Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD).

Methods

In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus.

Results

In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was −0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], −.51 to −.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%–74.0%). No safety concerns were noted.

Conclusions

In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT04426695.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265656: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to 2.4 g REGEN-COV (1.2 g casirivimab and 1.2 g imdevimab), 8.0 g REGEN-COV (4.0 g casirivimab and 4.0 g imdevimab), or placebo as a single intravenous dose.
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The absence of full representation across the spectrum of hospitalized patients on varying degrees of oxygen support is a limitation of this study. Additionally, this study was prematurely terminated due to slow recruitment prior to the current surge associated with the emergence of the Delta variant. As a result of the smaller sample size, key analyses pooled the two patient cohorts as well as the two doses. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal major efficacy differences across the cohorts or doses; minor variability in the magnitude of risk reductions, with greater effects for the 2.4 g dose compared to the 8.0 g dose, was likely due to small numbers within each group suggesting that either dose can be utilized in hospitalized individuals requiring low-flow or no supplemental oxygen. Overall, trends for treatment benefit on mortality and other efficacy endpoints extend the observations in the larger RECOVERY trial, where benefit was seen in all patients regardless of respiratory status. Authorized options for intervention with a monoclonal antibody anti-viral treatment have been restricted to outpatients with Covid-19 or as post-exposure prophylaxis.5-7 Taken together with reports from the RECOVERY trial, these data support REGEN-COV representing a well-tolerated and compelling treatment option to reduce the risk of mortality in hospitalized Covid-19 patients and across the disease continuum of SARS-CoV-2, from prevention to hospitalization.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04426695CompletedSafety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Anti-Spike (S) SARS-Co…


    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.