Rowan Christopher G, Nichols Russell M, Dhopeshwarkar Neil, Alyea Jennifer M, Zhu Baojin, Toh Sengwee, Chan K Arnold, Grace Elsie L
COHRDATA, INC, San Clemente, CA, USA.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Pulm Ther. 2025 Mar;11(1):55-67. doi: 10.1007/s41030-024-00284-w. Epub 2024 Dec 25.
This real-world study assessed the effectiveness of bebtelovimab (BEB) versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) among outpatients with COVID-19 during the Omicron variant era.
We conducted a cohort study evaluating patients treated with BEB or NR from February to August 2022 (study period). Follow-up began the day after treatment and continued for 30 days. Cohorts were constructed using de-identified electronic health record data from TriNetX Dataworks USA. The study assessed 30-day all-cause hospitalization or death (composite) using the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
Unmatched cohorts included 12,920 BEB- and 70,741 NR-treated patients. After exact matching on key baseline covariates (age > 65 years, immunocompromised, recent emergency department [ED] visit, and COVID-19 vaccination) and high-dimensional propensity score matching (1:1) on a broader set of covariates, 5827 patients were included in each cohort. BEB-treated patients were older and had more comorbidities compared to NR-treated patients prior to matching. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (hospitalization or death) was 2.0% and 1.8% for BEB and NR, respectively (RD 0.2%; 95% CI - 0.3%, 0.7%). The upper bound of the RD 95% CI (0.7%) excluded the noninferiority margin (1.795%), demonstrating that BEB was not inferior to NR. The RDs of the secondary outcomes were (BEB vs NR): hospitalization (RD 0.1%; 95% CI - 0.4%, 0.6%); ED visit (RD 0.5%; 95% CI - 0.3%, 1.3%); and death (RD 0.09%; 95% CI - 0.003%, 0.2%). Results from subgroup, sensitivity, and linked analyses (EHR + claims + mortality data) were consistent with the main results.
Treatment with BEB was not inferior to NR with respect to 30-day all-cause hospitalization or death. The risk of secondary outcomes was not different for patients treated with BEB compared to NR.
这项真实世界研究评估了在奥密克戎变异株流行时期,比布替尼(BEB)与奈玛特韦/利托那韦(NR)对新冠门诊患者的疗效。
我们进行了一项队列研究,评估2022年2月至8月(研究期)接受BEB或NR治疗的患者。随访从治疗后次日开始,持续30天。队列使用美国TriNetX Dataworks的去识别电子健康记录数据构建。该研究使用风险差异(RD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)评估30天全因住院或死亡(复合终点)。
未匹配队列包括12920例接受BEB治疗的患者和70741例接受NR治疗的患者。在对关键基线协变量(年龄>65岁、免疫功能低下、近期急诊就诊和新冠疫苗接种)进行精确匹配,并对更广泛的协变量集进行高维倾向评分匹配(1:1)后,每个队列纳入5827例患者。匹配前,接受BEB治疗的患者比接受NR治疗的患者年龄更大,合并症更多。匹配后,基线特征得到很好的平衡。主要结局(住院或死亡)的累积发生率在BEB组和NR组分别为2.0%和1.8%(RD 0.2%;95%CI -0.3%,0.7%)。RD 95%CI的上限(0.7%)排除了非劣效性界值(1.795%),表明BEB不劣于NR。次要结局的RD分别为(BEB组对比NR组):住院(RD 0.1%;95%CI -0.4%,0.6%);急诊就诊(RD 0.5%;95%CI -0.3%,1.3%);死亡(RD 0.09%;95%CI -0.003%,0.2%)。亚组分析、敏感性分析和关联分析(电子健康记录+理赔+死亡率数据)的结果与主要结果一致。
在30天全因住院或死亡方面,BEB治疗不劣于NR。与接受NR治疗的患者相比,接受BEB治疗的患者次要结局风险无差异。