tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Mayo Clin Proc
. 2022 May;97(5):943-950.
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.02.009. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
Rates of Severe Outcomes After Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Treatment of High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019
John O'Horo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Douglas W Challener[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ryan J Anderson[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Richard F Arndt[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Sara E Ausman[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Scott T Hall[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alexander Heyliger[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Brian D Kennedy[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Perry W Sweeten[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Ravindra Ganesh[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Raymund R Razonable[SUP] 9 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk persons. There has been no study comparing their clinical efficacy. In this retrospective study of 681 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during a period dominated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 wild-type and alpha variants, 25 patients (3.7%) had progression to a severe outcome requiring hospitalization and oxygen supplementation within 30 days after monoclonal antibody infusion. Severe outcome was significantly higher among the 181 patients who were treated with casirivimab-imdevimab when compared with the 500 patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (21 [6.6%] vs 13 [2.6%]; P=.01). Patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab had higher odds of severe outcomes compared with those who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.17 to 6.06). The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the time to monoclonal antibody infusion, of the 2 treatment cohorts were not significantly different. The reason behind this significant difference in the clinical outcomes is unclear, but our observations emphasize potential efficacy differences among antispike monoclonal antibodies against COVID-19. Further clinical studies using larger cohorts of patients are needed to confirm or refute these observations.
. 2022 May;97(5):943-950.
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.02.009. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
Rates of Severe Outcomes After Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Treatment of High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019
John O'Horo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Douglas W Challener[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ryan J Anderson[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Richard F Arndt[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Sara E Ausman[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Scott T Hall[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alexander Heyliger[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Brian D Kennedy[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Perry W Sweeten[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Ravindra Ganesh[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Raymund R Razonable[SUP] 9 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35512884
- DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.02.009
Abstract
Bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk persons. There has been no study comparing their clinical efficacy. In this retrospective study of 681 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during a period dominated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 wild-type and alpha variants, 25 patients (3.7%) had progression to a severe outcome requiring hospitalization and oxygen supplementation within 30 days after monoclonal antibody infusion. Severe outcome was significantly higher among the 181 patients who were treated with casirivimab-imdevimab when compared with the 500 patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (21 [6.6%] vs 13 [2.6%]; P=.01). Patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab had higher odds of severe outcomes compared with those who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.17 to 6.06). The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the time to monoclonal antibody infusion, of the 2 treatment cohorts were not significantly different. The reason behind this significant difference in the clinical outcomes is unclear, but our observations emphasize potential efficacy differences among antispike monoclonal antibodies against COVID-19. Further clinical studies using larger cohorts of patients are needed to confirm or refute these observations.