Effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab during Delta variant surge: a prospective cohort study and comparative effectiveness randomized trial - Huang, David T.; McCreary, Erin K.; Bariola, J. Ryan; Minnier, Tami E.; Wadas, Richard J.; Shovel, Judith A.; Albin, Debbie; Marroquin, Oscar C.; Kip, Kevin E.; Collins, Kevin; Schmidhofer, Mark; Wisniewski, Mary Kay; et al. (medRxiv, 2021)
IMPORTANCE The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab, for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from the Delta variant is unknown.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs for the Delta variant compared to no treatment, and the comparative effectiveness between mAbs.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two parallel studies among patients who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria for mAbs from July 14, 2021 to September 29, 2021: i.) prospective observational cohort study comparing mAb treatment to no mAb treatment and, ii.) Bayesian adaptive randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab versus sotrovimab. In the observational study, we compared eligible patients who received mAb at an outpatient infusion center at UPMC, to nontreated patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly allocated casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab to patients presenting to infusion centers and emergency departments, per system therapeutic interchange policy.EXPOSURE Intravenous mAb per their EUA criteria.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For the observational study, risk ratio estimates for hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment to no mAb treatment using propensity matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, 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 <1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound.RESULTS Among 3,558 patients receiving mAb, the mean age was 54 (SD 18 years), 1,511 (43%) were treated in an infusion center, and 450 (13%) were hospitalized or died by day 28. In propensity matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR)=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28–0.57). Both casirivimab and imdevimab (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20–0.50), and sotrovimab (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.37–1.00) reduced hospitalization or death compared to no mAb treatment. Among patients allocated randomly to casirivimab and imdevimab (n=2,454) or sotrovimab (n=1,104), the median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28–28) for both groups, 28-day mortality was 0.5% (n=12) and 0.6% (n=7), and hospitalization by day 28 was 12% (n=291) and 12% (n=140), respectively. Compared to casirivimab and imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70–1.11) for sotrovimab. This odds ratio yielded 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were both associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04790786Question In non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, what is the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to no treatment, and what is the comparative effectiveness between mAb?Findings Among 3,069 patients, mAb treatment (casirivimab and imdevimab or sotrovimab) was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 28 days compared to no treatment (risk ratio=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28–0.57). In a Bayesian randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab and imdevimab vs. sotrovimab in 3,558 patients, the median hospital–free days were 28 days for both groups. Compared to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70–1.11) for sotrovimab, an 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence.Meaning In non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04790786Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:UPMC Quality Improvement Review Committee (Project ID 2882, Project ID 3116, and Project ID 3280) and the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (STUDY21020179) gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.