SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody LY-CoV555 in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life-threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. RESULTS: At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was -3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY-CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was -0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.08; P = 0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.25; P = 0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.55; P = 0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).

Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab in Mild or Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whereas vaccine-derived immunity develops over time, neutralizing monoclonal-antibody treatment provides immediate, passive immunity and may limit disease progression and complications. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, a cohort of ambulatory patients with mild or moderate Covid-19 who were at high risk for progression to severe disease to receive a single intravenous infusion of either a neutralizing monoclonal-antibody combination agent (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab, administered together) or placebo within 3 days after a laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The primary outcome was the overall clinical status of the patients, defined as Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1035 patients underwent randomization and received an infusion of bamlanivimab-etesevimab or placebo. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 53.8±16.8 years, and 52.0% were adolescent girls or women. By day 29, a total of 11 of 518 patients (2.1%) in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, as compared with 36 of 517 patients (7.0%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to -2.3; relative risk difference, 70%; P<0.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group; in the placebo group, 10 deaths occurred, 9 of which were designated by the trial investigators as Covid-19-related. At day 7, a greater reduction from baseline in the log viral load was observed among patients who received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab than among those who received placebo (difference from placebo in the change from baseline, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.94; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk ambulatory patients, bamlanivimab plus etesevimab led to a lower incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization and death than did placebo and accelerated the decline in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). SETTING: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines. PATIENTS: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression. INTERVENTION: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death. RESULTS: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events. LIMITATION: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants. CONCLUSION: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Together in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19 and Validation of the Prognostic Value of Persistently High Viral Load.

BACKGROUND: Based on interim analyses and modeling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. METHODS: This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients ≥12 years old, with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and ≥1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. RESULTS: In total, 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients ≥65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Δ[95% confidence interval {CI}] = -5.0 [-8.0, -2.1], P < .001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Δ[95% CI] = -0.99 [-1.33, -.66], P < .0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700/1400 mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04427501.

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination With Etesevimab on Viral Load in Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29). Results: Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49 for 7000 mg, -4.37 for combination treatment, and -3.80 for placebo. Compared with placebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69) for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group were statistically significant for 10 of 84 end points. The proportion of patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or ED visits was 5.8% (9 events) for placebo, 1.0% (1 event) for 700 mg, 1.9% (2 events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed for bamlanivimab monotherapy. Further ongoing clinical trials will focus on assessing the clinical benefit of antispike neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 as a primary end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427501.

The optimized evaluation of diabetic foot infection by dual isotope SPECT/CT imaging protocol.

Sequential Tc-99m hydroxymethylene-diphosphonate (HDP) 3-phase bone (BS) and In-111 leukocyte scanning (WBCS) have been frequently used to evaluate the diabetic foot, as nonosteomyelitis BS uptake is repeatedly observed and osteomyelitis (OM) in WBCS is often uncertain without BS correlation. Additionally, both modalities are limited in lesion localization because of low resolution and lack of anatomic details. We investigated a method that combined BS/WBCS, and if needed, WBCS/bone marrow scanning (BMS) using SPECT/CT to accurately diagnose/localize infection in a practical protocol. Blood flow/pool images were obtained followed by WBC reinjection and next day dual isotope (DI) BS/WBCS planar and SPECT/CT. BMS/WBCS SPECT/CT (step 2 DI) was obtained on the following day when images were suspicious for mid/hindfoot OM. Diagnosis accuracy and confidence were judged for the various imaging combinations. Diagnosis was classified as OM, soft tissue infection (STI), both OM/STI, and other/no bony pathology by microbiology/pathology or follow-up. Distinction between various diagnostic categories and overall OM diagnostic accuracy in 213 patients were higher for DI than WBCS or BS alone, and for DI SPECT/CT than DI planar or SPECT only. Diagnostic confidence/lesion site was significantly higher for DI SPECT/CT than other comparative imaging methods. In a group of 97 patients with confirmed microbiologic/pathologic diagnosis, similar results were attained. Step 2 DI SPECT/CT performed in 67 patients further improved diagnostic accuracy/confidence. DI SPECT/CT is a highly accurate modality that considerably improves detection and discrimination of STI and OM while providing precise anatomic localization in the diabetic foot. This combined imaging technique promises to beneficially impact diabetic patient care.

FDG PET/CT imaging to rule out extrahepatic metastases before liver transplantation.

FDG PET/CT, an established imaging modality for staging and restaging workup of malignancies, also demonstrates increased uptake in infectious or inflammatory conditions, including both infectious and noninfectious granulomatous processes. A 65-year-old man with a history of hepatocellular carcinoma status post-wedge resection and chemoembolization of the primary tumor referred for evaluation of extrahepatic metastases for determining the surgical eligibility for a liver transplantation. The patient underwent FDG PET/CT imaging associated with a separately acquired contrast enhanced CT (CECT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. FDG PET/CT imaging revealed multiple FDG-avid pulmonary nodules that were subsequently confirmed to represent Mycobacterium avium intracellular infection on histology.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based follow-up after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The detection of subclinical head and neck cancer recurrence or a second primary tumor may improve survival. In the current study, the authors investigated the clinical value of a follow-up program incorporating serial (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography (PET/CT) in the detection of recurrent disease in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: A total of 240 PET/CT scans were reviewed in 80 patients with head and neck cancer who were treated with radiotherapy (RT) from July, 2005 through August, 2007. All patients were followed with clinical examination, PET/CT, and correlative imaging for a minimum of 11 months (median follow-up, 21 months). RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of PET/CT-based follow-up for detecting locoregional recurrence were 92%, 82%, 42%, and 98%, respectively. Corresponding values for distant metastases or second primary tumors were 93%, 96%, 81%, and 98%, respectively. Eight patients (10%) developed disease recurrences or second primary tumors that were amenable to salvage surgery with negative surgical margins. The 2-year progression-free survival and 2-year overall survival rates were significantly different between patients who had a negative and those with a positive PET/CT result within 6 months of the completion of RT (93% vs 30% [P<.001] and 100% vs 32% [P<.001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although post-therapy follow-up using PET/CT is reportedly associated with a high false-positive rate in the irradiated head and neck, PET/CT appears to be a highly sensitive technique for the detection of recurrent disease. Furthermore, negative PET/CT results within 6 months of the completion of RT offer significant prognostic value.