Clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of casirivimab & imdevimab, remdesivir, and favipravir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab for preventing and treating COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The ongoing global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a serious public health problem. The selection of safe and effective therapeutic agents is of paramount importance. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab in the treatment of global cases of COVID-19.

Methods

To identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the combined administration of casirivimab and imdevimab for COVID-19 management, a comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to September 10, 2022. Data on the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab were extracted. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 851 articles were searched. Twelve studies were finally included in the meta-analysis, with 27,179 participants. Dichotomous and continuous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. Compared to placebo or alternative medications, the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load (WMD: -0.73, 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.38, P<0.01), all-cause mortality (OR =0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.99, P=0.03), the incidence of any serious adverse events (OR =0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95, P=0.01), the incidence of Grade 3 or more severe adverse events (OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.62-0.92, P=0.01), the likelihood of contracting COVID-19, the incidence of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and mortality (OR =0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.93, P=0.03).

Conclusions

The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab is effective in treating patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as they can reduce viral load, all-cause mortality, infection rates, and the incidence of clinical outcomes of special interest after treatment, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Remdesivir therapy for severe pediatric COVID-19 in Singapore: A single-center retrospective observational cohort study

Background and Aims

There is a paucity of information on remdesivir (RDV) use in severe pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the effectiveness of RDV as the cumulative proportion of pediatric COVID-19 patients deescalated from Day 5 of high dependency or intensive care unit (HD/ICU).

Methods

All children ≤18 years admitted to Singapore's largest pediatric hospital from January 1, 2020 to March 18, 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were included if they were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, required oxygen, and HD/ICU care. The characteristics and outcomes of those who received RDV or not (no-RDV) were compared.

Results

We reviewed 15 children with a median age of 2.5 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.8-11.0), of which 7 (46.7%) received RDV. There was no difference in cumulative proportion of children deescalated from Day 5 of HD/ICU care in the RDV versus the no-RDV group (5/7, 70% vs. 7/8, 87.5%, p = 0.57). The RDV versus no-RDV group had higher disease severity, that is, WHO Ordinal Scale scores (median 6, IQR: 5-7 vs. 5, IQR: 4-5, p = 0.03), higher procalcitonin levels (ug/L) (median 4.31, IQR: 0.8-24.2 vs. 0.12, IQR: 0.09-0.26, p = 0.02), and longer HD/ICU care days (median 5, IQR: 4-9, vs. 1, IQR: 1-4, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization days. There were no adverse events directly attributable to RDV. None died from COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

Our observational analysis was unable to detect any clear benefit of RDV in terms of reducing duration in HD/ICU. RDV was well-tolerated in children with severe COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir in Hospitalized Pediatric COVID-19: A Retrospective Case-Controlled Study

Introduction

While most children experience mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, a minority of cases progress to severe or critical illness. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Remdesivir (RDV) therapy in children with moderate to severe COVID-19, enhancing clinical decision-making and expanding our understanding of antiviral treatments for pediatric patients.

Methods

The study included 60 patients, 38 receiving RDV treatment and 22 serving as the control group. Data was collected retrospectively from January 2021 to January 2022 through electronic hospital records.

Results

Regarding the main clinical symptoms reported, most patients experienced Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (93.3%), indicating respiratory involvement. Additional symptoms included Central Nervous System (11.7%) and Gastrointestinal (10.0%). Among the 38 cases in the RDV group included in the study, the adverse effects associated with using RDV: Hypoalbuminemia in 19 cases (50.0%) and anemia in 18 cases (47.4%), making them the most common adverse effects. Only one case in the RDV group experienced non-RDV-related death with a different clinical diagnosis. The results showed that RDV treatment was well-tolerated in pediatric patients, with no significant differences in hospital stay and oxygen treatment compared to the control group with P values (0.2, 0.18), respectively.

Conclusion

The outcomes indicate that Remdesivir may represent a safe and therapeutic choice for children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic stimulates research works to find a solution to this crisis from starting 2020 year up to now. With ending of the 2021-year, various advances in pharmacotherapy against COVID-19 have emerged. Regarding antiviral therapy, casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination is a type of new immunotherapy against COVID-19. Standard antiviral therapy against COVID-19 includes Remdesivir and Favipiravir.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab) compared to standard antiviral therapy in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

METHODS

265 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction confirmed patients with indication for antiviral therapy were included in this study and were divided into 3 groups (1: 2: 2): Group A: REGN3048-3051 antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab), group B: Remdesivir, group C: Favipiravir. The study design is a single-blind non-randomized controlled trial Mansoura University Hospital owns the study's drugs. The duration of the study was about 6 mo after ethical approval.

RESULTS

Casirivimab and imdevimab achieve less need for O2 therapy and IMV, with less duration of this need than remdesivir and favipiravir.

CONCLUSION

Group A (casirivimab and imdevimab) achieve better clinical outcomes than groups B (remdesivir) and C (favipiravir) intervention groups.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection during obinutuzumab and bendamustine treatment for follicular lymphoma: A case report

Key Clinical Message

SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with a prolonged course and a poor prognosis in patients who receive anti-CD20 antibodies. However, there are no established treatments for such patients. Serial changes in the SARS-CoV-2 antigen titer during the clinical course and treatment strategies for immunosuppressed patients are discussed.

Abstract

We report a case of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection during obinutuzumab and bendamustine treatment for follicular lymphoma. Four years previously, the patient had been diagnosed with follicular lymphoma (Stage IIIA, Grade 2). She received several chemotherapy regimens, including rituximab and radiation therapy. Although these therapies achieved complete response temporally, they did not continue and recurred at 8 months before. Obinutuzumab and bendamustine therapy was selected, and she received five courses of obinutuzumab and bendamustine. She also received a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine two times. Although she did not have any symptoms, a routine check-up just before the 6th course of obinutuzumab and bendamustine revealed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because she was immunosuppressed and was considered to be at high risk for the exacerbation of her disease, molnupiravir was immediately administered, and her SARS-CoV-2 antigen decreased. However, it was not completely cleared and flared-up at 6 weeks, with symptoms of COVID-19 appearing. Despite intensive treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, including remdesivir, baricitinib, tocilizumab and intravenous immunoglobulin, her SARS-CoV-2 antigen titer never became negative, and she finally died of respiratory failure caused by prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serial changes in the SARS-CoV-2 antigen titer during the clinical course and treatment strategies for immunosuppressed patients are discussed.

Study to compare the effect of casirivimab and imdevimab, remdesivir, and favipiravir on progression and multi-organ function of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused a progress in research to find a solution to this pandemic. Also, various advances in pharmacotherapy against COVID-19 have emerged. Regarding antiviral therapy, casirivimab and imdevimab are antibodies combination against COVID-19. Standard antiviral therapy against COVID-19 includes remdesivir and favipiravir. The objectives were to compare progression and multi-organ function of hospitalized COVID-19 patients between these three antiviral groups. 265 COVID-19 hospitalized patients were included in this study and were divided into 3 groups (1:2:2), respectively, Group (A): casirivimab and imdevimab, group (B): remdesivir, and group (C): favipiravir. The design of the study is a single blind non-randomized controlled trial. This study is a phase IV clinical trial (post-marketing study). The duration of the study was about 6 months after receiving the ethical approval. Casirivimab and imdevimab achieved less case progression as presented by lower World Health Organization scale (P < 0.05 in comparing group A with B and C) and better multi-organ functions as presented by lower Sequential Organ Function Assessment score (P < 0.05 in comparing group A with B and C) than remdesivir and favipiravir. From all these results, it is concluded that Group A (casirivimab and imdevimab) produces better outcomes than B (remdesivir) and C (favipiravir) intervention groups.

A Comparison of the Adverse Effects and Utility of Different Monoclonal Antibodies for SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction Multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments have been developed to combat the growing number of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains. These treatments have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection with a low risk of adverse effects; however, more data is required to evaluate the comparative efficacy of mAbs. The primary objective of this study is to describe the hospitalization rate, length of stay (LOS), and mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with four different mAb treatments, including bamlanivimab plus etesevimab, casirivimab plus imdevimab, sotrovimab, and bebtelovimab. Methods A retrospective chart review and prospective phone surveys of SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with mAbs in a 400-bed tertiary, suburban medical center were conducted between June 2020 and April 2022. Eligibility criteria for mAbs included non-hospitalized patients over the age of 18 with less than 10 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and no oxygen requirement on emergency department (ED) admission. Data were collected from the retrospective chart review and subjective patient surveys. A chi-squared test was used. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05. Results The study population included 3249 patients, with 1537 males and 1712 females and an average age of 62.48 ± 17.54 years. Five hundred forty-two patients received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab; 849 received bebtelovimab; 1577 received casirivimab plus imdevimab; and 281 received sotrovimab. The overall hospitalization rate was 1.0%, and the mortality rate was 0.2% following mAb treatment. The hospitalization rate was greatest among patients administered Sotrovimab (2.1%) and least among patients administered Bebtelovimab (0.1%) (p = 0.010). 2.4% of patients who were discharged from the ED after receiving one of the four mAbs returned within 30 days with SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. The average length of stay was 4.75 ± 4.56 days, with no significant differences between the mAbs. The provider-reported adverse event rate was 2.2%, with significant differences in adverse event rates between mAbs. Bamlanivimab-etesevimab was associated with the highest adverse event rate (4.6%), and sotrovimab was associated with the lowest adverse event rate (1.4%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion This study shows a low hospitalization and mortality rate following mAb infusion in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19. However, there were significant differences in hospitalization and mortality among patients receiving each of the four mAb treatments. There was a high degree of patient-reported symptom improvement, and adverse reactions were reported in only 2.2% of patients with no severe reactions. Multiple monoclonal antibody treatments are not effective as monotherapy; however, this study shows the potential benefits of including a mAb infusion as part of a SARS-CoV-2 treatment plan.