Clinical Research Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220957. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20957.
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.
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.
For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy.
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.
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.
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.
重要性:对于由 SARS-CoV-2 德尔塔变异株引起的轻度至中度 COVID-19 患者,单克隆抗体(mAb)、casirivimab-imdevimab 和 sotrovimab 的有效性尚不清楚。
目的:评估 mAb 与无 mAb 治疗相比的有效性,并确定 casirivimab-imdevimab 和 sotrovimab 的比较有效性。
设计、设置和参与者:本研究包括 2 项平行研究:(1)mAb 治疗与无 mAb 治疗的倾向评分匹配队列研究,以及(2)casirivimab-imdevimab 和 sotrovimab 的随机比较有效性试验。队列由在匹兹堡大学医学中心门诊输液中心和急诊部接受 mAb 治疗的患者组成,时间为 2021 年 7 月 14 日至 9 月 29 日。参与者为 SARS-CoV-2 检测结果呈阳性且根据紧急使用授权标准有资格接受 mAbs 的患者。
暴露:对于试验,根据系统治疗交换政策,患者随机接受静脉内 casirivimab-imdevimab 或 sotrovimab 治疗。
主要结果和措施:对于队列研究,使用倾向评分匹配模型比较 mAb 治疗和无 mAb 治疗的主要结局(28 天内住院或死亡)的风险比(RR)估计值。对于比较有效性试验,主要结局是 mAb 治疗后 28 天内的无住院天数(存活且无住院天数),在贝叶斯累积逻辑模型中,死亡患者被分配 -1 天,该模型调整了治疗地点、年龄、性别和时间。劣势定义为优势比(OR)的 99%后验概率小于 1。等效性定义为 OR 在给定范围内的 95%后验概率。
结果:共有 3069 名患者(1023 名接受 mAb 治疗:平均[标准差]年龄为 53.2[16.4]岁;569 名女性[56%];2046 名未接受 mAb 治疗:平均[标准差]年龄为 52.8[19.5]岁;1157 名女性[57%])被纳入前瞻性队列研究,3558 名患者(平均[标准差]年龄为 54[18]岁;1919 名女性[54%])被纳入随机比较有效性试验。在倾向评分匹配模型中,与无治疗相比,mAb 治疗与降低住院或死亡风险相关(RR,0.40;95%CI,0.28-0.57)。与无 mAb 治疗相比,casirivimab-imdevimab(RR,0.31;95%CI,0.20-0.50)和 sotrovimab(RR,0.60;95%CI,0.37-1.00)均与降低住院或死亡风险相关。在临床试验中,2454 名患者被随机分配接受 casirivimab-imdevimab 治疗,1104 名患者被随机分配接受 sotrovimab 治疗。两种 mAb 治疗的中位(IQR)无住院天数均为 28(28-28),casirivimab-imdevimab 的 28 天死亡率不到 1%(n=12), sotrovimab 的死亡率不到 1%(n=7),第 28 天的住院率 casirivimab-imdevimab 为 12%(n=291), sotrovimab 为 13%(n=140)。与接受 casirivimab-imdevimab 的患者相比,接受 sotrovimab 的患者在调整后的 28 天医院自由天数的中位调整 OR 为 0.88(95%可信区间,0.70-1.11)。这一 OR 为 sotrovimab 相对于 casirivimab-imdevimab 的劣势提供了 86%的可能性,而等效性的可能性为 79%。
结论和相关性:在这项倾向评分匹配的队列研究和随机比较有效性试验中,casirivimab-imdevimab 和 sotrovimab 对德尔塔变异株的有效性相似,尽管没有达到统计学劣势或等效性的预设标准。两种 mAb 治疗均与非住院轻度至中度 COVID-19 患者的住院或死亡风险降低相关,这些患者由 SARS-CoV-2 德尔塔变异株引起。
试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04790786。