Compassionate Use of REGEN-COV® in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Immunodeficiency-Associated Antibody Disorders

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

Patients with immunodeficiency-associated antibody disorders are at a higher risk of prolonged/persistent COVID-19 infection, having no viable treatment options.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients with primary and/or secondary immunodeficiency-associated antibody disorders who received casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV®) under emergency compassionate use. Objective were to describe safety and response to REGEN-COV, focusing on the subset of patients who had COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment.

Results

Quantitative (change in oxygenation status and/or viral load) and/or qualitative (physician-reported clinical status) outcomes data are reported from 64 patients. Improvement in ≥1 outcome was observed in 90.6% of the overall patient group. Thirty-seven of these had COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment; median time from diagnosis to REGEN-COV treatment was 60.5 days. Of the 29 patients with COVID-19 duration ≥21 days before treatment and available outcome data, 96.6% showed improvement in ≥1 outcome. In the 14 patients with post-treatment reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results available, 11 (78.6%) reported a negative RT-PCR following treatment, with 5 (45.5%) and 8 (72.7%) patients reporting a negative RT-PCR within 5 days and 21 days of treatment, respectively. Ten of 85 patients (11.8%) experienced serious adverse events; only one was an infusion-related reaction, possibly related to REGEN-COV. Two deaths were reported; neither were attributed to REGEN-COV.

Conclusions

In this retrospective analysis of immunodeficient patients granted REGEN-COV under emergency compassionate use, REGEN-COV treatment was associated with rapid viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with longstanding COVID-19. Adverse events were consistent with COVID-19 and its associated complications, and due to patients’ concurrent medical conditions.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265911: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The institutional review board (WCG IRB, Puyallup, WA; IRB tracking number 20212896) found that this research met the requirements for a waiver of consent under 45 CFR 46 116(f) and 45 CFR 46.116(d).
    Consent: All patients provided written informed consent before receiving treatment.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.