REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that complications and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may be related to high viral loads. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19, we investigated two fully human, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, used in a combined cocktail (REGN-COV2) to reduce the risk of the emergence of treatment-resistant mutant virus. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, 2.4 g of REGN-COV2, or 8.0 g of REGN-COV2 and were prospectively characterized at baseline for endogenous immune response against SARS-CoV-2 (serum antibody-positive or serum antibody-negative). Key end points included the time-weighted average change in viral load from baseline (day 1) through day 7 and the percentage of patients with at least one Covid-19-related medically attended visit through day 29. Safety was assessed in all patients. RESULTS: Data from 275 patients are reported. The least-squares mean difference (combined REGN-COV2 dose groups vs. placebo group) in the time-weighted average change in viral load from day 1 through day 7 was -0.56 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.11) among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline and -0.41 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.10) in the overall trial population. In the overall trial population, 6% of the patients in the placebo group and 3% of the patients in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups reported at least one medically attended visit; among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline, the corresponding percentages were 15% and 6% (difference, -9 percentage points; 95% CI, -29 to 11). The percentages of patients with hypersensitivity reactions, infusion-related reactions, and other adverse events were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis, the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail reduced viral load, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline. Safety outcomes were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

REGEN-COV Antibody Combination and Outcomes in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 1-2 portion of an adaptive trial, REGEN-COV, a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, reduced the viral load and number of medical visits in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). REGEN-COV has activity in vitro against current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern. METHODS: In the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial, we randomly assigned outpatients with Covid-19 and risk factors for severe disease to receive various doses of intravenous REGEN-COV or placebo. Patients were followed through day 29. A prespecified hierarchical analysis was used to assess the end points of hospitalization or death and the time to resolution of symptoms. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1355 patients in the REGEN-COV 2400-mg group (1.3%) and in 62 of 1341 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (4.6%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 71.3%; P<0.001); these outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 patients in the REGEN-COV 1200-mg group (1.0%) and in 24 of 748 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (3.2%) (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = 0.002). The median time to resolution of symptoms was 4 days shorter with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P<0.001 for both comparisons). REGEN-COV was efficacious across various subgroups, including patients who were SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody-positive at baseline. Both REGEN-COV doses reduced viral load faster than placebo; the least-squares mean difference in viral load from baseline through day 7 was -0.71 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.53) in the 1200-mg group and -0.86 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.72) in the 2400-mg group. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the placebo group (4.0%) than in the 1200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2400-mg group (1.3%); infusion-related reactions of grade 2 or higher occurred in less than 0.3% of the patients in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: REGEN-COV reduced the risk of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, and it resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more rapidly than placebo. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

Compassionate Use of REGEN-COV® in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Immunodeficiency-Associated Antibody Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immunodeficiency-associated antibody disorders are at a higher risk of prolonged/persistent COVID-19 infection, having no viable treatment options. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with primary and/or secondary immunodeficiency-associated antibody disorders who received casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV®) under emergency compassionate use. Objective were to describe safety and response to REGEN-COV, focusing on the subset of patients who had COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment. RESULTS: Quantitative (change in oxygenation status and/or viral load) and/or qualitative (physician-reported clinical status) outcomes data are reported from 64 patients. Improvement in ≥1 outcome was observed in 90.6% of the overall patient group. Thirty-seven of these had COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment; median time from diagnosis to REGEN-COV treatment was 60.5 days. Of the 29 patients with COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment and available outcome data, 96.6% showed improvement in ≥1 outcome. In the 14 patients with post-treatment reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results available, 11 (78.6%) reported a negative RT-PCR following treatment, with 5 (45.5%) and 8 (72.7%) patients reporting a negative RT-PCR within 5 days and 21 days of treatment, respectively. Ten of 85 patients (11.8%) experienced serious adverse events; only one was an infusion-related reaction, possibly related to REGEN-COV. Two deaths were reported; neither were attributed to REGEN-COV. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of immunodeficient patients granted REGEN-COV under emergency compassionate use, REGEN-COV treatment was associated with rapid viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with longstanding COVID-19. Adverse events were consistent with COVID-19 and its associated complications, and due to patients' concurrent medical conditions.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Open-label platform trials and a prospective meta-analysis suggest efficacy of anti-interleukin (IL)-6R therapies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving corticosteroids. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults hospitalized with COVID-19 received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The phase 3 primary analysis population included patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTS: There were 457 and 1365 patients randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. In phase 3, patients with critical COVID-19 receiving MV (n = 298; 28.2% on corticosteroids), the proportion with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status (alive, not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% for sarilumab and 35.5% for placebo (risk difference, +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P =.3261), a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio for death for sarilumab vs placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, .51 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, .25 to .94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish the efficacy of sarilumab in hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19. Post hoc analyses were consistent with other studies that found a benefit of sarilumab in patients receiving corticosteroids. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04315298.

Histologic remission: the ultimate therapeutic goal in ulcerative colitis?

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a disease of the mucosal layer, and activity of the disease is assumed to be related to mucosal appearance. Mucosal healing has emerged as a major therapeutic goal in UC. Whether mucosal healing should be the ultimate therapeutic goal in these patients is unknown. Even when endoscopy suggests mucosal healing, evidence of histologic activity has been observed. Histologic healing requires complete recovery of the colonic mucosa, with absence of inflammation or structural changes. Histologic improvements have been linked with improved clinical outcomes, such as a reduced risk of relapse and need for surgery/hospitalization and a reduced risk of developing cancer. Hence, there is a rationale for aiming for histologic remission in UC. Numerous methods of classification of histologic activity in UC have been proposed, although only some of these are widely used. We review the current definitions of histologic remission, the range of scoring systems most commonly used, and the evidence of histologic improvement that is available from the latest therapies for UC. We also highlight questions that will require careful consideration if histologic remission is to become more widely used as an end point in clinical trials and a treatment goal in clinical practice.

Adalimumab for induction of clinical remission in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (ADA), a recombinant human monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor α (TNF), for the induction of clinical remission in anti-TNF naïve patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This 8-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00385736), conducted at 94 centres in North America and Europe, enrolled ambulatory adult patients with Mayo score of ≥ 6 points and endoscopic subscore of ≥ 2 points despite treatment with corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants. Under the original study protocol, 186 patients were randomised (1:1) to subcutaneous treatment with ADA160/80 (160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2, 40 mg at weeks 4 and 6) or placebo. Subsequently, at the request of European regulatory authorities, the protocol was amended to include a second induction group (ADA80/40: 80 mg at week 0, 40 mg at weeks 2, 4 and 6). The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical remission (Mayo score ≤ 2 with no individual subscore >1) at week 8, assessed in 390 patients randomised (1:1:1) to ADA160/80, ADA80/40, or placebo. Safety was assessed in all enrolled patients. Patients, study site personnel, investigators, and the sponsor were blinded to treatment assignment. RESULTS: At week 8, 18.5% of patients in the ADA160/80 group (p = 0.031 vs placebo) and 10.0% in the ADA80/40 group (p = 0.833 vs placebo) were in remission, compared with 9.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 7.6%, 3.8% and 4.0% of patients in the placebo, ADA80/40, and ADA160/80 groups, respectively. There were two malignancies in the placebo group, none in the ADA groups. There were no cases of tuberculosis and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: ADA160/80 was safe and effective for induction of clinical remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis failing treatment with corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants. Clinical trial NCT00385736.

Virologic Efficacy of Casirivimab and Imdevimab COVID-19 Antibody Combination in Outpatients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Phase 2 Dose-Ranging Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients. Objective: To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Results: Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial including outpatients with asymptomatic and low-risk symptomatic SARS-CoV-2, all IV and SC doses of casirivimab and imdevimab comparably reduced viral load. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04666441.

Patient perceptions and use of non-statin lipid lowering therapy among patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Insights from the PALM registry.

BACKGROUND: Non-statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non-statin LLT remain incompletely described. HYPOTHESIS: The guideline-recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non-statin LLT. METHODS: The PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non-statin LLT. RESULTS: Among 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non-statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline-recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non-statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non-statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non-statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again. CONCLUSIONS: Non-statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline-recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.