Nasopharyngeal Viral Load Is the Major Driver of Incident Antibody Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: Virologic determinants of seroconversion to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were defined in a post hoc analysis of prospectively studied vaccine- and infection-naïve individuals at high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: This phase 3 COVID-19 prevention trial (NCT04452318) with casirivimab and imdevimab was conducted in July 2020-February 2021, before widespread vaccine availability. Placebo-treated participants who were uninfected (SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-qPCR] negative) and seronegative were assessed weekly for 28 days (efficacy assessment period [EAP]) for COVID-19 symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-qPCR of nasopharyngeal swab samples and for serostatus by antinucleocapsid immunoglobulin (Ig) G. Regression-based modeling, including causal mediation analysis, estimated the effects of viral load on seroconversion. Results: Of 157/1069 (14.7%) uninfected and seronegative (for antispike IgG, antispike IgA, and antinucleocapsid IgG) participants who became infected during the EAP, 105 (65%) seroconverted. The mean (SD) maximum viral load of seroconverters was 7.23 (1.68) log10 copies/mL vs 4.8 (2.2) log10 copies/mL in those who remained seronegative; viral loads of ∼6.0 log10 copies/mL better predicted seroconversion. The mean of the maximum viral load was 7.11 log10 copies/mL in symptomatic participants vs 5.58 log10 copies/mL in asymptomatic participants. The mean duration of detectable viral load was longer in seroconverted vs seronegative participants: 3.24 vs 1.63 weeks. Conclusions: Maximum SARS-CoV-2 viral load is a major driver of seroconversion and symptomatic COVID-19, with high viral loads (∼6.0 log10 copies/mL) better predicting seroconversion. Serology underestimates infection rates, incidence, and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Preclinical, randomized phase 1, and compassionate use evaluation of REGN4461, a leptin receptor agonist antibody for leptin deficiency.

Deficiency in the adipose-derived hormone leptin or leptin receptor signaling causes class 3 obesity in individuals with genetic loss-of-function mutations in leptin or its receptor LEPR and metabolic and liver disease in individuals with hypoleptinemia secondary to lipoatrophy such as in individuals with generalized lipodystrophy. Therapies that restore leptin-LEPR signaling may resolve these metabolic sequelae. We developed a fully human monoclonal antibody (mAb), REGN4461 (mibavademab), that activates the human LEPR in the absence or presence of leptin. In obese leptin knockout mice, REGN4461 normalized body weight, food intake, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivity. In a mouse model of generalized lipodystrophy, REGN4461 alleviated hyperphagia, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hepatic steatosis. In a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled two-part study, REGN4461 was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Treatment of individuals with overweight or obesity with REGN4461 decreased body weight over 12 weeks in those with low circulating leptin concentrations (<8 ng/ml) but had no effect on body weight in individuals with higher baseline leptin. Furthermore, compassionate-use treatment of a single patient with atypical partial lipodystrophy and a history of undetectable leptin concentrations associated with neutralizing antibodies to metreleptin was associated with noteable improvements in circulating triglycerides and hepatic steatosis. Collectively, these translational data unveil an agonist LEPR mAb that may provide clinical benefit in disorders associated with relatively low leptin concentrations.

Garetosmab in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is a rare disease characterized by heterotopic ossification (HO) in connective tissues and painful flare-ups. In the phase 2 LUMINA-1 trial, adult patients with FOP were randomized to garetosmab, an activin A-blocking antibody (n = 20) or placebo (n = 24) in period 1 (28 weeks), followed by an open-label period 2 (28 weeks; n = 43). The primary end points were safety and for period 1, the activity and size of HO lesions. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during period 1, notably epistaxis, madarosis and skin abscesses. Five deaths (5 of 44; 11.4%) occurred in the open-label period and, while considered unlikely to be related, causality cannot be ruled out. The primary efficacy end point in period 1 (total lesion activity by PET-CT) was not met (P = 0.0741). As the development of new HO lesions was suppressed in period 1, the primary efficacy end point in period 2 was prospectively changed to the number of new HO lesions versus period 1. No placebo patients crossing over to garetosmab developed new HO lesions (0% in period 2 versus 40.9% in period 1; P = 0.0027). Further investigation of garetosmab in FOP is ongoing. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03188666 .

Examining protective effects of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after vaccination or monoclonal antibody administration.

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination in Immunocompromised Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Post Hoc Analysis in a Phase 1/2/3 Double-Blind Trial.

Background: Individuals who are immunocompromised (IC) are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Post hoc analyses of a double-blind trial conducted prior to Omicron (June 2020-April 2021), in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 assessed viral load, clinical outcomes, and safety of casirivimab plus imdevimab (CAS + IMD) versus placebo in IC versus overall study patients. Results: Ninety-nine of 1940 (5.1%) patients were IC. IC versus overall patients were more frequently seronegative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (68.7% vs 41.2%) and had higher median baseline viral loads (7.21 vs 6.32 log10 copies/mL). On placebo, IC versus overall patients had slower viral load declines. CAS + IMD reduced viral load in IC and overall patients; least-squares mean difference versus placebo in time-weighted average change from baseline viral load at day 7 was -0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.25 to -.14) log10 copies/mL for IC patients and -0.31 (95% CI, -.42 to -.20) log10 copies/mL for overall patients. For IC patients, the cumulative incidence of death or mechanical ventilation at day 29 was lower with CAS + IMD (11.0%) versus placebo (17.2%), consistent with overall patients (15.7% CAS + IMD vs 18.3% placebo). IC and overall patients receiving CAS + IMD exhibited similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (30.4% and 26.6%, respectively), grade ≥2 hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions (1.4% and 2.5%), and deaths (8.7% and 12.2%). Conclusions: IC patients were more likely to exhibit high viral loads and be seronegative at baseline. For susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variants, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and resulted in fewer death or mechanical ventilation events in IC and overall study patients. There were no new safety findings among IC patients. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04426695.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab Treatment Reduces Viral Load and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Seropositive Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Nonneutralizing or Borderline Neutralizing Antibodies.

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). METHODS: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. RESULTS: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04426695.

Lay Summary . Monoclonal antibody therapies that block the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) can prevent patients from being hospitalized. We hypothesized that these antibodies may also benefit patients who are already hospitalized with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed a study to determine if the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) can decrease the amount of virus in the nose of hospitalized patients and prevent the disease from becoming more severe. The study, conducted from June 2020 to April 2021, found that CAS + IMD treatment reduced the amount of virus in these patients, and may reduce their chance of dying or needing a ventilator (a machine that helps patients breathe). Patients were examined in 2 groups: those whose immune systems, at the start of the study, had not produced their own antibodies to fight SARS-CoV-2 (seronegative patients); or those that had already produced their own antibodies (seropositive patients) at the start of the study. Seronegative patients benefited the most from CAS + IMD. No safety concerns related to CAS + IMD were observed. These results demonstrate that monoclonal antibody therapy can help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and may decrease their chances of needing assistance to breathe or dying.

Repeat subcutaneous administration of casirivimab and imdevimab in adults is well-tolerated and prevents the occurrence of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: A phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of repeat monthly doses of subcutaneous (SC) casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in uninfected adult volunteers. METHODS: Participants were randomized (3:1) to SC CAS+IMD 1200 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for up to six doses. Primary and secondary end points evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by the incidence of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. RESULTS: In total, 969 participants received CAS+IMD. Repeat monthly dosing of SC CAS+IMD led to a 92.4% relative risk reduction in clinically defined COVID-19 compared with placebo (3/729 [0.4%] vs 13/240 [5.4%]; odds ratio 0.07 [95% CI 0.01-0.27]), and a 100% reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (0/729 vs 10/240 [4.2%]; odds ratio 0.00). Development of anti-drug antibodies occurred in a small proportion of participants (<5%). No grade ≥3 injection-site reactions (ISRs) or hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Slightly more participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events with CAS+IMD (54.9%) than with placebo (48.3%), a finding that was due to grade 1-2 ISRs. Serious adverse events were rare. No deaths were reported in the 6-month treatment period. CONCLUSION: Repeat monthly administration of 1200 mg SC CAS+IMD was well-tolerated, demonstrated low immunogenicity, and showed a substantial risk reduction in COVID-19 occurrence.

Efficacy and safety of a single dose of casirivimab and imdevimab for the prevention of COVID-19 over an 8-month period: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for COVID-19 prevention in patient populations who have not mounted or are not expected to mount an adequate immune response to complete COVID-19 vaccination. We previously reported that a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of the monoclonal antibody combination casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) prevented symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections by 81·4% in generally healthy household contacts of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals over a 1-month efficacy assessment period. Here we present additional results, including the 7-month follow-up period (months 2-8), providing additional insights about the potential for efficacy in pre-exposure prophylaxis settings. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in the USA, Romania, and Moldova in 2020-2021, before the emergence of omicron (B.1.1.529) and omicron-lineage variants. Uninfected and unvaccinated household contacts of infected individuals, judged by the investigator to be in good health, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 1200 mg CAS + IMD or placebo by subcutaneous injection according to a central randomisation scheme provided by an interactive web response system; randomisation was stratified per site by the test results of a local diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 and age group at baseline. COVID-19 vaccines were prohibited before randomisation, but participants were allowed to receive COVID-19 vaccination during the follow-up period. Participants who developed COVID-19 symptoms during the follow-up period underwent RT-PCR testing. Prespecified endpoints included the proportion of previously uninfected and baseline-seronegative participants (seronegative-modified full analysis set) who had RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in the follow-up period (post-hoc for the timepoints of months 2-5 and 6-8 only) and underwent seroconversion (ie, became seropositive, considered a proxy for any SARS-CoV-2 infections [symptomatic and asymptomatic]; prespecified up to day 57, post-hoc for all timepoints thereafter). We also assessed the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04452318. FINDINGS: From July 13, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, 2317 participants who were RT-PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2 were randomly assigned, of whom 1683 (841 assigned to CAS + IMD and 842 assigned to placebo) were seronegative at baseline. During the entirety of the 8-month study, CAS + IMD reduced the risk of COVID-19 by 81·2% (nominal p<0·0001) versus placebo (prespecified analysis). During the 7-month follow-up period, protection was greatest during months 2-5, with a 100% relative risk reduction in COVID-19 (nominal p<0·0001; post-hoc analysis). Efficacy waned during months 6-8 (post-hoc analysis). Seroconversion occurred in 38 (4·5%) of 841 participants in the CAS + IMD group and in 181 (21·5%) of 842 in the placebo group during the 8-month study (79·0% relative risk reduction vs placebo; nominal p<0·0001). Six participants in the placebo group were hospitalised due to COVID-19 versus none who received CAS + IMD. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events (including COVID-19) were reported in 24 (1·7%) of 1439 participants receiving CAS + IMD and in 23 (1·6%) of 1428 receiving placebo. Five deaths were reported, none of which were due to COVID-19 or related to the study drugs. INTERPRETATION: CAS + IMD is not authorised in any US region as of Jan 24, 2022, because data show that CAS + IMD is not active against omicron-lineage variants. In this study, done before the emergence of omicron-lineage variants, a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of CAS + IMD protected against COVID-19 for up to 5 months of community exposure to susceptible strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the pre-exposure prophylaxis setting, in addition to the post-exposure prophylaxis setting that was previously shown. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann-La Roche, US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.

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.

The monoclonal antibody combination REGEN-COV protects against SARS-CoV-2 mutational escape in preclinical and human studies.

Monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are a clinically validated therapeutic option against COVID-19. Because rapidly emerging virus mutants are becoming the next major concern in the fight against the global pandemic, it is imperative that these therapeutic treatments provide coverage against circulating variants and do not contribute to development of treatment-induced emergent resistance. To this end, we investigated the sequence diversity of the spike protein and monitored emergence of virus variants in SARS-COV-2 isolates found in COVID-19 patients treated with the two-antibody combination REGEN-COV, as well as in preclinical in vitro studies using single, dual, or triple antibody combinations, and in hamster in vivo studies using REGEN-COV or single monoclonal antibody treatments. Our study demonstrates that the combination of non-competing antibodies in REGEN-COV provides protection against all current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern/interest and also protects against emergence of new variants and their potential seeding into the population in a clinical setting.

Genetic and Pharmacologic Inactivation of ANGPTL3 and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Loss-of-function variants in the angiopoietin-like 3 gene (ANGPTL3) have been associated with decreased plasma levels of triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. It is not known whether such variants or therapeutic antagonism of ANGPTL3 are associated with a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We sequenced the exons of ANGPTL3 in 58,335 participants in the DiscovEHR human genetics study. We performed tests of association for loss-of-function variants in ANGPTL3 with lipid levels and with coronary artery disease in 13,102 case patients and 40,430 controls from the DiscovEHR study, with follow-up studies involving 23,317 case patients and 107,166 controls from four population studies. We also tested the effects of a human monoclonal antibody, evinacumab, against Angptl3 in dyslipidemic mice and against ANGPTL3 in healthy human volunteers with elevated levels of triglycerides or LDL cholesterol. RESULTS: In the DiscovEHR study, participants with heterozygous loss-of-function variants in ANGPTL3 had significantly lower serum levels of triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol than participants without these variants. Loss-of-function variants were found in 0.33% of case patients with coronary artery disease and in 0.45% of controls (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85; P=0.004). These results were confirmed in the follow-up studies. In dyslipidemic mice, inhibition of Angptl3 with evinacumab resulted in a greater decrease in atherosclerotic lesion area and necrotic content than a control antibody. In humans, evinacumab caused a dose-dependent placebo-adjusted reduction in fasting triglyceride levels of up to 76% and LDL cholesterol levels of up to 23%. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic and therapeutic antagonism of ANGPTL3 in humans and of Angptl3 in mice was associated with decreased levels of all three major lipid fractions and decreased odds of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01749878 .).

Evaluation of early biomarkers of muscle anabolic response to testosterone.

BACKGROUND: Early biomarkers of skeletal muscle anabolism will facilitate the development of therapies for sarcopenia and frailty. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined plasma type III collagen N-terminal propeptide (P3NP), skeletal muscle protein fractional synthesis rate, and gene and protein expression profiles to identify testosterone-induced changes in muscle anabolism. Two placebo-controlled studies enrolled community-dwelling men (study 1, 60-75 years; study 2, 18-40 years) with low to normal testosterone levels. Men were randomized to lower dose (study 1, 100 mg; study 2, 200 mg) or higher dose (study 1, 300 mg; study 2, 600 mg) single intramuscular testosterone or saline injection. After 1 week, testosterone acutely increased plasma P3NP levels in a dose-dependent manner and altered the expression of several skeletal muscle transcripts and proteins. Though not statistically significant, mixed muscle protein fractional synthesis rate tended to increase (1.08-fold with 100 mg testosterone, 1.12-fold with 300 mg testosterone). Testosterone exposure also increased skeletal muscle expression of the collagen type III gene that encodes P3NP. CONCLUSION: P3NP is a potentially useful early biomarker for muscle anabolic therapy. Skeletal muscle protein and RNA profiling are useful tools for the discovery of novel muscle anabolic biomarkers.

The effects of simvastatin treatment on plasma lipid-related biomarkers in men with dyslipidaemia.

BACKGROUND: Lipidomic biomarkers will facilitate the development of novel anti-atherosclerotic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responses of circulating biomarkers to simvastatin treatment. METHODS: A randomized, cross-over study in men with mixed dyslipidaemia was used to compare effects of simvastatin 40 mg/day with placebo. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of nine fatty acids (FA; of 33 evaluated) were reduced significantly by simvastatin. No changes in the rates of FA synthesis or in hepatic lipase or lipoprotein lipase activities were apparent. Circulating proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) levels increased. CONCLUSION: We identified lipidomic biomarkers of simvastatin treatment effect that are consistent with statin inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00935259).

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition following single doses of sitagliptin in healthy, young Japanese males.

AIMS: Sitagliptin is a selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) used to treat type 2 diabetes. The present aim was to evaluate pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) and safety characteristics of sitagliptin following single doses in healthy, young Japanese males. METHODS: In this alternating two-panel, randomized, controlled double-blind study, six healthy Japanese male subjects (aged 20-46 years) in each panel received single oral doses of 5-400mg sitagliptin and two received placebo. Plasma and urine drug concentrations were measured from 0-48h post dose and plasma DPP-4 inhibition from 0-24h post dose. The results were compared with historical data from young, healthy non-Japanese males. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of sitagliptin increased approximately in proportion to dose; maximum concentrations occurred 2-6h post-dose. The mean apparent terminal half-life for plasma sitagliptin was 9-14h, with the half-life slightly decreasing as the dose increased. The mean dose fraction excreted unchanged in the urine was 0.73-1.00. Ingestion of a traditional Japanese breakfast prior to dosing had only a minor effect on PK parameters. After correction for dilution and competition effects during assay, doses of sitagliptin ≥50mg resulted in weighted average DPP-4 inhibition from 0-24h post-dose >94% (without correction, >78%). No clinically meaningful differences in PK and DPP-4 inhibition parameters were found between Japanese and non-Japanese subjects. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and there were no serious adverse experiences or episodes of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The PK and PD findings from this study are consistent with once daily dosing of sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Single-dose effects of isosorbide mononitrate alone or in combination with losartan on central blood pressure.

Antihypertensive drugs can have different effects on central and brachial blood pressures, which may affect outcomes. Nitric oxide donors have acute effects on central blood pressure but have not been assessed with renin-angiotensin system blockade. Thirteen patients with prehypertensive/Stage 1 hypertension were randomized to five single-dose treatments separated by ≤4 days using a double-blind, crossover study design: angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) losartan 100 mg, isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) 60 mg, losartan 100 mg + ISMN 15 mg, losartan 100 mg + ISMN 60 mg, and placebo. Central and brachial blood pressures were measured throughout 10 hours. Mean placebo-subtracted decrease from baseline in augmentation index (AIx) approximately 1% for losartan 100 mg, 26% for ISMN 60 mg, 19% for losartan 100 mg + ISMN 15 mg, and 24% for losartan 100 mg + ISMN 60 mg. Administered with losartan 100 mg or alone, ISMN lowered AIx, demonstrating that acute effects of a nitrate donor are much larger than those of an ARB even when administered with an ARB. Differences from placebo were statistically significant except for losartan 100 mg. AIx is a good biomarker of acute hemodynamic effects of nitric oxide in prehypertensive/Stage 1 hypertension.

Multiple doses of sitagliptin, a selective DPP-4 inhibitor, do not meaningfully alter pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin.

Sitagliptin is an orally active, highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitor for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This randomized, open-label, 2-part, 2-period crossover study assessed pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of warfarin in the presence/absence of multiple-dose sitagliptin. Twelve participants received treatments A and B separated by >7-day washout: treatment A involved coadministration of sitagliptin 200 mg/d for 11 days (days 1-11) and warfarin 30 mg on day 5, and treatment B involved warfarin 30 mg alone on day 1. R(+) warfarin, S(-) warfarin, and international normalized ratio (INR) were assayed predose and up to 168 hours postdose. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs; warfarin + sitagliptin/warfarin alone) (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) and 0.95 (0.90, 1.02) for the AUC(0-infinity) of R(+) and S(-) warfarin, respectively. GMRs (warfarin + sitagliptin/warfarin alone) (90% CIs) were 0.89 (0.86, 0.93) and 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) for the C(max) of R(+) and S(-) warfarin, respectively. INR AUC(0-168 h) and INR(max) GMRs were 1.01 (0.96, 1.06) and 1.08 (1.00, 1.17), respectively. Coadministration of sitagliptin and warfarin was generally well tolerated. Pharmacokinetics (AUC for R(+) and S(-) warfarin) and pharmacodynamics (INR of R(+) or S(-) warfarin) were not meaningfully altered following coadministration of multiple-dose sitagliptin and single-dose warfarin, indicating that no dosage adjustment for warfarin is necessary when coadministered with sitagliptin.

A thorough QTc study to assess the effect of sitagliptin, a DPP4 inhibitor, on ventricular repolarization in healthy subjects.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover study was performed with a single oral dose of sitagliptin (100 mg, 800 mg), moxifloxacin (400 mg), and placebo in order to provide a rigorous assessment of the effect of sitagliptin on ventricular repolarization based on the ICH E14 guidance. The clinical dose of sitagliptin 100 mg was not associated with an increase in QTc interval, corrected using the Fridericia correction (QTcf), at any time point. The supratherapeutic 800-mg dose of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and was associated with minimal, clinically insignificant prolongation of the QTcf interval at concentrations approximately 11-fold higher than maximal concentrations following the 100-mg clinical dose. The PK/QTc model demonstrated a shallow relationship between the plasma concentration of sitagliptin and the placebo-subtracted QTcf change from baseline, with a 0.59-millisecond increase in QTc for every 1000-nM increment in sitagliptin plasma concentration. The sensitivity of the assay to detect modest increases in QTc interval was established with the active control moxifloxacin. In conclusion, at clinically relevant concentrations, sitagliptin is not associated with clinically meaningful QTcf prolongation.

Effect of moderate hepatic insufficiency on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin.

BACKGROUND: Sitagliptin is a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Sitagliptin is primarily excreted by renal elimination as unchanged drug, with only a small percentage (approximately 16%) undergoing hepatic metabolism. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of moderate hepatic insufficiency on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin. METHODS: In an open-label study, a single 100-mg oral dose of sitagliptin was administered to 10 male or female patients with moderate hepatic insufficiency (Child-Pugh's scores ranged from 7 to 9) and 10 healthy control subjects matched to each patient for race, gender, age (+/- 5 yrs) and body mass index (BMI kg/m2 +/- 5%). After administration of each dose, blood and urine samples were collected to assess sitagliptin pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: The mean AUC(0-infinity) and Cmax for sitagliptin were numerically, but not significantly (p>0.050), higher in patients with moderate hepatic insufficiency compared with healthy matched control subjects by 21% and 13%, respectively. These slight differences were also not considered to be clinically meaningful. Moderate hepatic insufficiency had no statistically significant effect on the Tmax, apparent terminal t(1/2), fraction of the oral dose excreted into urine (f(e,0-infinity)) and renal clearance (ClR) (p>0.100) of sitagliptin. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated by both patients and subjects; all adverse experiences were transient and rated as mild in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate hepatic insufficiency has no clinically meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin.