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

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

Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab in Mild or Moderate Covid-19.

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

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

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

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

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

Afabicin, a First-in-Class Antistaphylococcal Antibiotic, in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Clinical Noninferiority to Vancomycin/Linezolid.

Afabicin (formerly Debio 1450, AFN-1720) is a prodrug of afabicin desphosphono, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) inhibitor, and is a first-in-class antibiotic with a novel mode of action to specifically target fatty acid synthesis in Staphylococcus spp. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of afabicin were compared with those of vancomycin/linezolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to staphylococci in this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, and double-dummy phase 2 study. Randomized patients (1:1:1) received either low-dose (LD) afabicin (intravenous [i.v.] 80 mg, followed by oral 120 mg, twice a day [BID]), high-dose (HD) afabicin (i.v. 160 mg, followed by oral 240 mg, BID), or vancomycin/linezolid (i.v. vancomycin 1 g or 15 mg/kg, followed by oral linezolid 600 mg, BID). The most frequent baseline pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (97.5% of microbiological intent-to-treat [mITT] population), and 50.4% of patients had methicillin-resistant S. aureus Clinical response rates at 48 to 72 h postrandomization in the mITT population were comparable among treatment groups (94.6%, 90.1%, and 91.1%, respectively). Both LD and HD afabicin were noninferior to vancomycin/linezolid (differences, -3.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -10.8%, 3.9%] and 1.0% [95% CI, -7.3%, 9.2%], respectively). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and were headache (9.1% and 16.8%) and nausea (6.4% and 8.4%) with LD and HD afabicin, respectively. Afabicin was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of ABSSSI due to staphylococci, and these data support further development of afabicin for the treatment of ABSSSI and potentially other types of staphylococcal infections. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02426918.).

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Iclaprim Vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Suspected or Confirmed to be Due to Gram-Positive Pathogens: REVIVE-1.

Background: Our objective in this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of iclaprim compared with vancomycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Methods: REVIVE-1 was a phase 3, 600-patient, double-blinded, randomized (1:1), active-controlled trial among patients with ABSSSI that compared the safety and efficacy of iclaprim 80 mg fixed dose with vancomycin 15 mg/kg, both administered intravenously every 12 hours for 5-14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was a ≥20% reduction in lesion size (early clinical response [ECR]) compared with baseline among patients randomized to iclaprim or vancomycin at the early time point (ETP), 48 to 72 hours after the start of administration of study drug in the intent-to-treat population. Results: ECR among patients who received iclaprim and vancomycin at the ETP was 80.9% (241 of 298) of patients receiving iclaprim compared with 81.0% (243 of 300) of those receiving vancomycin (treatment difference, -0.13%; 95% confidence interval, -6.42%-6.17%). Iclaprim was well tolerated in the study, with most adverse events categorized as mild. Conclusions: Iclaprim achieved noninferiority (10% margin) at ETP compared with vancomycin and was well tolerated in this phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of ABSSSI. Based on these results, iclaprim appears to be an efficacious and safe treatment for ABSSSI suspected or confirmed to be due to gram-positive pathogens. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02600611.

Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life allow for single-dose treatment. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) received either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7-10 days of twice-daily vancomycin. Three efficacy endpoints were tested for noninferiority: (1) primary composite endpoint at 48-72 hours (cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no rescue antibiotic); (2) investigator-assessed clinical cure 7-14 days after end of treatment; and (3) ≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomycin, respectively. All 3 efficacy endpoints met the 10% noninferiority margin: the primary composite endpoint (80.1% vs 82.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 2.0), investigator-assessed clinical cure (82.7% vs 80.5%; 95% CI, -2.6 to 7.0), and proportion of patients attaining ≥20% reduction in lesion area (85.9% vs 85.3%; 95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0) for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the frequency of adverse events, were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7-10 days of vancomycin in treating ABSSSIs caused by gram-positive pathogens, and was well tolerated. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multidose therapies for the treatment of ABSSSIs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01252732.

American Board of Emergency Medicine report on residency training information (2014-2015).

The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) gathers extensive background information on emergency medicine residency programs and the residents in those programs. We present the 2015 annual report on the status of US emergency medicine training programs.

Costs and Benefits of Initial Certification for Emergency Medicine Residency Graduates.

BACKGROUND: Graduates of emergency medicine residency programs can seek certification from the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), yet the costs and perceived value by residents is not clear. OBJECTIVE: This report sought to better define the value of board certification by asking physicians taking the ABEM Oral Certification Examination (OCE) to describe its costs (eg, time, money) and perceived benefits. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional, voluntary, anonymous survey was administered to physicians taking the 2018 spring and fall ABEM OCEs. Response frequencies were used to report response rates. RESULTS: There were 2016 physicians who participated in the 2018 OCEs, of whom 1565 (78%) completed a survey. With respect to preparation, 38% (599 of 1565 responses) spent more than 30 hours preparing for the examination. Regarding the expense of preparing for the examination, 21% (328) spent nothing, 50% (776) spent less than $1,000, and 2% (38) spent more than $3,000. Most physicians (80%, 1254) reported a learning benefit to preparing for and taking the OCE. There were 49% (765) of respondents who reported that preparing for the examination reinforced their knowledge of emergency medicine; 20% (311) reported no learning benefit. Most physicians (92%, 1442) reported that ABEM certification provided a career benefit, the most common of which was more career opportunities (69%, 1076). CONCLUSIONS: Initial certification requires a considerable investment of time and money. Physicians seeking initial ABEM certification found both learning and professional benefits, with the most frequently reported being reinforcement of medical knowledge and more career opportunities.

Initial Validity Analysis of the American Board of Emergency Medicine Enhanced Oral Examination.

OBJECTIVES: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) has introduced a new testing format for the oral certification examination (OCE): the enhanced oral or "eOral" format. The purpose of this study was to perform initial validity analyses of the eOral format. The two hypotheses were: 1) the case content in the eOral format was sufficiently similar to clinical practice and 2) the eOral case materials were sufficiently similar to clinical practice. The eOral and traditional formats were compared for these characteristics. METHODS: This was a prospective survey study. The survey was administered as a voluntary postexamination activity at the end of the 2015 spring (April 25-27) and fall (October 10-13) ABEM OCEs. The survey is a routine part of the ABEM oral examination experience. For 2015, two additional questions were added to gauge the similarity of the eOral format to clinical practice. Validity was defined by content and substantive elements within Messick's model of construct validity as well as portions of Kane's validity model. RESULTS: Of the 1,746 physicians who took the oral examination, 1,380 physicians (79.0%) completed all or part of the study survey questions. The majority of respondents agreed the patient presentations in the cases were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to cases seen in clinical practice, in both the traditional cases (95.1%) and the eOral cases (90.1%). Likewise, the majority of respondents answered that the case materials (e.g., laboratory, radiographs) were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to what they encounter in clinical practice, both in the traditional format (85.8%) and in the eOral cases (93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency physicians reported that the types of cases tested in the traditional and eOral formats were similar to cases encountered in clinical practice. In addition, most physicians found the case materials to be similar to what is seen in clinical practice. This study provides early validity evidence for the eOral format.

The American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination: Emergency Physicians' Perceptions of Learning and Career Benefits.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, ABEM-certified physicians are required to pass the Continuous Certification (ConCert) examination at least every 10 years. With the 2015 ConCert examination, ABEM sought to better understand emergency physicians' perceptions of the benefits of preparing for and taking the examination and the career benefits of staying ABEM-certified. METHODS: This was a prospective survey study. A voluntary postexamination survey was administered at the end of the 2015 ABEM ConCert examination (September 21-26, 2015). Physicians were asked about the benefits of preparing for the examination and maintaining ABEM certification. Examination performance was compared to perceptions of learning and career benefits. RESULTS: Of the 2,601 on-time test takers, 2,511 respondents participated (96.5% participation rate). The majority of participants (92.0%) identified a benefit to preparing for the ConCert examination, which included reinforced medical knowledge (73.9%), increased knowledge (66.8%), and making them a better clinician (39.4%). The majority of respondents (90.8%) identified a career benefit of maintaining ABEM certification, which included more employment options (73.8%), more positively viewed by other physicians (56.8%), and better financial outcomes (29.8%). There was a statistically significant association between the perception of knowledge reinforcement and examination performance (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant association between the perception that staying certified created more career opportunities and examination performance (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency physicians identified benefits of preparing for and taking the ABEM ConCert examination, which included reinforcing or adding medical knowledge and making them better clinicians. Most physicians also found career benefits to remaining ABEM-certified, which included greater employment choices, higher financial compensation, and higher esteem from other physicians. The belief that preparing for and taking the examination reinforced medical knowledge was associated with better examination performance.

Physician Preparation for the American Board of Emergency Medicine ConCert Examination.

OBJECTIVES: To maintain certification by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), physicians are required to pass the Continuous Certification (ConCert) examination at least every 10 years. On the 2014 ConCert postexamination survey, ABEM sought to understand the manner in which ABEM diplomates prepared for the test and to identify associations between test preparation approaches and performance on the ConCert examination. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. The survey was administered at the end of the 2014 ConCert examination. Analyses included chi-square and linear regression to determine the association of preparation methods with performance. RESULTS: Of the 2,431 on-time test-takers, 2,338 (96.2%) were included. The most commonly used study approach was the review of written materials designed for test preparation (1,585; 67.8%), followed by an online training course (1,006; 43.0%). There were 758 (32.4%) physicians who took a single onsite board review course, while 41 (1.8%) took two or more onsite courses. Most physicians (1,611; 68.9%) spent over 35 hours preparing for the ConCert examination. The study method that was most associated with favorable test scores was the review of written materials designed for test preparation (p < 0.001). Attending an onsite preparation course was associated with poorer performance (p < 0.001). There was a significant association between no additional preparation and failing the examination (chi-square with Yates correction; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial majority (97.8%) of physicians taking the 2014 ABEM ConCert examination prepared for it. The majority of physicians used written materials specifically designed for test preparation. Reviewing written materials designed for test preparation was associated with the highest performance.

Intravenous peramivir for treatment of influenza in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Influenza causes over 200,000 hospitalizations a year in the United States, but few antiviral treatment studies have focused on patients hospitalized with influenza. This open-label, randomized study was initiated during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic to help assess the antiviral activity, safety and tolerability of 5-10 days treatment with two different dosing regimens of the intravenous neuraminidase inhibitor, peramivir, in hospitalized subjects with influenza. METHODS: Quantitative virology was done on nasopharyngeal swab specimens from subjects ≥6 years of age to measure change from baseline in tissue culture infective dose (primary end point) and quantitative viral RNA levels by real-time PCR. Clinical end points included time to clinical resolution, a composite end point of four vital signs and oxygen saturation. RESULTS: A total of 234 hospitalized patients were randomized to peramivir 300 mg twice daily or 600 mg once daily; 127 had laboratory confirmed influenza. In those with detectable virus at baseline, viral titres declined without differences between regimens. There were no significant differences in clinical or virological end points between treatment arms, and apparent differences were explained by baseline disease severity differences in the groups. Peramivir was generally safe and well tolerated for treated patients hospitalized with pandemic influenza with outcomes similar to those described in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: This open-label trial of intravenous peramivir in subjects hospitalized predominantly with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) demonstrated that once- or twice-daily administration was associated with decreases in viral shedding and clinical improvement. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00957996.