Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Efficacy predictors of omalizumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: Findings from a post-hoc analysis of a randomised phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy as an add-on therapy in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This post-hoc analysis assessed the potential predictors for the efficacy of omalizumab in these patients. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was performed on a Phase III, randomised, controlled study conducted in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma (NCT01202903). We evaluated if levels of pre-treatment serum total immunoglobulin-E (IgE) and blood eosinophil (EOS), asthma severity, allergen profile, history of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and free IgE level during omalizumab treatment were predictive of omalizumab's efficacy. RESULTS: This analysis included 608 patients (omalizumab, N = 306; placebo, N = 302). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) scores with omalizumab treatment compared with placebo were observed in patients with baseline IgE levels ≥76 IU/mL (irrespective of the EOS count). Relatively greater improvements with omalizumab treatment was also noted in patients with both moderate or severe allergic asthma (regardless of asthma severity), and patients sensitised to >3 allergens and with a history of PAR. All patients who were treated with omalizumab achieved free IgE levels below 50 ng/mL by Week 1. Similar clinical outcomes were observed in the subset of patients who achieved free IgE levels of <25 and ≥ 25 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, baseline IgE and allergen profile (number/PAR history) are potential predictors of treatment response to omalizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01202903 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Pooled solifenacin overactive bladder trial data: Creation, validation and analysis of an integrated database.

BACKGROUND: Patient-level data are available for 11 randomized, controlled, Phase III/Phase IV solifenacin clinical trials. METHODS: Meta-analyses were conducted to interrogate the data, to broaden knowledge about solifenacin and overactive bladder (OAB) in general. Before integrating data, datasets from individual studies were mapped to a single format using methodology developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). Initially, the data structure was harmonized, to ensure identical categorization, using the CDISC Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM). To allow for patient level meta-analysis, data were integrated and mapped to analysis datasets. Mapping included adding derived and categorical variables and followed standards described as the Analysis Data Model (ADaM). Mapping to both SDTM and ADaM was performed twice by two independent programming teams, results compared, and inconsistencies corrected in the final output. ADaM analysis sets included assignments of patients to the Safety Analysis Set and the Full Analysis Set. RESULTS: There were three analysis groupings: Analysis group 1 (placebo-controlled, monotherapy, fixed-dose studies, n = 3011); Analysis group 2 (placebo-controlled, monotherapy, pooled, fixed- and flexible-dose, n = 5379); Analysis group 3 (all solifenacin monotherapy-treated patients, n = 6539). Treatment groups were: solifenacin 5 mg fixed dose, solifenacin 5/10 mg flexible dose, solifenacin 10 mg fixed dose and overall solifenacin. Patient were similar enough for data pooling to be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Creating ADaM datasets provided significant information about individual studies and the derivation decisions made in each study; validated ADaM datasets now exist for medical history, efficacy and AEs. Results from these meta-analyses were similar over time.