Virologic Efficacy of Casirivimab and Imdevimab COVID-19 Antibody Combination in Outpatients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Phase 2 Dose-Ranging Randomized Clinical Trial

Biosimilars Targeting Pathogens: A Comprehensive Review of Their Role in Bacterial, Fungal, Parasitic, and Viral Infections

Biosimilars represent medicinal products that exhibit a high degree of similarity to an already sanctioned reference biologic agent, with negligible clinically significant disparities concerning safety, purity, or potency. These therapeutic modalities are formulated as economically viable substitutes for established biologics, thereby facilitating increased accessibility to sophisticated treatments for a range of medical conditions, including infectious diseases caused by bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens. The current landscape of biosimilars includes therapeutic proteins, such as monoclonal antibodies, antimicrobial peptides, antiviral peptides, and antifungal peptides. Here, we discuss the obstacles inherent in the development of biosimilars, including the rapid mutation rates of pathogens. Furthermore, we discuss innovative technologies within the domain, including antibody engineering, synthetic biology, and cell-free protein synthesis, which exhibit potential for improving the potency and production efficiency of biosimilars. We end with a prospective outlook to highlight the importance and capacity of biosimilars to tackle emerging infectious diseases, highlighting the imperative need for ongoing research and financial commitment.

Effect of timing of casirivimab and imdevimab administration relative to mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination on vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody responses: a prospective, open-label, phase 2, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Deeper insight is needed on how monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) affect vaccine-mediated immune responses when targeting the same protein. We describe the first prospective randomised trial designed to understand mAb-mediated alterations in vaccine-induced immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein epitopes.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, parallel-group study assessed the potential interaction of a mAb combination, casirivimab and imdevimab, with a vaccine, Moderna's mRNA-1273, in healthy SARS-CoV-2 immunologically naive, seronegative adults at six centres in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (per prespecified randomisation ratios within enrolment waves) according to a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by age (<65 years and ≥65 years), to various intravenous or subcutaneous doses of casirivimab and imdevimab before, after, or at the same time as mRNA-1273 or to mRNA-1273 only. The doses of casirivimab and imdevimab were chosen to mimic various time intervals between receipt of 1200 mg of the mAb and the first dose of a primary series with mRNA-1273. The primary endpoint was vaccine-induced 50% inhibitory dilution neutralising antibody titres to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, 56 days after the first vaccination. Secondary endpoints included vaccine-induced total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antigens and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Exploratory endpoints included blood-derived T-cell and B-cell responses. The per-protocol set was used for the analysis of the primary endpoint and included all randomly assigned participants who received both doses of the vaccine and completed the injection or infusion of casirivimab and imdevimab per protocol, had no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past or in the 56 days after the first dose of vaccine, and did not receive any intervention outside of the study that could alter the immune response. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants who had received one or more doses of mRNA-1273 or any study drug, and analysed based on treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04852978, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between April 29, 2021, and Nov 21, 2022, 807 participants were assessed for eligibility and 295 were randomly assigned. 293 participants were included in the safety analysis set and 260 were included in the per-protocol set. All vaccinated participants developed neutralising antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, with median titres above the published protective threshold (100 IU/mL) against the SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant (considered a reference strain at the time the initial COVID-19 vaccines were developed). Titres were decreased up to 4-fold (median titres 280-450 IU/mL for casirivimab and imdevimab vs 1160 IU/mL for vaccine only on day 56) when casirivimab and imdevimab was given 85 days or less before vaccination (150-1200 mg intravenously) or co-administered subcutaneously (600 mg or 1200 mg) with vaccination. Minimal reduction in neutralisation titres was observed in the 48 mg and 12 mg intravenous groups, corresponding to receipt of casirivimab and imdevimab 113 days and 169 days, respectively, before vaccination, and when administering the vaccine 6 days before the mAb. Across all groups, mAbs had a minimal effect on vaccine-induced total antibodies and T-cell responses to the spike protein. Casirivimab and imdevimab plus mRNA-1273 was generally well tolerated; a slight increase in treatment-emergent adverse events was observed in the casirivimab and imdevimab plus vaccine groups versus the vaccine-only group.

INTERPRETATION

Casirivimab and imdevimab administration before or at the time of COVID-19 vaccination reduced the elicitation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies, but minimal effect was observed when vaccination occurred before mAb administration. Although the clinical significance of this decrease in neutralisation is unclear, this evidence suggests that further investigation of potential interactions could be warranted before concurrent clinical use of mAbs and vaccines targeting the same viral proteins as their main modes of action for the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases.

FUNDING

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Ronapreve (REGN-CoV; casirivimab and imdevimab) reduces the viral burden and alters the pulmonary response to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in K18-hACE2 mice using an experimental design reflective of a treatment use case

With some exceptions, global policymakers have recommended against the use of existing monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 due to loss of neutralization of newer variants. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of Ronapreve on compartmental viral replication using paradigms for susceptible and insusceptible variants. Virological efficacy and impact on pathogenicity was assessed in K18-hACE2 mice inoculated with either the Delta or BA.1 Omicron variants. Ronapreve reduced sub-genomic viral RNA levels in lung and nasal turbinate, 4 and 6 days post-infection, for the Delta variant but not the Omicron variant. It also blocked brain infection, which is seen with high frequency in K18-hACE2 mice after Delta variant infection. At day 6, the inflammatory response to lung infection with the Delta variant was altered to a multifocal granulomatous inflammation in which the virus appeared to be confined. The current study provides evidence of an altered tissue response to SARS-CoV-2 after treatment with a monoclonal antibody combination that retains neutralization activity. These data demonstrate that experimental designs that reflect treatment use cases are achievable in animal models for monoclonal antibodies. Extreme caution should be taken when interpreting prophylactic experimental designs that may not be representative of treatment.IMPORTANCEFollowing the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, the WHO recommended against the use of Ronapreve in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines due to a lack of efficacy based on current pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic understanding. However, the continued use of Ronapreve, specifically in vulnerable patients, was advocated by some based on in vitro neutralization data. Here, the virological efficacy of Ronapreve was demonstrated in both the lung and brain compartments using Delta as a paradigm for a susceptible variant. Conversely, a lack of virological efficacy was demonstrated for the Omicron variant. Comparable concentrations of both monoclonal antibodies were observed in the plasma of Delta- and Omicron-infected mice. This study made use of a reliable murine model for SARS-CoV-2 infection, an experimental design reflective of treatment, and demonstrated the utility of this approach when assessing the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of severe COVID-19: a retrospective study during Omicron BA.1 variant surge

Among treatment options for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) showed to be effective in preventing disease progression, but real-world data during the Omicron variant surge are still lacking. Multicentre retrospective study evaluating the effectiveness of sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in fragile patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection between November 2021 and March 2022. Unfavourable outcome was defined as increased need for oxygen supplementation and/or death. Of 268 study-participants, 12 (4.48%) previously needed supplemental oxygen, while 6 (2.24%) had active solid neoplasia (2.24%); 186 (69%) have previously received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Overall, 22 (8%) had unfavourable outcomes (42% versus 6% of patients with and without previous oxygen need and 50% versus 7% of patients with and without active solid neoplasia). Both supplemental oxygen therapy before SARS-CoV-2 infection and solid malignant tumour have shown to be risk factors for treatment failure. Log-rank test did not identify differences between sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab treatment. Despite diffusion of Omicron variant, the rate of unfavourable outcome was higher than expected. The presence of underlying risk factors, including solid cancer and previous oxygen therapy are independently associated with risk of COVID-19 progression, suggesting the need for antiviral treatments not limited to mAbs and implementation of vaccine campaign.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

A joint Bayesian hierarchical model for estimating SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNA viral dynamics and seroconversion

Understanding the viral dynamics of and natural immunity to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is crucial for devising better therapeutic and prevention strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we present a Bayesian hierarchical model that jointly estimates the genomic RNA viral load, the subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) viral load (correlated to active viral replication), and the rate and timing of seroconversion (correlated to presence of antibodies). Our proposed method accounts for the dynamical relationship and correlation structure between the two types of viral load, allows for borrowing of information between viral load and antibody data, and identifies potential correlates of viral load characteristics and propensity for seroconversion. We demonstrate the features of the joint model through application to the COVID-19 post-exposure prophylaxis study and conduct a cross-validation exercise to illustrate the model's ability to impute the sgRNA viral trajectories for people who only had genomic RNA viral load data.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing: Role and Indications

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, over 769 million confirmed COVID-19 cases, including close to 7 million COVID-19-related deaths, have been reported. Although mortality rates have dropped notably compared to the first months of the pandemic, spikes in reported cases and mortality rates continue to be registered. Both recent spikes in case numbers and the continued emergence of new variants suggest that vulnerable patient groups, including older adults, immunocompromised patients, and patients with severe comorbidities, are going to continue to be affected by COVID-19. In order to curb the pandemic, relieve the pressure on primary care facilities, and reduce mortality rates, global vaccination programs have been established by the WHO, with over 13.5 billion vaccine doses having been administered globally. In most immunocompetent individuals, vaccination against COVID-19 results in the production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies. However, certain patient subsets have inadequate or reduced immune responses, and immune responses are known to decrease with age. General recommendations on the timing of booster vaccinations may therefore be insufficient to protect vulnerable patients. This review aims to evaluate the clinical role of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, focusing on measurement indications, prognostic value, and potential as a correlate of protection to guide future booster vaccination strategies.

Efficacy and safety of casirivimab-imdevimab combination on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis randomized controlled trial

Background

The advantages and disadvantages of casirivimab-imdevimab for coronavirus disease 2019 are not well understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to determine the therapeutic effectiveness and potential side effects of casirivimab-imdevimab in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases were searched from the time of their commencement until February 28th, 2023. The primary results evaluated were the death rate at 28 days, progression of current clinical symptoms within 28 days, viral load, discharge from hospital, and any adverse events. Also, we contrasted the effects of the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment with placebo or standard of care. The protocol registration for this systematic review and meta-analysis was recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023412835).

Results

A total of eight studies were included, comprising 19,819 patients, and conducted a qualitative assessment of their risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Casirivimab-imdevimab effectively reduced the mortality rate (OR = 0.62; 95 % CI of 0.40-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 30 %) and reduced the progression of clinical symptoms (OR = 0.86; 95 % CI of 0.79-0.93; p = 0.0003; I2 = 57 %). Casirivimab-imdevimab also improved viral load clearance and hospital discharge. Additionally, the trials' findings demonstrated a slight decrease in the likelihood of adverse events occurring with the use of casirivimab-imdevimab.

Conclusion

Our research suggests that casirivimab-imdevimab may be a valuable, safe, and effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 regimen.

Clinical efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody in patients with COVID-19: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with usual care in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of neutralizing mAb treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified using electronic database searches through March 10, 2023. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 13 trials (23 articles) involving 25,646 patients were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, neutralizing mAbs were associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality in outpatients with COVID-19 (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.83; 12 studies), but not in inpatients. In the subgroup analysis, only outpatients infected prior to the emergence of Delta variant or those with mAb-VOC match had significantly reduced mortality, while no significant benefit was observed in patients infected with Delta and post-Delta variants or mAb-VOC mismatch. Moreover, the rate of hospitalization and number of hospital visits had significantly reduced only in outpatients infected prior to the emergence of the Delta variant and those with mAb-VOC match. Our systematic review used majority of the high-certainty evidence. Our study found neutralizing mAbs were beneficial for outpatients infected prior to Delta variant or mAb-VOC match. In the face of the continuous emergence of new COVID-19 variants, additional clinical data are needed to determine whether neutralizing mAb treatment will be effective for the newly emerging variants.

Current state-of-the-art and potential future therapeutic drugs against COVID-19

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues to endanger human health, and its therapeutic drugs are under intensive research and development. Identifying the efficacy and toxicity of drugs in animal models is helpful for further screening of effective medications, which is also a prerequisite for drugs to enter clinical trials. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) invades host cells mainly by the S protein on its surface. After the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome is injected into the cells, M protein will help assemble and release new viruses. RdRp is crucial for virus replication, assembly, and release of new virus particles. This review analyzes and discusses 26 anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs based on their mechanism of action, effectiveness and safety in different animal models. We propose five drugs to be the most promising to enter the next stage of clinical trial research, thus providing a reference for future drug development.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation.

Setting

Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings.

Methods

Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee.

Results

The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

Limitations

No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified.

Conclusions

The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies.

Future work

Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels on hospital admission as a correlate of protection against mortality

BACKGROUND

Millions of people have now been vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, it is still unclear which antibody levels provide protection against mortality. It is further unknown whether measuring antibody concentrations on hospital admission allows for identifying patients with a high risk of mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether anti-SARS-CoV2-spike antibodies on hospital admission predict in-hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicentre cohort study on 1152 hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a polymerase chain reaction-based assay. Patients were classified by vaccination status. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies were determined on hospital admission. The investigated end point was in-hospital mortality for any cause.

RESULTS

Spike antibodies on hospital admission were significantly lower in non-survivors in both non-vaccinated (73 U/ml, 95%CI 0-164 vs. 175 U/ml, 95%CI 124-235, p = 0.002) and vaccinated patients (1056 U/ml, 95%CI 701-1411 vs. 1668 U/ml, 95%CI 1580-1757, p < 0.001). Further, spike antibodies were significantly lower in fully vaccinated and boostered patients who died compared to those who survived (mean 883 U/ml, 95%CI 406-1359 vs. 1292 U/ml, 95%CI 1152-1431, p = 0.017 and 1485 U/ml, 95%CI 836-2133 vs. 2050 U/ml, 95%CI 1952-2149, p = 0.036). Patients infected with the currently prevailing Omicron variant were three times more likely to die if spike antibodies were <1200 U/ml (OR 3.458, 95%CI 1.562-7.656, p = 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, this value increased to an aOR of 4.079 (95%CI 1.809-9.198, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV2 spike-antibody levels on hospital admission are inversely associated with in-hospital mortality. Hospitalized patients with lower antibody levels have a higher risk of mortality.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.