Use of Sotrovimab in Pregnancy: Experiences from the COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Available data regarding the safety and efficacy of sotrovimab in pregnant patients remain limited due to their exclusion from clinical trials. METHODS: The COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry (COVID-PR) was established to gather comprehensive safety data from pregnant women who have received monoclonal antibody (mAb) or antiviral treatments for mild, moderate, or severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy. Participants actively contributed self-reported data concerning their COVID-19 symptoms, in addition to sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. Obstetric, neonatal, and infant outcomes were also documented, with follow-up extending up to 12 months after childbirth. RESULTS: As of 30 November 2023, sotrovimab was administered to 39 participants enrolled in the COVID-PR. At the time of this report, 26 participants had given birth, with nine deliveries performed via cesarean section. The infants' birthweight ranged from 2381 g to 4762 g, with a mean of 3439.91 g. Twenty-five infants were born at ≥37 weeks. A total of 31 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 12 participants. The most frequently reported AE was gestational hypertension, observed in three participants. COVID-19 re-infection, fatigue, gestational diabetes, headache, and morning sickness were each reported by two participants. Of the reported AEs, eight (in five participants) were classified as serious, including four AEs (prolonged labor, pre-eclampsia, polyhydramnios, premature labor) that affected pregnancy. Seven of these eight serious AEs (SAEs) were found to be unrelated to sotrovimab, with one event (urinary retention) not assessable. A total of 44 AEs were reported in 19 delivered infants or in utero fetuses. The most common were COVID-19 (n = 6 events), ear infection (n = 5 events), neonatal dyspnea (n = 3 events), and respiratory syncytial virus infection (n = 3 events). Sixteen AEs (in 11 infants/fetuses) were classified as serious, including one report each of fetal cardiac disorder, congenital ankyloglossia, persistent right umbilical vein, and congenital hydronephrosis; the latter was considered a major congenital malformation. For all assessable SAEs, causality of sotrovimab treatment was ruled out based on lack of a temporal relationship alone or in combination with absence of a plausible mechanism. CONCLUSION: A sizable proportion of sotrovimab-treated participants in the COVID-PR had underlying medical conditions associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. None of the assessable SAEs were considered to be related to sotrovimab treatment.

A Survey to Assess the Current Status of Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment in the Global Drug and Medical Device Industry.

BACKGROUND: This industry survey was conducted to gain insight into the ways structured Benefit-Risk assessment (sBRA) of medical products is approached across drug or medical device developing companies, including frameworks and methods that are currently used and areas where future work is being planned. METHODS: A survey containing 28 questions covering five key areas of sBRA was set-up and shared with representatives from the participating companies. Each company was asked to complete a single survey response including inputs across the company's multidisciplinary key representatives involved in benefit-risk assessment. RESULTS: Of the 26 participating companies, 21 (81%) are conducting sBRA. Considering these 21 qualitative frameworks were used by almost every company (19, 90%), while only 12 (57%) have used a quantitative method. Many companies have sBRA training (17, 81%), document templates (16,76%), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)/checklists (13, 62%), and /or best practice manuals/examples (12,57%) available. Considering all 26 companies Software tools (15, 58%) and BR planning documents (11,42%) were identified as areas into which many companies intend to put effort. CONCLUSIONS: The industry survey confirmed a wide usage of sBRA by many companies involved in research and development. Nevertheless, sBRA is evolving and several future opportunities like the implementation of visualization tools were identified by the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies. Finally, challenges like the cross-functional comprehension of the added value of sBRA are still seen.

The COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry (COVID-PR): Protocol Considerations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Over the past 2 years, several drugs have been approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, but their safety during pregnancy remains poorly understood. This study aims to assess the relative risk of obstetric, neonatal, and infant outcomes associated with the use of drugs specifically indicated for the treatment of COVID-19 compared with other drug treatment strategies. The purpose of this article is to present elements of the study protocol. METHODS: The COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry (COVID-PR) is a noninterventional, postmarketing cohort study. Pregnant women receiving treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or antiviral drugs for mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 are matched 1:1 with pregnant women not receiving these study-specific drugs, based on calendar time, country, gestational age at enrollment, and COVID-19 severity. Participants complete online questionnaires at enrollment, during pregnancy, and for 12 months after delivery of liveborn infants. The study began enrolling participants on 1 December 2021 and is set to span 5 years for each drug of interest. DISCUSSION: The COVID-PR is designed to evaluate the safety profile of each studied drug. Additionally, it may allow for an analysis of the effects of COVID-19 drug exposure during relevant gestational periods on specific neonatal outcomes. Although the sample size will be too small to detect associations with rare outcomes, the study has the potential to generate hypotheses for future research. Ultimately, these data can provide valuable insights for evidence-based decisions about COVID-19 treatment during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05013632. EU PAS EUPAS42517.

The COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry (C-VIPER): Protocol and Methodological Considerations.

INTRODUCTION: The advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the development of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Prospective evidence regarding safety for pregnant people and their developing fetuses is lacking. The aim of the COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry (C-VIPER) is to estimate the relative risk of obstetric, neonatal, and infant outcomes by comparing participants vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy to a reference group of people enrolled in the Pregistry International Pregnancy Exposure Registry (PIPER) who remained unvaccinated during pregnancy. METHODS: The C-VIPER and the PIPER are international, non-interventional, real-world cohort studies. Participants receiving a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy will be matched in the analyses by country and gestational age at enrollment to unvaccinated individuals. Self-enrolled and self-consented participants complete online questionnaires at enrollment, during pregnancy, and for 12 months after the delivery of a live infant. Where possible, outcomes are verified by medical records. The study aims to recruit at least 500 pregnancies for each approved or authorized vaccine and will last for 5 years for each product. CONCLUSIONS: By collecting data for each vaccine brand, the C-VIPER will be able to determine individual safety profiles. The study design allows for analysis of the effects of exposure to COVID-19 vaccines during specific etiologically relevant periods of gestation. Although the sample size may be too small to detect associations with rare outcomes, the study will be used to generate hypotheses for future research. Ultimately, the C-VIPER should provide data that will allow pregnant people and their healthcare providers to make informed decisions about COVID-19 vaccination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04705116. Registered on 12 January, 2021. EU PAS EUPAS39096. Registered on 20 January, 2021.

Digital Additional Risk Minimization Measures: An Exploratory Study Using Qualitative Feedback from Healthcare Professionals and Patients Across Six Countries.

BACKGROUND: Additional risk minimization measures (aRMMs) are required for some pharmaceutical products when routine risk minimization measures (i.e., product labeling) are deemed insufficient. Measures often include educational materials, such as paper brochures, leaflets, and/or alert cards that provide information to healthcare professionals and patients on the key risks associated with a product and risk minimization actions to take should particular signs or symptoms arise. Paper-based educational aRMMs have several limitations. They do not present information in an interactive manner, and their update and distribution can be costly and often complex. Measuring how effective they are in achieving their aims can also be difficult. Digital methods offer design and delivery flexibility, easier updating processes, opportunities to increase engagement with important information, as well possibilities for tracking distribution, receipt, and potentially understanding of the materials. Pharmaceutical companies have started to look to digital methods as an option for educational aRMMs, alongside paper materials. OBJECTIVES: Research into healthcare professionals and patient needs and preferences, as well as the general acceptability of digital educational options is needed to establish a baseline. This was an exploratory study intended to provide initial insights on the acceptability of digital aRMMs and to inform future research directions. METHODS: Digital concepts for educational aRMMs, one for healthcare professionals and one for patients, were evaluated with 30 healthcare professionals and 20 patients in six countries through 1:1 Zoom calls, with responses recorded in a structured Qualtrics-based survey. Criteria for selecting the six countries included local familiarity with aRMMs as well as interest in and capability to deliver a potential digital aRMM program by the sponsoring company's affiliate teams. Of the healthcare professionals, 19 were rheumatologists and 11 were dermatologists. 16 patients had rheumatologic (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis) conditions and four had atopic dermatitis. These conditions were chosen as they aligned to potential therapeutic areas where the sponsoring company may have the opportunity to use a digital aRMM. Participants were given an overview of the concept as well as the opportunity to interact with it directly via the "control screen" function in Zoom before questions were posed. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the majority of healthcare professionals (87%) and all patients interviewed would prefer website-based or app-based delivery, respectively, of aRMM information instead of, or alongside traditional paper-based approaches, with only 13% of healthcare professionals and no patients expressing a preference for paper-only communication. CONCLUSIONS: Given new options offered by digital technology, its widespread use in many fields, and the importance of patient safety as a topic, there is an imperative for pharmaceutical companies and regulators to work together to establish a way forward for the use of digital options for aRMMs. This study is limited in its generalizability but offers some ideas for future research directions.

Risk Minimization of Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Oncology: A Review.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are new treatment options for certain cancers, especially those in advanced states with limited treatment options. Their unique design provides targeted therapy with toxins that otherwise would not be available, but they manifest toxicities that require risk minimization interventions to optimize their tolerability. We summarize selected toxicities for ADCs that have been approved through the end of 2020 and three investigational ADCs, which include both payload and linker, as described in the US Prescribing Information, the European Summary of Product Characteristics, and study protocols. These toxicities include peripheral neuropathy; pulmonary, skin, hepatic, and ocular toxicities; hyperglycemia; left ventricular dysfunction; and fluid-related events. We also review the risk minimization approaches to managing these toxicities as described in the product labels and study protocols. Our general observation suggests that the selected toxicities of the approved ADCs are primarily associated with off-target effects of the drug payloads. We also observed that the risk minimization approaches used to manage the selected toxicities are similar across product labels and study protocols. ADCs provide a unique treatment approach that is currently focused on advanced or refractory cancers. The risk minimization approaches for the selected toxicities for the approved ADCs per product label, or the study protocol for those in clinical investigation, are similar to those of standard chemotherapy agents and other pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of advanced malignancies. These risk minimization measures align with standard medical practice and are likely familiar to and feasible for physicians who prescribe for, and to other healthcare practitioners who care for, patients treated with ADCs.

Patient Preferences for Endometriosis Pain Treatments in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify patient preferences for endometriosis-associated pain treatments and risk tolerance in exchange for pain reduction and to explore whether preferences vary on the basis of patient characteristics. METHODS: US women with a self-reported physician diagnosis of endometriosis and moderate to severe dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain (NMPP) completed an online discrete choice experiment survey. Each choice question had a pair of hypothetical treatments characterized by attributes with varying levels: improvements in severe dysmenorrhea, severe NMPP, and severe dyspareunia; mode of administration; and treatment-related risks of pregnancy-related problems, bone fracture later in life, and moderate to severe hot flashes. A random-parameters logit model was used to quantify preferences and the attributes' conditional relative importance. RESULTS: A total of 250 women (mean age 34 years) completed the survey. The conditional relative importance of attributes was 3.66 for risk of moderate to severe hot flashes among respondents with and 3.58 among respondents without experience with moderate to severe hot flashes; 1.70, 1.49, and 1.48 for improvements in dyspareunia, NMPP, and dysmenorrhea, respectively; 0.60 for risk of pregnancy-related problems; 0.53 for mode of administration; and 0.49 for bone fracture risk. Preference weights for bone fracture risk levels were not statistically significantly different. In exchange for a greater improvement in dysmenorrhea from severe to mild (vs moderate), respondents without a history of hot flashes accepted a greater increase in the risk of moderate to severe hot flashes (38%) than did respondents with this history (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents placed the greatest weight on risk of hot flashes, followed by improvements in dyspareunia, NMPP, dysmenorrhea. Bone fracture risk did not drive preferences.

Effect of sibutramine on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese subjects.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of sibutramine treatment on the rates of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death among subjects at high cardiovascular risk have not been established. METHODS: We enrolled in our study 10,744 overweight or obese subjects, 55 years of age or older, with preexisting cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or both to assess the cardiovascular consequences of weight management with and without sibutramine in subjects at high risk for cardiovascular events. All the subjects received sibutramine in addition to participating in a weight-management program during a 6-week, single-blind, lead-in period, after which 9804 subjects underwent random assignment in a double-blind fashion to sibutramine (4906 subjects) or placebo (4898 subjects). The primary end point was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a primary outcome event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: The mean duration of treatment was 3.4 years. The mean weight loss during the lead-in period was 2.6 kg; after randomization, the subjects in the sibutramine group achieved and maintained further weight reduction (mean, 1.7 kg). The mean blood pressure decreased in both groups, with greater reductions in the placebo group than in the sibutramine group (mean difference, 1.2/1.4 mm Hg). The risk of a primary outcome event was 11.4% in the sibutramine group as compared with 10.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke were 4.1% and 2.6% in the sibutramine group and 3.2% and 1.9% in the placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P=0.02; hazard ratio for nonfatal stroke, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P=0.03). The rates of cardiovascular death and death from any cause were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with preexisting cardiovascular conditions who were receiving long-term sibutramine treatment had an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke but not of cardiovascular death or death from any cause. (Funded by Abbott; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00234832.)

Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody for SC administration by 2 single-use injection devices providing bioequivalent amounts of adalimumab: a ready-to-use, prefilled syringe and an integrated, disposable delivery system, the autoinjection Pen. Although pens have been shown to be preferred over syringes by patients requiring long-term SC administration of medications, there are no data on preference and pain in the use of biologics in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess injection-site pain, tolerability, and patient preference of 2 delivery systems of adalimumab. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were enrolled in a Phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, sequential trial. Patients self-administered a standard dose of adalimumab 40 mg SC every other week at each of 3 monitored clinical visits: visit 1 (syringe), visits 2 and 3 (Pen). At each visit, patients rated their pain on an 11-point scale (0 = none to 10 = pain as bad as it could be) immediately after injection and 15-30 minutes after injection and provided their impressions of and preferences for each delivery system. Safety events were recorded throughout the study and 70 days after final study dose. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled in the trial and completed all 3 visits (32 women, 20 men; mean [SD] age, 53.8 [12.1] years). Forty (76.9%) patients reported that the Pen was less painful than the syringe, 4 (7.7%) patients found the syringe to be less painful, and 8 (15.4%) patients had no preference. Patients had statistically significant reductions in injection-pain scores from visit 1 to visit 2 and from visit 1 to visit 3. No new safety signals or apparent differences regarding tolerability between the syringe and Pen were observed. In addition, 46 (88.5%) patients preferred the Pen, 3 (5.8%) preferred the syringe, and 3 (5.8%) had no preference. Overall, patients evaluated the Pen as easier to use (94.2%), more convenient (92.3%), requiring less time to inject (82.7%), and safer (88.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced less pain self-administering adalimumab via the Pen and preferred it versus the syringe. Further, patients perceived the Pen to be easier to use and more convenient. Both delivery systems were generally well tolerated.

Effects of sibutramine treatment in obese adolescents: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Increased prevalence of adolescent obesity requires effective treatment options beyond behavior therapy. OBJECTIVE: To see whether sibutramine reduced weight more than placebo in obese adolescents who were receiving a behavior therapy program. DESIGN: 12-month, 3:1 randomized, double-blind trial conducted from July 2000 to February 2002. SETTING: 33 U.S. outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 498 participants 12 to 16 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) that was at least 2 units more than the U.S. weighted mean of the 95th percentile based on age and sex, to the upper limit of 44 kg/m2. INTERVENTIONS: Site-specific behavior therapy plus 10 mg of sibutramine or placebo. Blinded study medication dose was uptitrated to 15 mg or placebo at month 6 if initial BMI was not reduced by 10%. MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index, waist circumference, body weight, fasting lipid and glycemic variables, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of patients in the sibutramine group and 62% of patients in the placebo group completed the study. The estimated mean treatment group difference at month 12 (linear mixed-effects model) favored sibutramine for change from baseline in BMI (-2.9 kg/m2 [95% CI, -3.5 to -2.2 kg/m2]) and body weight (-8.4 kg [CI, -9.7 to -7.2 kg]) (P < 0.001 for both). The sibutramine group had greater improvements in triglyceride levels, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity (P < or = 0.001 for all). The rate of tachycardia was greater with sibutramine vs. placebo (12.5% vs. 6.2%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [CI, 1.0 to 11.7 percentage points]) but did not lead to increased withdrawal (2.4% vs. 1.5%; difference, 0.9 percentage point [CI, -1.7 to 3.5 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The 1-year study duration precluded assessment of long-term weight maintenance and putative health benefits and harms, and 24% and 38% of the sibutramine and placebo groups, respectively, did not complete follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Sibutramine added to a behavior therapy program reduced BMI and body weight more than placebo and improved the profile of several metabolic risk factors in obese adolescents.

Forty-eight-week evaluation of lopinavir/ritonavir, a new protease inhibitor, in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir/ritonavir has demonstrated antiviral activity in the HIV-infected adult. SUBJECTS: The objective of this study was to investigate a liquid coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in HIV-infected children. METHODS: One hundred antiretroviral (ARV)-naive and ARV-experienced, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive children between 6 months and 12 years of age participated in this Phase I/II, open label, multicenter trial. Subjects initially received either 230/57.5 mg/m(2) or 300/75 mg/m(2) lopinavir/ritonavir twice daily; ARV-naive subjects also received stavudine and lamivudine, whereas ARV-experienced subjects also received nevirapine and one or two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: All subjects were escalated to the 300/75 mg/m(2) twice daily dose based on results from an interim pharmacokinetic and safety evaluation. The pharmacokinetics of lopinavir did not appear to be dependent on age when dosing was based on body surface area but were decreased on coadministration with nevirapine. Overall 79% of subjects had HIV RNA levels <400 copies/ml at Week 48 (intent-to-treat: missing = failure). Mean increases in absolute and relative (percent) CD4 counts from baseline to Week 48 were observed in both ARV-naive subjects (404 cells/mm(3); 10.3%) and ARV-experienced subjects (284 cells/mm(3); 5.9%). Only one subject prematurely discontinued the study because of a study drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The liquid coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir demonstrated durable antiviral activity and was safe and well-tolerated after 48 weeks of treatment in HIV-infected children.

Virtual inhibitory quotient predicts response to ritonavir boosting of indinavir-based therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with ongoing viremia.

Depending on the degree of underlying resistance present, optimization of the pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors may result in improved virologic suppression. Thirty-seven human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects who had chronic detectable viremia and who were receiving 800 mg of indinavir three times a day (TID) were switched to 400 mg of indinavir BID with 400 mg of ritonavir two times a day (BID) for 48 weeks. Full pharmacokinetic evaluations were obtained for 12 subjects before the switch and 3 weeks after the switch. Combination therapy increased the indinavir predose concentrations in plasma by 6.47-fold, increased the minimum concentration in serum by 3.41-fold, and reduced the maximum concentration in serum by 57% without significantly changing the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at 24 h. At week 3, 58% (21 of 36) of the subjects for whom postbaseline measurements were available achieved a viral load in plasma of <50 copies/ml or a reduction from the baseline load of > or =0.5 log(10) copies/ml. Of these subjects, 82% (14 of 17) whose viruses had three or fewer protease inhibitor mutations and 88% (14 of 16) whose viruses had an indinavir virtual phenotypic susceptibility test of more than sixfold less than that for the baseline isolate were considered virologic responders. The indinavir virtual inhibitory quotient, which is a function of baseline indinavir phenotypic resistance (estimated by virtual phenotype) and the indinavir predose concentration in plasma achieved with indinavir-ritonavir combination therapy, was the best predictor of a viral load reduction. Sixteen subjects discontinued the study by week 48 due to adverse events, predominantly related to hyperlipidemia. Pharmacokinetic intensification of indinavir-based therapy with ritonavir reduced the viral loads in subjects but added toxicity. The virtual inhibitory quotient, which incorporates both baseline viral resistance and the level of drug exposure in plasma, was superior to either baseline resistance or drug exposure alone in predicting the virologic response.