Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3379.full.pdf

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence for immunotherapy strategies in patients with COVID-19. 

/pdf/a-guide-to-immunotherapy-for-covid-19-1524g892.pdf

A guide to immunotherapy for COVID-19

Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory‐produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID‐19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS‐CoV‐2‐targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)‐only search on 30 July 2021. Selection criteria We included studies that evaluated SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID‐19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all‐cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Main results We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non‐hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non‐hospitalised individuals with COVID‐19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision). Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3‐4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3‐4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16). Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3‐4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs. Hospitalised individuals with COVID‐19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included. Bamlanivimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3‐4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported. Authors' conclusions The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non‐hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long‐term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID‐19 and possible subgroup differences.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

Despite the success of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, there remains a need for more prevention and treatment options for individuals remaining at risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the viral spike protein have potential to both prevent and treat COVID-19 and reduce the risk of severe disease and death. Here, we describe AZD7442, a combination of two mAbs, AZD8895 (tixagevimab) and AZD1061 (cilgavimab), that simultaneously bind to distinct, nonoverlapping epitopes on the spike protein receptor binding domain to neutralize SARS-CoV-2. Initially isolated from individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two mAbs were designed to extend their half-lives and reduce effector functions. The AZD7442 mAbs individually prevent the spike protein from binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, blocking virus cell entry, and neutralize all tested SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In a nonhuman primate model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, prophylactic AZD7442 administration prevented infection, whereas therapeutic administration accelerated virus clearance from the lung. In an ongoing phase 1 study in healthy participants (NCT04507256), a 300-mg intramuscular injection of AZD7442 provided SARS-CoV-2 serum geometric mean neutralizing titers greater than 10-fold above those of convalescent serum for at least 3 months, which remained threefold above those of convalescent serum at 9 months after AZD7442 administration. About 1 to 2% of serum AZD7442 was detected in nasal mucosa, a site of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Extrapolation of the time course of serum AZD7442 concentration suggests AZD7442 may provide up to 12 months of protection and benefit individuals at high-risk of COVID-19. Description AZD7442 neutralizes SARS-CoV-2, has prophylactic and therapeutic efficacy in NHPs, and is projected to contribute to long-term human protection. Long-lasting antibodies Although monoclonal antibody therapeutics have considerably improved outcomes for individuals with COVID-19, their utility as a prophylactic intervention is restricted by the emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) and by short half-lives. To address this, Loo et al. evaluated a pair of antibodies, collectively termed AZD7442, which bind to two distinct epitopes on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and have been modified to have an extended half-life. The antibody combination protected nonhuman primates from infection with SARS-CoV-2 when administered prophylactically or therapeutically. The antibodies were also resistant to all tested VOC, including the delta variant. Last, the authors showed that AZD7442 administration to healthy adults resulted in neutralizing antibody titers that were projected to confer long-term protection.

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/scitranslmed.abl8124?download=true

The SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody combination, AZD7442, is protective in non-human primates and has an extended half-life in humans

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization or death in patients infected by SARS-CoV2 variants of concern (VOCs) receiving combinations of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Observational prospective study conducted in two Italian hospitals (University Hospital of Pisa and San Donato Hospital, Arezzo) including consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from March 20th to May 10th 2021. All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to FDA/AIFA recommendations. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the infecting viral strain (VOCs): Alpha and Gamma group. The primary endpoint was a composite of hospitalization or death within 30 days from mAbs infusion. A Cox regression multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome in the overall population. The study included 165 patients: 105 were infected by the VOC Alpha and 43 by the VOC Gamma. In the Alpha group, no differences in the primary endpoint were observed between patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Conversely, in the Gamma group, a higher proportion of patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab met the primary endpoint compared to those receiving casirivimab/imdevimab (55% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.013). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, the Gamma variant and days from symptoms onset to mAbs infusion were factors independently associated with higher risk of hospitalization or death, while casirivimab/imdevimab was protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.83, p = 0.019). In patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, bamlanivimab/etesevimab should be used with caution because of the high risk of disease progression.

/pdf/efficacy-of-bamlanivimab-etesevimab-and-casirivimab-1u3w0x83ln.pdf

Efficacy of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19 and Role of Variants of Concern.

BackgroundREGEN-COV is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of REGEN-COV in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus a single dose of REGEN-COV 8g (casirivimab 4g and imdevimab 4g) by intravenous infusion (REGEN-COV group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed first among patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at randomisation (seronegative) and then in the overall population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 18 September 2020 and 22 May 2021, 9785 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus REGEN-COV or usual care alone, including 3153 (32%) seronegative patients, 5272 (54%) seropositive patients and 1360 (14%) patients with unknown baseline antibody status. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 451 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0{middle dot}80; 95% CI 0{middle dot}70-0{middle dot}91; p=0{middle dot}0010). In an analysis involving all randomised patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 944 (20%) of 4839 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 1026 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0{middle dot}94; 95% CI 0{middle dot}86-1{middle dot}03; p=0{middle dot}17). The proportional effect of REGEN-COV on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity = 0{middle dot}001). InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) reduced 28-day mortality among patients who were seronegative at baseline. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

/pdf/casirivimab-and-imdevimab-in-patients-admitted-to-hospital-27zoo2nmx9.pdf

P Desai

Papers

Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial