Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days. DESIGN: Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score-matched, nontreated control group. SETTING: Large U.S. health care system. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. INTERVENTION: Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab-imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date). RESULTS: The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71). LIMITATIONS: Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status. CONCLUSION: Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Prospective assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses to a 3rd COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose among immunocompromised individuals.

BACKGROUND: Improved COVID-19 prevention is needed for immunocompromised individuals. METHODS: Prospective study of healthcare workers (HCW) and immunocompromised participants with baseline serology following 2 mRNA vaccines and who were retested after dose 3 (D3); multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of serological responses. IFNγ/TNFα T-cell responses were assessed in a subset. RESULTS: 536 participants were included: 492 immunocompromised [(206 solid organ transplant (SOT), 128 autoimmune, 80 hematologic malignancy (HM), 48 solid tumor, 25 HIV], 44 HCW. D3 significantly increased Spike IgG levels among all, but SOT and HM participants had the lowest median antibody levels post-D3 (increase from 0.09 to 0.83 and 0.27 to 1.92, respectively), versus HCW and persons with HIV, autoimmune conditions, and solid tumors (increases from 4.44 to 19.79, 2.9 to 15.75, 3.82 to 16.32, and 4.1 to 25.54, respectively). Seropositivity post-D3 was lowest for SOT (49.0%) and HM (57.8%), versus others (>90% seropositive). Neutralization post-D3 was lowest among SOT and HM. Predictors of lower antibody levels included low baseline levels and shorter intervals between vaccines. T-cell responses against Spike increased significantly among HCW and non-significantly among immunocompromised individuals. CONCLUSIONS: D3 significantly improves serological but not T-cell responses among immunocompromised individuals. SOT and HM patients have suboptimal responses to D3.

Prospective Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Responses Across a Broad Spectrum of Immunocompromising Conditions: the COVID-19 Vaccination in the Immunocompromised Study (COVICS).

BACKGROUND: We studied humoral responses after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination across varying causes of immunodeficiency. METHODS: Prospective study of fully vaccinated immunocompromised adults (solid organ transplant [SOT], hematologic malignancy, solid cancers, autoimmune conditions, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]) versus nonimmunocompromised healthcare workers (HCWs). The primary outcome was the proportion with a reactive test (seropositive) for immunoglobulin G to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of antibody levels and their correlation with pseudovirus neutralization titers. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1271 participants enrolled: 1099 immunocompromised and 172 HCW. Compared with HCW (92.4% seropositive), seropositivity was lower among participants with SOT (30.7%), hematological malignancies (50.0%), autoimmune conditions (79.1%), solid tumors (78.7%), and HIV (79.8%) (P < .01). Factors associated with poor seropositivity included age, greater immunosuppression, time since vaccination, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or adenovirus vector vaccines versus messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Moderna). mRNA-1273 was associated with higher antibody levels than BNT162b2 or adenovirus vector vaccines after adjusting for time since vaccination, age, and underlying condition. Antibody levels were strongly correlated with pseudovirus neutralization titers (Spearman r = 0.89, P < .0001), but in seropositive participants with intermediate antibody levels, neutralization titers were significantly lower in immunocompromised individuals versus HCW. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines were lowest among SOT and anti-CD20 monoclonal recipients, and recipients of vaccines other than mRNA-1273. Among those with intermediate antibody levels, pseudovirus neutralization titers were lower in immunocompromised patients than HCWs. Additional SARS-CoV-2 preventive approaches are needed for immunocompromised persons, which may need to be tailored to the cause of immunodeficiency.

Measuring Mobility in Low Functioning Hospital Patients: An AM-PAC Replenishment Project.

OBJECTIVE: To expand an existing validated measure of basic mobility (Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care [AM-PAC]) for patients at the lowest levels of function. DESIGN: Item replenishment for existing item response theory (IRT) derived measure via (1) idea generation and creation of potential new items, (2) item calibration and field testing, and (3) longitudinal pilot test. SETTING: Two tertiary acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive inpatients (N=502) ≥18 years old, with an AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form (IMSF) raw score ≤15. For the longitudinal pilot test, 8 inpatients were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifteen new AM-PAC items were developed, 2 of which improved mobility measurement at the lower levels of functioning. Specifically, with the 2 new items, the floor effect of the AM-PAC IMSF was reduced by 19%, statistical power and measurement breadth were greater, and there was greater measurement sensitivity in longitudinal pilot testing. CONCLUSION: Adding 2 new items to the AM-PAC IMSF lowered the floor and increased statistical power, measurement breadth, and sensitivity.

Including and Training Family Caregivers of Older Adults in Hospital Care: Facilitators and Barriers.

BACKGROUND: Despite the role caregivers play in the delivery of care, the interactions and training methods used with caregivers during an inpatient stay are not clear. PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine interactions and training methods used with caregivers during hospital care. METHODS: A mixed-methods case study was conducted. Observations were summarized and interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The frequency of caregiver engagement varied at different points in the care process but was highest among observations during the stay care point. Providers were most commonly using written and verbal instructions to train caregivers. Three themes emerged from the interviews and were described to be both facilitators and barriers to caregiver involvement: experience, time, and relationship. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality person and family-centered care depends upon coordinated efforts among health care systems, providers, patients, and caregivers. Future caregiver initiatives should aim to decrease disengagement, increase assessment, and broaden the use of training methods.

Innovative approaches to interprofessional care at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The enactment of the Affordable Care Act expands coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and creates a new workforce landscape. Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (ICP) is no longer a choice but a necessity. In this paper, we describe four innovative approaches to interprofessional practice at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. These models demonstrate innovative applications of ICP to inpatient and outpatient care, relying on non-physician providers, training programs, and technology to deliver more appropriate care to specific patient groups. We also discuss the ongoing evaluation plans to assess the effects of these interprofessional practices on patient health, quality of care, and healthcare costs. We conclude that successful implementation of interprofessional teams involves more than just a reassignment of tasks, but also depends on structuring the environment and workflow in a way that facilitates team-based care.

Implementing a Discharge Follow-up Phone Call Program Reduces Readmission Rates in an Integrated Health System.

ABSTRACT: In this study, we sought to determine the effect of implementing a large-scale discharge follow-up phone call program on hospital readmission rates. Previous work has shown that patients with unaddressed concerns during discharge have significantly higher rates of care complications and hospital readmissions. This study is an observational quality improvement project completed from April 17, 2020 to January 31, 2022 at 22 hospitals in a large, integrated academic health system. A nurse-led scripted discharge follow-up phone call program was implemented to contact all patients discharged from inpatient care within 72 hours of discharge. Readmission rates were tracked before and after project implementation. Over a 21-month span, 137,515 phone calls were placed, and 57.92% of patients were successfully contacted within 7 days of discharge. The 7-day readmission rate for contacted patients was 2.91% compared with 4.73% for noncontacted patients. The 30-day readmission rate for contacted patients was 11.00% compared with 12.17% for noncontacted patients. We have found that discharge follow-up phone calls targeting patients decreases risk of readmission, which improves overall patient outcomes.

COVID-19 contagious health care personnel 5-day early return-to-work program.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 contagious health care personnel (HCP) who are self-isolating for a 10-day period increases burden to workforce shortages. Implementation of a 5-day early return-to-work (RTW) program may reduce self-isolation periods, without increasing transmission risk, during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND METHODS: This observational cohort quality improvement study included newly diagnosed COVID-19 HCP at a multifacility health care system. The program allowed HCP to return to work 6 days after date of a positive test result if they were not immunocompromised, had mild and improving symptoms, and self-reported a SARS-CoV-2 antigen negative test on day 5. RESULTS: Between January 4 and April 3, 2022, 1,023 HCP self-enrolled and 344 (33.6%) self-reported negative test results. Among these, 161 (46.8%) self-reported negative test results on day 5 and were eligible for early RTW on day 6. A total of 714 days were saved from missed work in self-isolation. The number of tests purchased, dispensed, and reported per day of HCP time saved was 4.4. No transmission events were observed originating from HCP who participated in early RTW. CONCLUSION: Implementing a 5-day early RTW program that includes HCP self-reporting SARS-CoV-2 antigen test results can increase staffing availability, while maintaining a low risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Assessment of the effectiveness of ultraviolet-C disinfection on transmission of hospital-acquired pathogens from prior room occupants.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ultraviolet-C (UV-C) disinfection as an adjunct to standard chlorine-based disinfectant terminal room cleaning in reducing transmission of hospital-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) from a prior room occupant. Design: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare rates of MDRO transmission by UV-C status from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2018. Setting: Acute-care, single-patient hospital rooms at 6 hospitals within an academic healthcare system in Pennsylvania. Methods: Transmission of hospital-acquired MDRO infection was assessed in patients subsequently assigned to a single-patient room of a source occupant with carriage of 1 or more MDROs on or during admission. Acquisition of 5 pathogens was compared between exposed patients in rooms with standard-of-care chlorine-based disinfectant terminal cleaning with or without adjunct UV-C disinfection. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted risk of pathogen transfer with adjunctive use of UV-C disinfection. Results: In total, 33,771 exposed patient admissions were evaluated; the source occupants carried 46,688 unique pathogens. Prior to the 33,771 patient admissions, 5,802 rooms (17.2%) were treated with adjunct UV-C disinfection. After adjustment for covariates, exposed patients in rooms treated with adjunct UV-C were at comparable risk of transfer of any pathogen (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .64). Conclusion: Our analysis does not support the use of UV-C in addition to post-discharge cleaning with chlorine-based disinfectant to lower the risk of prior room occupant pathogen transfer.

A learning health system approach to the COVID-19 pandemic: System-wide changes in clinical practice and 30-day mortality among hospitalized patients.

Introduction: Rapid, continuous implementation of credible scientific findings and regulatory approvals is often slow in large, diverse health systems. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a new threat to this common "slow to learn and adapt" model in healthcare. We describe how the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) committed to a rapid learning health system (LHS) model to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A treatment cohort study was conducted among 11 429 hospitalized patients (pediatric/adult) from 22 hospitals (PA, NY) with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (March 19, 2020 - June 6, 2021). Sociodemographic and clinical data were captured from UPMC electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Patients were grouped into four time-defined patient "waves" based on nadir of daily hospital admissions, with wave 3 (September 20, 2020 - March 10, 2021) split at its zenith due to high volume with steep acceleration and deceleration. Outcomes included changes in clinical practice (eg, use of corticosteroids, antivirals, and other therapies) in relation to timing of internal system analyses, scientific publications, and regulatory approvals, along with 30-day rate of mortality over time. Results: The mean (SD) daily number of admissions across hospitals was 26 (29) with a maximum 7-day moving average of 107 patients. System-wide implementation of the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab occurred within days of release of corresponding seminal publications and regulatory actions. After adjustment for differences in patient clinical profiles over time, each month of hospital admission was associated with an estimated 5% lower odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.97, P < .001). Conclusions: In our large LHS, near real-time changes in clinical management of COVID-19 patients happened promptly as scientific publications and regulatory approvals occurred throughout the pandemic. Alongside these changes, patients with COVID-19 experienced lower adjusted 30-day mortality following hospital admission over time.

Evaluation of Bebtelovimab for Treatment of Covid-19 During the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Era.

Background: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment is associated with decreased risk of hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. Bebtelovimab exhibits in vitro activity against the Omicron variant and its sublineages; however, clinical data are lacking. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing bebtelovimab-treated patients with propensity score-adjusted and matched nontreated control groups. Participants included high-risk outpatients eligible for bebtelovimab treatment under Emergency Use Authorization with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test from March 30 to May 28, 2022. Treated patients received single-dose intravenous treatment with bebtelovimab. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death over 28 days. Results: Before matching/statistical adjustment, mAb-treated patients were, on average, 10 years older than nontreated patients (61.6 vs 51.3 years) and had higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, cancer, organ or cell transplant, and immunocompromised status (standardized mean differences ≥0.20). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of hospitalization or death comparing 1006 treated with 2023 nontreated patients was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80). Among 930 treated and 930 propensity score-matched nontreated patients, the incidence of hospitalization or death was 3.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86). The lower odds ratio of hospitalization or death associated with bebtelovimab treatment was most evident in older patients, those with immunocompromised status, and fully vaccinated patients. Conclusions: Monoclonal antibody treatment with bebtelovimab among COVID-19 outpatients is associated with lower odds of hospitalization or death, particularly among immunocompromised and older patients.

Launching a comparative effectiveness adaptive platform trial of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in 21 days.

Outpatient treatments that limit progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are of vital importance to optimise patient outcomes and public health. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) demonstrated ability to decrease hospitalizations in randomized, clinical trials. However, there are many barriers to mAb treatment such as patient access and clinician education. There are no data comparing efficacy or safety of available mAbs. We sought to rapidly launch an adaptive platform trial with the goals of enhancing access to treatment, regardless of geography and socioeconomic status, and evaluating comparative efficacy and safety of available mAbs. Within 21 days from idea genesis, we allocated mAb treatment to all patients within the context of this clinical trial. Within 2 months, we closed the gap of the likelihood of receiving mAb, conditional on background positivity rate, between Black and White patients (Black patients 0.238; White patients 0.241). We describe trial infrastructure, lessons learned, and future directions for a culture of learning while doing.

Association of Subcutaneous or Intravenous Administration of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibodies With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With COVID-19.

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objectives: To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied. Exposures: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

Preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 Testing to Sustain Medically Needed Health Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a preprocedural severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening initiative designed to sustain health care during a time when the extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection was unknown. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients undergoing procedures at 3 academic hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (April 21-June 11), and 19 community hospitals across Middle/Western Pennsylvania and Southwestern New York (May 1-June 11). Patients at academic hospitals underwent symptom screening ≤7 days preprocedure, then SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing 1-4 days preprocedure. A subset also underwent day-of-procedure testing. Community hospital patients underwent testing per local protocols. We report SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rates, impact, and barriers to testing encountered through June 11. PCR positivity rates of optional preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 testing for 2 consecutive periods following the screening initiative are also reported. RESULTS: Of 5881 eligible academic hospital patients, 2415 (41.1%) were tested (April 21-June 11). Lack of interest, distance, self-isolation, and nursing home/incarceration status were barriers. There were 11 PCR-positive patients (10 asymptomatic) among 10 539 patients tested (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.05%-0.19%): 3/2415 (0.12%; 95% CI, 0.02%-0.36%) and 8/8124 (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.19%) at academic and community hospitals, respectively. Procedures were performed as scheduled in 40% (4/10) of asymptomatic PCR-positive patients. Positivity increased during subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surges: 54/34 948 (0.15%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.20%) and 101/24 741 (0.41%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.50%) PCR-positive patients from June 12-September 10 and September 11-December 15, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing preprocedural PCR testing was complex and revealed low infection rates (0.24% overall), which increased during COVID-19 surges. Additional studies are needed to define the COVID-19 prevalence threshold at which universal preprocedural screening is warranted.

Emergency department implementation of monoclonal antibody infusion for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: A template for rapid deployment.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy can improve coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes when infused early in select patients. We sought to rapidly create and implement a program for emergency department (ED) mAb infusion to aid care. Using multiple strategies and actions-education, selection criteria, screening tools, rapid testing, compounding, and delivery-we infused 832 ED patients with a mAb. The screening tool identified 94.5% of these patients as potential candidates. Length of stay was nearly identical for patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 versus those requiring testing. Mild adverse reactions occurred in 2.3% of mAb infusions, and severe reactions occurred in 0.5% of infusions. We highlight a strategic approach for using the ED as a key coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic site for this intervention and with high utility and low disruption.

Impact of Bamlanivimab Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Hospitalization and Mortality Among Nonhospitalized Adults With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody treatment may prevent complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy on hospitalization and mortality among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. METHODS: In this observational study we compared outpatients who received bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody from December 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 to nontreated patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the same period who were eligible for monoclonal antibody treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization or all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization. The risk-adjusted odds of study outcomes comparing bamlanivimab treated and untreated patients was determined using 1:5 propensity matching and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 232 patients receiving bamlanivimab matched with 1160 comparator patients, the mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and 196 (14%) of patients experienced hospitalization or mortality. After adjustment for propensity to receive treatment, bamlanivimab treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk-adjusted odds of hospitalization or mortality within 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.24-0.69; P < .001). Bamlanivimab treatment was also associated with a significantly lower risk adjusted odds of hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82; P = .004). The results were most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: Bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy was associated with reduced hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.Use of bamlanivimab monotherapy for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection was associated with reductions in hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days. Benefit was strongest in those age 65 years or older.

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization PARTICIPANTS: We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable - e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. RANDOMISATION: We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.