Casirivimab plus imdevimab Patients randomized 1:1 to 1200 mg subcutaneous injection casirivimab and
imdevimab (N = 753) or placebo (N = 752)
|
Unvaccinated, asymptomatic, healthy adolescents and
adults who were contacts of a person w/ SARS-CoV-2 w/ no prior positive
SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test or positive
SARS CoV-2 serology test before screening |
January 28 to March 11, 2021 |
Two-part RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
phase III 112 sites in US, Romania, Moldova
|
SARS-CoV-2 developed in 11/753 (1.5%) in casirivimab
plus imdevimab group vs 59/752 (7.8%) in placebo (RRR [1 minus the relative
risk], 81.4%; P <0.001) Casirivimab plus imdevimab prevented symptomatic/asymptomatic infections
(RRR, 66.4%)
Median time of symptom resolution (casirivimab plus imdevimab (1.2 weeks) vs
placebo (3.2 weeks) REGEN-COV reduced the duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a
high viral load During the 8-month assessment period there were zero hospitalizations for
COVID-19 in the REGEN-COV group and 6 in the placebo group No dose-limiting toxic effects of casirivimab plus imdevimab.
|
20.2% participants in the REGEN-COV group and 29.0%
in placebo group had at least one AE, and 16.0% and 16.5%, respectively, had
non-COVID-19 AEs |
Treatment studies |
||||||
Montgomery et al. TACKLE
|
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab |
Non-hospitalized, unvaccinated ?18 w/ COVID-19 |
January to July 2021 |
RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 910 patients randomly (1:1) assigned to tixagevimab + cilgavimab
(600 mg, N = 456) or placebo (N = 454) within 7 days of
symptoms
95 sites in US, Latin America, Europe, Japan
|
Severe COVID-19/death: 4% (18/407) for tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab vs 9% (37/415) for placebo (RRR 50.5%) COVID-19 deaths: tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (N = 3) placebo
(N = 6)
|
AEs: mild to moderate (29%) tixagevimab plus
cilgavimab group vs 36% w/ placebo |
Dougan et al. |
Bamlanivimab plus etesevimab Single IV dose of either a combination agent (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and
2800 mg of etesevimab, administered together, N = 518) or placebo
(N = 517) within three days after a laboratory diagnosis of severe
SARS-CoV-2 infection
|
Ambulatory patients w/ mild or moderate COVID-19 and
at high risk for progression to severe disease Vaccinated participants were allowed in the study
|
September 04, 2020 to December 08, 2020 |
RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III |
By day 29, 11/518 patients (2.1%) in bamlanivimab-etesevimab
arm had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, vs 36/517
(7.0%) placebo arm (ARD, -4.8% points; 95% CI, -7.4 to -2.3; RRD, 70%; P <0.001) At day 7, greater reduction from baseline in the log viral load observed
among bamlanivimab plus etesevimab vs placebo arm (difference from placebo in
the change from baseline, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.94; P <0.001)
No deaths w/ bamlanivimab-etesevimab vs 10 in the placebo
|
Serious AEs occurred in 1.4% in the
bamlanivimab-etesevimab group and in 1.0% patients in the placebo group |
Gupta et al. |
Sotrovimab 583 patients (291 sotrovimab; 292 placebo)
Single IV infusion of sotrovimab (500 mg)
|
Non-hospitalized unvaccinated patients w/
symptomatic COVID-19 w/ at least one risk factor for disease progression. |
August 27, 2020 to March 04, 2021 |
RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III,
multicenter trial |
Three (1%) sotrovimab vs 21 (7%) placebo, had
disease progression leading to hospitalization or death (RRR, 85%; 97.24% CI,
44 to 96; P = 0.002). Intensive care unit: (five placebo) including one who died by day 29
|
AEs: 17% sotrovimab and 19% placebo. Serious AEs
less common w/ sotrovimab than w/ placebo (2% vs 6%) |
Recovery Collaborative Group RECOVERY
|
Casirivimab and imdevimab Usual standard of care alone (N = 4946) or usual care plus
casirivimab and imdevimab (4 g each; N = 4839) administered
together IV
|
Any patient aged at least 12 admitted to hospital w/
clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
|
September 18, 2020 to May 22, 2021 |
RCT, open-label platform trial comparing possible
treatments w/ usual care in patients admitted to hospital w/ COVID-19 |
Seronegative: 396/1633 (24%) casirivimab and
imdevimab vs 452/1520 (30%) usual care died within 28 days (RR: 0.79, 95% CI
0.69-0.91; P = 0.0009) Randomly assigned: 943/4839 (19%) casirivimab and imdevimab vs 1029/4946
(21%) usual care died within 28 days (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-1.02; P = 0.14)
|
Serious AEs reported in seven (<1%) participants
were believed to be related to treatment w/ casirivimab and imdevimab |
Table 2: Overview of real-world evidence of monoclonal antibodies as pre- and post-exposure prophylactics for COVID-19 in immunocompromised populations.
Study |
Regimen |
Study population |
Study period and/or variants of concern |
Study design |
Outcomes |
Tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab |
|||||
Conte WL, 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 150 mg (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) IM
|
Vaccinated MS patients exposed to B-cell depleters
during vaccination |
N.D. |
Single-center cohort (N = 18) Study completed prior to US Food and Drug Administration's update to 300 mg
each of tixagevimab and cilgavimab
|
Prior to AZD7442 mean antibody level was 12.38 U/ml,
66% of patients had undetectable antibody levels (<0.8 U/ml). Two weeks post-AZD7442, all patients had antibody levels >250 U/ml, which
were significantly higher than pre-AZD4772 levels (P = 0.001)
|
Stuver et al. |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (AZD7442) AZD7442 initially as 150 mg.
Patients subsequently received either a second 150 mg dose or 300 mg in those
without prior treatment
|
Adult vaccinated patients w/ hematologic
malignancies |
Late 2021, before Omicron (B.1.1.529) |
Prospective observational study |
Five patients (second 150 mg dose) and five patients
(300 mg dose) achieved significantly higher neutralization of Omicron (P = 0.003)
vs single 150 mg. 9/10 patients achieved neutralizing capacity above the positive cut-off
value.
Two (3.8%) patients who received a single 150 mg dose developed COVID-19.
|
Benotmane I, et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab IM gluteal injections of 150 mg tixagevimab and 150 mg cilgavimab
|
Vaccinated KTR |
December 2021 Omicron variants BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2
|
Case series of 416 KTR |
39 (9.4%) developed COVID-19; 14 (35.9%) were
hospitalized; three (7.7%) transferred to ICU; and two (5.1%) died. Omicron variants BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 responsible for five, nine, and one
of cases, respectively.
Serum viral neutralizing activity against BA.1 negative among 12 tested
patients.
|
Benotmane I, et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab Tixagevimab (150 mg) plus cilgavimab (150 mg) for preexposure prophylaxis
|
Vaccinated KTR |
Omicron BA.2 wave |
Single-center cohort of KTR (N = 98) |
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers peaked 30 days after
AZD7442, then declined significantly at 4-5 months. 74% patients had antibody titers <2500 BAU/ml after median of 117 days.
|
Kaminski et al. |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (AZD7442) |
Vaccinated KTR w/ no humoral response after ?3 doses
COVID-19 vaccine |
December 28, 2021 to February 28, 2022 Omicron wave
|
Retrospective study of KTR (N = 430) Received AZD7442 (tixagevimab plus cilgavimab) 300 mg (N = 333) or
did not (N = 97)
|
AZD7442 group significantly lower risk of
symptomatic COVID-19 (12.3% vs 43.3%) (P < 0.001),
hospitalizations (1.2% vs 11.3%) (P < 0.001), or ICU (0.3%
vs 2%) (P <0.001) vs non-AZD7442 group. Deaths: (0.3% AZD7442 vs 2% non-AZD7442) from COVID-19 acute respiratory
distress syndrome (HR, 0.076; 95% CI, 0.005-1.161; P = 0.066).
|
Nguyen Y, et al, 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab Patients received tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 150/150 mg IM
|
Immunocompromised vaccinated individuals |
December 28, 2021 to March 31, 2022 |
Observational multicenter cohort study Immune-compromised individuals (N = 1112) w/ no humoral responses
after ?3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine
|
88% had mild to moderate COVID-19, 4% died. Almost no individuals receiving early treatment progressed to
moderate-to-severe COVID-19.
COVID-19 incidence rate lower in study population than general population
during the study period.
|
Kertes J., et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (AZD7442) 825 administered AZD7442, 4299 ICIs not administered AZD7442
|
Immunocompromised vaccinated individuals |
December 2021 to April 2022. Fifth Omicron-dominated wave of COVID-19
|
Retrospective observational study Evaluation of AZD7442, SARS-CoV-2, and severe disease (hospitalization and
all-cause mortality) among selected immune-compromised individuals
|
COVID-19 infections: 29 (3.5%) treated w/ AZD7442 vs
308 (7.2%) non-AZD7442 (P < 0.001). Hospitalizations: one (0.1%) AZD7442 vs 27 (0.6%) in non- AZD7442 group (P = 0.07).
Deaths: zero AZD7442 group vs 40 (0.9%) in non-AZD7442 group (P = 0.005). AZD7442 group 92% less likely to be hospitalized/die than non-AZD7442 group
(OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.54).
|
Al Jurdi et al. |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab |
SOTR |
December 28, 2021 to April 13, 2022 Omicron |
Retrospective cohort comparing (N = 222)
SOTR receiving tixagevimab plus cilgavimab for pre-exposure prophylaxis and
(N = 222) vaccine matched SOTR who did not |
Breakthrough infections: 11 (5%) of SOTR tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab group vs 32 (14%) in control (P <0.001). 150-150 mg vs 300 mg higher incidence of breakthrough infections (P = 0.025).
Safety outcomes: nine (4%) in treated SOTRs; nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea
(N = 4, 1.8%), headache (N = 3, 1.4%), and abdominal pain
(N = 2, 0.9%). One (0.5%) experienced mild heart failure exacerbation, and one (0.5%)
developed new atrial fibrillation requiring cardioversion.
|
Aqeel F and Geetha D, 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 600 mg Evusheld (300 mg tixagevimab-300 mg cilgavimab), and 300 mg (150 mg
tixagevimab-150 mg cilgavimab)
|
Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody vasculitis
patients |
December 2021 to June 2022 |
Retrospective study 21 (100%) vaccinated, 95% had a booster
20 (95%) received Evusheld and one (4.7%) received tixagevimab- cilgavimab
|
COVID-19 infection: 1 (4.7%), 122 days after
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (300 mg). Nine patients received rituximab after Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab.
Breakthrough COVID-19: 3 (15%) in 600 mg group. Mean (± SD) time to COVID-19 onset: Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 98.6 (± 36.5)
days; rituximab use to Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 141 (± 64) days. All infections were mild and did not require hospitalization.
|
Karaba AH, et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab 300 + 300 mg tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (either single dose or two
150 + 150 mg doses)
|
Vaccinated SOTR |
January 10, 2022 to April 4, 2022 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2
|
Prospective observational cohort submitted pre- and
post-injection samples |
Vaccine strain neutralization increased from 46-100%
post- tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (P <0.001). BA.1 neutralization was low (8-16% of participants post- tixagevimab plus
cilgavimab, P = 0.06).
BA.2 neutralization increased from 7-72% of participants post-tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab (P < 0.001).
|
Kleiboeker HL, et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab |
SOTR |
January 11, 2022 to May 1, 2022 |
SOT recipients were screened for receipt of
tixagevimab/cilgavimab w/subsequent new onset of myalgia Patients were excluded if another cause of myalgia was identified
|
76.7% RRR (P <0.001) of symptomatic
COVID?19, improved to 82.8% at extended follow?up 35.3% reported 1+ mild?to?moderate AE; injection?site reaction was most
common. Four experienced musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders.
Three cases of significant myalgia after receiving tixagevimab plus
cilgavimab.
|
Young-Xu Y., et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab |
Veterans ?18 as of January 01, 2022, receiving VA
healthcare, 92% immune-compromised; predominately vaccinated |
January 23, 2022 to April 30, 2022 Omicron and Delta
|
Retrospective cohort study w/ propensity matching
and difference-in-difference analyses 1733 recipients of tixagevimab/cilgavimab and 6354 control patients who were
immunocompromised or otherwise at high risk
|
Compared to propensity-matched controls, tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab-treated patients had a lower incidence of: SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87); COVID-19 hospitalization
(HR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.99); and All-cause mortality (HR 0.36; 95% CI,
0.18-0.73).
|
Vellas C., et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab Single IV infusion of tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (300 mg/300 mg)
|
Ambulatory patients, 11 immunocompromised
individuals—SOTRs that were infected w/ BA.2 subvariant |
March to May 2022 |
18 NP samples from those given a single IV infusion
of tixagevimab plus cilgavimab |
Median SARS-CoV-2 NP virus load decreased from 5.8
(IQR, 5.3-6.5) log10 copies/ml before infusion to 4.5 (IQR, 3.8-5.7) log10 copies/ml
7 days post-infusion (P = 0.04). Resistance-associated mutations in spike protein (positions 444, 346 and 452)
in 8/11 (73%), 7-14 days post-infusion.
Decreased virus load (1.3 log10 copies /ml) observed 7 days after tixagevimab
plus cilgavimab, compared to 10 untreated immunocompromised Alpha-infected
patients (2.5 log10 copies/ml).
|
Sotrovimab |
|||||
Calderón-Parra et al. |
Sotrovimab |
Presence of any immune-compromising condition |
October 2021 to December 2021 Predominantly Delta
|
Retrospective multicenter cohort including
immune-compromised hospitalized patients (N = 32) w/ severe
COVID-19 treated w/ sotrovimab |
Seven (21.9%) respiratory progression: 12.5% died;
9.4% required mechanical ventilation Anti-spike antibodies undetectable in 91%, 20/22 w/ available serology at
baseline testing.
Patients treated within the first 14 days of symptoms had lower progression
rate: 12.0% vs 57.1%, P = 0.029. Safety Outcomes: No AE attributed to sotrovimab.
|
Aggarwal et al. |
Sotrovimab |
Non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2
Omicron variant infection |
From December 26, 2021 to March 10, 2022 Omicron BA.1 or BA.1.1
|
Observational cohort study Patients who were untreated (N = 3663) or who were treated with
sotrovimab (N = 1542)
|
Sotrovimab did not reduce odds of 28-day
hospitalization 39 (2.5%) vs 116 (3.2%) aOR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.55-1.19 or
mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%; aOR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.07-2.78). Observed treatment OR was higher during Omicron than during Delta (OR 0.85 vs
0.39, respectively; P = 0.053).
|
Woo et al. |
Sotrovimab |
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at risk of disease
progression |
Between December 2021 and June 2022 Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5
|
Retrospective cohort study, N = 1254
Received sotrovimab alone (N = 147), Combination treatment with sotrovimab and remdesivir (N = 38)
|
Sotrovimab alone or in combination with remdesivir
did not decrease in-hospital mortality compared to control groups. Mortality:
Normal ward sotrovimab (6.7% [N?=?4] vs 2.8% [N?=?10]; P = 0.11);
Sotrovimab and remdesivir (4.5% [N?=?1] vs 3.0% [N =?4]; P = 0.72). ICU: Sotrovimab (41.4% [N?=?36] vs 27.6% [N?=?24]; P = 0.09);
Sotrovimab and remdesivir (31.2% [N?=?5] vs 32.3% [N?=?31]; P = 0.91).
|
Other
regimens |
|||||
Bruel et al. |
Bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, sotrovimab,
adintrevimab, regdanvimab and tixagevimab |
Immunocompromised |
Measured serum against: Delta, Omicron; Breakthrough
infections: Omicron |
Study compared the sensitivity of Delta and Omicron
BA.1 and BA.2 neutralization by nine therapeutic monoclonal antibodies |
Seven mAbs (bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab,
sotrovimab, adintrevimab, regdanvimab and tixagevimab) were inactive against
BA.2. Two mAbs (imdevimab and cilgavimab) showed IC50 of 693?ng/ml?and 9?ng/ml
against BA.2.
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab was not more efficient than cilgavimab alone.
|
Bruel et al. |
Cilgavimab, tixagevimab, bebtelovimab, sotrovimab,
casirivimab, and imdevimab |
Vaccinated immune-compromised individuals |
Delta, BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 |
Analyzed 121 sera from 40 immunocompromised
individuals up to 6 months after imdevimab+ casirivimab or cilgavimab+
tixagevimab |
The IC50 of 4/6 mAbs (sotrovimab, tixagevimab,
casirivimab, and imdevimab) higher for BA.4/BA.5 vs Delta Sotrovimab was 15-/17-fold less potent against BA.4 and BA.5 vs Delta.
Imdevimab more potent than sotrovimab against BA.4 and BA.5 (IC50 of 265 and
996 ng/mL for BA.4 and 208 and 1088 ng/mL for BA.5). Cilgavimab and bebtelovimab no/minimal changes w/ Delta; remained highly
potent against BA.4 and BA.5. BA.2 vs BA.4/BA.5 slightly improved neutralization by imdevimab (4.2- and
5.3-fold) and sotrovimab (9- and 8.3-fold) compared to other mAbs Cilgavimab+ tixagevimab and imdevimab+ casirivimab displayed a drop in
potency compared w/ Delta, which was less marked for cilgavimab+ tixagevimab
(BA.4: 10.4-fold and BA.5: 9-fold) vs imdevimab+ casirivimab (BA.4: 330-fold
and BA.5: 350-fold).
|
Lafont E, et al., 2022 |
Remdesivir, Sotrovimab, Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab,
and Casirivimab plus imdevimab |
Immunocompromised w/ laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 |
December 2021 and March 2022 |
Single-centre retrospective case series of 67
immunocompromised patients w/COVID-19 Targeted treatment; IV remdesivir (N ?= 22), sotrovimab (N ?=? 16),
tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (N ?=? 13) and casirivimab plus imdevimab (N
=?1), no treatment (N = 10).
|
No treatment group (N=10) (15%) presented severe
COVID-19 and 2 (3%) died from Omicron COVID-19. Death rate significantly lower in treated patients (N = 0 [0%] vs
N = 2 [20%]); P = 0.034].
6/15 patients on tixagevimab plus cilgavimab, received an additional curative
treatment. None died from COVID-19. Safety outcomes: No severe AEs reported.
|
Bertrand D, et al., 2022 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab and casirivimab plus imdevimab
|
Vaccinated KTR |
December 23, 2021 to March 7, 2022 Omicron outbreak
BA1 variant was predominant, until February 14, 2022, and then BA2 became
predominant
|
Outcomes based on immunization status (all subjects
previously vaccinated w/ three or more messenger RNA doses; Group II and III
considered ‘unprotected’ based on antibodies below 264 BAU/ml at least 1
month after last injection): Group I: vaccine-induced immunization, (N = 288);
Group II: passive immunization w/ tixagevimab plus cilgavimab,
(N = 412) (vaccinated). Group III: insufficient immunization (N = 160), 62 received
casirivimab-imdevimab
|
113 (13.1%) got Omicron, 85 were symptomatic 21 patients hospitalized, eight ICU, and five died of COVID-19.
End of 80 days, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, ICU, and COVID-19
death significantly higher in group III vs group II (8 vs 103). Group II had outcomes like group I, but significantly fewer infections (both
severe and non-severe), compared to unprotected KTRs.
|
Woopen C, et al., 2022 |
Casirivimab plus imdevimab, sotrovimab, and tixagevimab plus cilgavmab
|
Vaccinated MS patients |
February to June 2022 Omicron
|
Six patients on treatment w/ sphingosine-1-phosphate
receptor modulators who failed to develop antibodies and T-cells after three
doses |
One got asymptomatic COVID-19 Sotrovimab, vs casirivmab plus imdevimab, and tixagevimab demonstrated best
neutralizing capacity.
Safety outcomes: No severe AEs recorded
|
Lombardi AV, et al., 2023 |
Tixagevimab plus cilgavimab, Casirivimab plus imdevimab, Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab, and sotrovimab
|
Immunocompromised patients w/ COVID-19 diagnosis
|
August 28 to October 15, 2022 Omicron BA.4 and BA.5
|
Two groups given early treatment (tixagevimab plus
cilgavimab vs other mAbs) compared for hospitalization/ mortality within 14
days from administration Early treatment w/ tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (19 immunocompromised
patients); 89 patients received other mAbs
|
One patient (5.3%) tixagevimab plus cilgavimab
admitted to emergency room within first 14 days of treatment and died; three
patients (3.4%) from mAbs group admitted and one patient (1.1%) died. COVID-19 negative status 14 days since treatment: 36/89 (40.4%) other mAbs
and 5/19 (26.3%) tixagevimab plus cilgavimab group (P = 0.088).
|
Evans et al. |
Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir, and sotrovimab |
Adult vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at higher
risk of hospitalization and death |
Between December 16, 2021 and April 22, 2022 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2
|
Retrospective cohort study in Wales Total participants, N = 7013
Untreated, N = 4973 Received sotrovamib, N = 1079, 52.9%; Molnupiravir,
N = 359, 17.6%; Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir, N = 602, 29.5%
|
628 (9.0%) total hospitalizations or deaths within
28 days of positive test, 84 (4.1%) in treated and 544 (10.9%) in untreated
participants. Lower risk of hospitalization or death within 28 days in treated participants
compared to untreated. Estimated HR, 35%; 95% CI: 18-49% lower in treated
than untreated after adjusting for confounders.
Event rates were 3.9% (14/359); adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.83 for
molnupiravir, 2.8% (17/602); adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.97 for
nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and 4.9% (53/1079); adjusted HR, 0.73; 95% CI:
0.55-0.98 for sotrovimab. No indication of superiority of one treatment over another.
|
Sridhara S, et al., 2023 |
Bebtelovimab |
Adult COVID-19 high-risk patients |
Between 4/5/2022 and 8/1/2022 BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.5
|
Observational retrospective cohort study COVID-19 infected patients who received bebtelovimab (N = 1,091)
compared to propensity score matched control (N = 1,091)
|
All-cause hospitalizations in bebtelovimab cohort
(2.2%; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3%) vs (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.6-3.6%); P = 0.77. All-cause mortality in bebtelovimab cohort 0% (95% CI, 0-0%) vs 0.3% (95% CI,
0.1-0.8%); P = 0.25.
Bebtelovimab use lacked efficacy in patients with BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.5. Bebtelovimab use not associated with lower hazards of composite outcome (HR
0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31, P = 0.31).
|
Nevola R, et al., 2023 |
Casirivimab/imdevimab (1200/1200 mg) sotrivimab (500
mg) |
Frail COVID-19 vaccinated/unvaccinated patients
referred by primary care physicians for mAb treatment 78.1% vaccinated
|
From July 2021 to May 15, 2022 B.1.617.2
Omicron B.1.1
|
Prospective study N = 1026
60.2% received casirivamab/imdevimab and 39.8% sotrivimab
|
60-day overall mortality, 2.14% Mortality:
casirivimab/imdevimab 12/618, 1.94%, sotrovimab 10/437, 2.28%; P = 0.582. No significant difference between two regimens in need for hospitalization (P = 0.345)
and reduction in nasopharyngeal swab negative days (P = 0.999). A significantly lower need for O2 administration observed in
sotrovimab group (P < 0.005). Safety outcomes: Mild, short-lived side effects in 11/618 (1.18%) patients in
casirivimab-imdevimab group, 8/408 (1.96%) patients in sotrovimab group. No significant difference in type of side effects between two treatment
regimens.
|
Variants of Interest (VOI)
WHO label |
Lineage + additional mutations |
Country first detected (community) |
Spike mutations of interest |
Year and month first detected |
Impact on transmissibility |
Impact on immunity |
Impact on severity |
Transmission in EU/EEA |
Omicron |
BA.2.75 (x) |
India |
(y) |
May 2022 |
Unclear (1) |
Similar to Baseline (2-4) |
No evidence |
Community |
Omicron |
XBB.1.5-like (a) |
United States |
N460K, S486P, F490S |
n/a |
Baseline (5, 6) |
Baseline (v) (5, 7) |
Baseline (8) |
Community |
Omicron |
XBB.1.5-like + F456L (b) (e.g. EG.5, FL.1.5.1, XBB.1.16.6, and FE.1) |
n/a |
F456L, N460K, S486P,
F490S |
n/a |
Similar to Baseline |
Increased (9) |
Similar to Baseline |
Community |
Variants under monitoring
WHO label |
Lineage + additional mutations |
Country first detected (community) |
Spike mutations of interest |
Year and month first detected |
Impact on transmissibility |
Impact on immunity |
Impact on severity |
Transmission in EU/EEA |
Omicron |
n/a |
E180V, T478R, F486P |
n/a |
No evidence |
No evidence |
No evidence |
Detected (a) |
|
Omicron |
n/a |
I332V, D339H, R403K, V445H, G446S, N450D, L452W, N481K,
483del, E484K, F486P |
n/a |
No evidence |
No evidence |
No evidence |
Detected (a) |
|
Omicron |
n/a |
K444T, L452R, L455F |
n/a |
No evidence |
No evidence |
No evidence |
Detected (a) |
|
Omicron |
XBB.1.5-like + L455F + F456L (b) |
n/a |
L455F, F456L,
N460K, S486P, F490S |
n/a |
No evidence |
No evidence |
No evidence |
Detected (a) |
The second lesson is that the magnitude of a
treatment’s effectiveness may change over time if the disease evolves. As
Ambrose et al. astutely comment, if severe disease and death decrease
substantially between initial and later cases, treatments will have reduced
effectiveness in preventing the same outcomes. For example, sotrovimab was
associated with significant decreases in the odds of death within 30 days, but
its NNT had increased to 666 by the Omicron era. Third, effective treatments
are only effective if they can be readily administered to patients. Early in
the pandemic, the outpatient infrastructure of US health care systems was not
prepared or equipped to operationalize the rapid administration of intravenous
infusions to highly contagious patients after diagnosis. Establishing processes
to deliver mAb treatment was challenging, but the reward was great. Future
investment in these therapies is even more important now that the
infrastructure is in place to deliver them. Fourth, mAb therapies highlighted
the importance of rapid diagnostic and/or point-of-care testing. Patients with
symptoms needed quick access to SARS-CoV-2 testing with rapid turnaround times.
Because real-time variant sequencing was not available in the clinical setting,
clinicians had to make challenging decisions about whether to continue
providing mAbs for treatment based on forecasting per geographic region. With
point-of-care precision testing, more treatments could have been administered
for longer periods, which is particularly important during times of scarce
resources. While ethical allocation of scarce resources is challenging on many
levels, it does bring into focus the fifth important lesson of mAb therapy:
using risk-stratification strategies to optimize patient outcomes. These data
from Ambrose et al further confirm that not all risk of COVID-19 progression is
equal. Understanding this risk, ideally to the point of knowing
patient-specific baseline immunity, would facilitate precision medicine and
would be the gold standard for deploying optimal, equitable, and value-based
care. Ambrose and colleagues found that mAb therapy allowed us to consistently
keep patients out of the hospital and alive. Acknowledging that mAb development
and implementation seems like a constant race against the clock, scientists and
manufacturers will need incentives to produce safe and effective therapies that
are at risk of becoming obsolete. Authorizations for use of these therapies
should focus on the patients most likely to benefit. Systematic efforts should
continue to focus on both clinical and implementation science to capture
clinical practice results as expeditiously as possible, which will allow us to
effectively adapt to an ever-changing landscape
Effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies against covid variants
The FDA has provisionally approved the following for the treatment and/or prevention of COVID-19:
Monoclonal antibodies that target the sars-cov-2 spike protein
• Casirivimab
plus imdevimab (RONAPREVE)
• Regdanvimab (REGKIRONA)
• Sotrovimab (XEVUDY)
• Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (EVUSHELD)
Immune modulating monoclonal antibodies
• Tocilizumab (ACTEMRA)
Non monoclonal antibody antiviral agents used in the treatment of COVID 19
• Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir
(PAXLOVID)
• Molnupiravir (LAGEVRIO)
• Remdesivir (VEKLURY)
Monoclonal antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein had shown clinical benefits against COVID-19 caused by variants predominant during the earlier stages of the pandemic. These antibodies are designed to neutralise the virus by binding to the spike protein on its surface. However, emerging data show that anti-spike protein monoclonal antibodies demonstrate a significant decrease in their in-vitro neutralising activities against many newer circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly Omicron and its sub variants. While there are few published clinical trials on the effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies against clinical disease caused by these newer variants, it is expected that these mAbs will not provide clinical benefit in those people infected with the newer variants. The activity of the monoclonal antibody tocilizumab is not reduced against variants as this antibody does not target the virus but acts as a modulator of the immune response. Non monoclonal antibody antiviral treatments such as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (PAXLOVID), molnupiravir (LAGEVRIO) and remdesivir (VEKLURY), which have different mechanisms of action, are likely to retain their activity against the emerging strains. In the word, the situation continues to evolve, with the epidemiology of circulating variants changing regularly. The characteristics of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 viruses should be considered when prescribing monoclonal antibodies for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Healthcare professionals will need to consider alternative treatments as appropriate. At this stage, the regulatory status of the products remain unchanged in the word. The FDA and its counterparts will continue to monitor the efficacy and safety of all COVID-19 medicines. Potential updates to the Product Information for individual monoclonal antibodies will be published (if required) as they become available
Vaccination has provided a high level of
population immunity to COVID-19. However, there remain a number of subgroups in
which vaccination is either not possible or ineffective (largely due to
immunodeficiency).The use of monoclonal antibodies for prophylaxis in these
cohorts has the potential to provide long-term protection from both symptomatic
and severe COVID-19 for these vulnerable groups. However, the frequent
observation of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants that escape antibody recognition has
raised significant challenges in predicting monoclonal antibody protection
against new variants. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of
monoclonal antibodies as pre- and post-prophylaxis for COVID-19. Historical
evidence is promising; however, new variants of concern are proving challenging
for currently available regimens.