Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 treated with remdesivir across the continuum of care.

Introduction: During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remdesivir was only approved for hospitalized patients. Our institution developed hospital-based, outpatient infusion centers for selected hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had clinical improvement to allow for early dismissal. The outcomes of patients who transitioned to complete remdesivir in the outpatient setting were examined. Methods: Retrospective study of all hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who received at least one dose of remdesivir from November 6, 2020, to November 5, 2021, at one of the Mayo Clinic hospitals. Results: Among 3029 hospitalized patients who received treatment with remdesivir for COVID-19, the majority (89.5%) completed the recommended 5-day course. Among them, 2169 (80%) patients completed treatment during hospitalization, whereas 542 (20.0%) patients were dismissed to complete remdesivir in outpatient infusion centers. Patients who completed the treatment in the outpatient setting had lower odds of death within 28 days (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p < 0.001). However, their rate of subsequent hospital encounters within 30 days was higher (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.79, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with remdesivir only in the inpatient setting, the adjusted odds of death within 28 days were significantly higher among those who did not complete the 5-day course of remdesivir (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.45-2.95, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study describes the clinical outcomes of a strategy of transitioning remdesivir therapy from inpatient to outpatient among selected patients. Mortality was lower among patients who completed the 5-day course of remdesivir.

Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Bebtelovimab and Sotrovimab Treatment of High-risk Persons With Coronavirus Disease 2019 During the Omicron Epoch.

Background: Antispike monoclonal antibodies are recommended for early treatment of high-risk persons with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical outcomes of their use during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron wave are limited. Methods: This is a descriptive retrospective study of high-risk adult patients who received treatment with sotrovimab (January 1-March 20, 2022) or bebtelovimab (March 21-April 30, 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe outcome within 30 days after receiving antispike-neutralizing monoclonal antibody infusion. Results: A total of 3872 high-risk patients (median age, 62.7 years; 41.1% male) with mild to moderate COVID-19 received sotrovimab (n = 2182) or bebtelovimab (n = 1690). Among sotrovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were an immunosuppressed condition (46.7%), hypertension (38.2%), and diabetes (21.2%). The rates of severe outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality were 2.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, after sotrovimab infusion. Among bebtelovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (42.7%), diabetes (17.1%), and an immunosuppressed condition (17.0%). The rates of severe disease, ICU admission, and mortality were 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.2%, respectively, after bebtelovimab infusion. Older age, immunosuppressed status, and several comorbidities were associated with severe disease progression, while COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk. No anaphylaxis was reported during monoclonal antibody infusion. Conclusions: This real-world analysis of a large cohort of high-risk patients demonstrates low rates of severe disease after treatment with sotrovimab during the era dominated by Omicron B.1.1.529 and after treatment with bebtelovimab during the era dominated by BA.2 and Omicron subvariants.

Comparable Outcomes for Bebtelovimab and Ritonavir-Boosted Nirmatrelvir Treatment in High-Risk Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 During Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 BA.2 Omicron Epoch.

The effectiveness of bebtelovimab in real-world settings has not been assessed. In this retrospective cohort study of 3607 high-risk patients, bebtelovimab was used more commonly than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and those with multiple comorbid conditions. Despite its use in patients with multiple comorbid conditions, the rate of progression to severe disease after bebtelovimab (1.4% [95% confidence interval, 1.2%-1.7%]) was not significantly different from that for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (1.2% [.8%-1.5%]). Our findings support the emergency use authorization of bebtelovimab for treatment of COVID-19 during the Omicron epoch dominated by BA.2 and subvariants.

Curbing the Delta Surge: Clinical Outcomes After Treatment With Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab, Casirivimab-Imdevimab, or Sotrovimab for Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical outcomes of bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.617.2 Delta surge. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 between August 1, 2021, and December 1, 2021. Rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death were assessed. RESULTS: Among 10,775 high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the Delta surge, 287 patients (2.7%) developed severe disease that led to hospitalization, oxygen supplementation, or death within 30 days after treatment. The rates of severe disease were low among patients treated with bamlanivimab-etesevimab (1.2%), casirivimab-imdevimab (2.9%), and sotrovimab (1.6%; P<.01). The higher rate of severe outcomes among patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab may be related to a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rate in that cohort. Intensive care unit admission was comparable among patients treated bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab (1.0%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This real-world study of a large cohort of high-risk patients shows low rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality after treatment with bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 Delta surge.

Rates of Severe Outcomes After Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Treatment of High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk persons. There has been no study comparing their clinical efficacy. In this retrospective study of 681 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during a period dominated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 wild-type and alpha variants, 25 patients (3.7%) had progression to a severe outcome requiring hospitalization and oxygen supplementation within 30 days after monoclonal antibody infusion. Severe outcome was significantly higher among the 181 patients who were treated with casirivimab-imdevimab when compared with the 500 patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (21 [6.6%] vs 13 [2.6%]; P=.01). Patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab had higher odds of severe outcomes compared with those who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.17 to 6.06). The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the time to monoclonal antibody infusion, of the 2 treatment cohorts were not significantly different. The reason behind this significant difference in the clinical outcomes is unclear, but our observations emphasize potential efficacy differences among antispike monoclonal antibodies against COVID-19. Further clinical studies using larger cohorts of patients are needed to confirm or refute these observations.

Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies in Preventing Severe COVID-19 With Emergence of the Delta Variant.

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted.

Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Bamlanivimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Among High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9-2.2] and 1.6 [.8-2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

A Framework for Outpatient Infusion of Antispike Monoclonal Antibodies to High-Risk Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease-19: The Mayo Clinic Model.

The administration of spike monoclonal antibody treatment to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is very challenging. This article summarizes essential components and processes in establishing an effective spike monoclonal antibody infusion program. Rapid identification of a dedicated physical infrastructure was essential to circumvent the logistical challenges of caring for infectious patients while maintaining compliance with regulations and ensuring the safety of our personnel and other patients. Our partnerships and collaborations among multiple different specialties and disciplines enabled contributions from personnel with specific expertise in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, infection prevention and control, electronic health record (EHR) informatics, compliance, legal, medical ethics, engineering, administration, and other critical areas. Clear communication and a culture in which all roles are welcomed at the planning and operational tables are critical to the rapid development and refinement needed to adapt and thrive in providing this time-sensitive beneficial therapy. Our partnerships with leaders and providers outside our institutions, including those who care for underserved populations, have promoted equity in the access of monoclonal antibodies in our regions. Strong support from institutional leadership facilitated expedited action when needed, from a physical, personnel, and system infrastructure standpoint. Our ongoing real-time assessment and monitoring of our clinical program allowed us to improve and optimize our processes to ensure that the needs of our patients with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting are met.

Pharmacist Impact on Ischemic Stroke Care in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The Froedtert Acute Stroke Team (FAST) is composed of various health professionals who respond to stroke calls, but it does not formally include a pharmacist at this time. However, emergency department (ED) pharmacists have been actively involved in patient evaluation and facilitation of i.v. recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) preparation and administration in the ED. ED pharmacists are qualified to dose and prepare rtPA, as well as screen for contraindications to therapy. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the accuracy of rtPA dosing, mean door-to-rtPA time, and identification of contraindications to rtPA therapy when a pharmacist was present vs. absent in the ED. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 105 patients who received rtPA for acute ischemic stroke in the ED at a comprehensive stroke center from January 1, 2008 to October 1, 2012. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included in this study. Dosing accuracy was similar when a pharmacist was present vs. absent (96.6% vs. 95.6%; p = 0.8953). The median door-to-rtPA time when a pharmacist was present was statistically significantly shorter than when a pharmacist was absent (69.5 vs. 89.5 min; p = 0.0027). When a pharmacist was present, a door-to-rtPA time of < 60 min was achieved 29.9% of the time, as compared with 15.8% in the pharmacist-absent group (p = 0.1087). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist involvement on stroke teams may have a beneficial effect on door-to-rtPA time and patient care in the ED.