Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
The clinical value of bamlanivimab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients depends on whether patients have endogenous neutralizing antibodies at the time of treatment, according to new research.
In the randomized controlled trial, in both the group who received bamlanivimab and the group who received placebo, higher antigen and viral RNA levels were associated with a lower proportion of patients achieving recovery.
Other studies have shown that the use of monoclonal antibodies reduces hospitalization risk in outpatients with early COVID-19, and appears to promote viral load decline in the nasopharynx, wrote Jens D. Lundgren, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues in their article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. What had been missing prior to this new research was final results from hospitalized patients, can prozac cause mouth sores the authors said.
In the new study, the researchers randomized 314 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but without end-organ failure to receive 7,000 mg bamlanivimab (163 patients) or a placebo (151 patients). All patients received study-supplied remdesivir unless contraindicated. The researchers compared the efficacy of bamlanivimab versus placebo, but considered remdesivir the standard of care in this study.
At baseline, 50% of patients overall had antispike endogenous neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), and 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1,000 ng/L.
The median time to sustained recovery, 19 days, was not significantly different between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio, 0.99).
“As hypothesized, among those who were negative for nAb, the difference between bamlanivimab and placebo was more evident if levels of plasma antigen or nasal-swab viral RNA were above the median entry levels,” with subhazard ratios of 1.48 and 1.89, respectively, the researchers explained.
However, the hazard ratio for death for bamlanivimab vs. placebo was 0.45 for patients negative for nAb vs. 3.53 for those positive for nAb. These differences with respect to nAb status were similar across all 90 elements of a composite safety outcome, the researchers said.
Potential Benefits Remain Unclear
The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies has been extensively documented as an effective treatment for COVID-19 among ambulatory patients, corresponding author Lundgren said in an interview.
“Conversely, among admitted patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, the benefit has been questionable,” he said.
The researchers examined a hypothesis that the null finding in hospitalized patients may stem from differences in underlying mechanisms, “either from uncontrolled viral replication – which would be predicted to occur in particular among those not yet been able to mount an endogenous immune response – or from hyperinflammation among those that have mounted such a response,” Lundgren said.
The study findings supported the stated hypothesis, said Lundgren. “However, it was surprising that not only was the neutralizing antibody without any benefit among those that had mounted an endogenous immune response, but it actually may have been harmful,” he said.
Bamlanivimab was effective against the viral strain that circulated at the time of enrollment in the study, but subsequent viral strains have appeared to be unaffected by the neutralizing activity of the antibody, said Lundgren.
From a practical standpoint, “the findings would suggest that use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for patients admitted to a hospital with COVID pneumonia should be restricted to those that have not yet mounted an endogenous immune response, as determined by lack of detectable neutralizing antibodies at the time of admission,” Lundgren said.
Looking ahead, studies are currently underway to examine how the findings translate to vaccinated patients, he added. Other questions to be addressed include whether the benefits and harms apply to some or all neutralizing antibody products, he said.
In addition, “our research consortium is currently doing field testing of several point-of-care test candidates to examine their reliability and functionality,” for how quickly they might identify an endogenous neutralizing antibody response in an admitted COVID pneumonia patient,” Lundgren noted.
Findings Show Bamlanivimab’s Limits
“Based on the findings of the current study, no clear subgroup of patients could be identified who would benefit from bamlanivimab when hospitalized with COVID-19,” said Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“The study findings also show possible harm of using bamlanivimab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were seropositive for neutralizing antibodies prior to receiving therapy,” Pal emphasized. “Moreover, the study did not include participants with COVID-19 from variant strains, such as delta and omicron, which currently account for a large number of cases.” “Therefore, the results of this study do not support the use of bamlanivimab in the clinical setting until further evidence is available to guide the selection of patients who may benefit from therapy,” he explained.
“The possible benefit of bamlanivimab does not outweigh the risks in patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” he concluded.
Pal emphasized the need for larger prospective studies to establish whether bamlanivimab may have benefits in a subgroup of patients, but “well-validated point-of-care tests to identify such patients need to be readily available before this therapy can be considered by clinicians at the bedside,” he concluded.
Diligent Screening Required Before Use
Monoclonal antibody treatment has been administered to individuals with diagnosis of COVID-19 infection as outpatients as well as for hospitalized inpatients, said Noel Deep, MD, an internist in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study is important because it helps physicians and health care institutions to evaluate whether continued use of the monoclonal antibodies would be beneficial and, if so, in what patient populations,” he said.
The findings present interesting implications for the care of COVID-19 patients, said Deep. “This study indicates that bamlanivimab does not provide the benefit that was initially envisioned when the monoclonal antibody infusions were initially initiated in the treatment of COVID-19 infections. “Serological screening of the patients would help to identify that subgroup of individuals who could benefit from this monoclonal antibody rather than administering it to every COVID-19–positive individual,” he explained.
However, “it is important to note that the emergency use authorization (EUA) for single-agent bamlanivimab has been revoked,” Deep said.
“The potential benefits of bamlanivimab can be realized only if adequate attention is paid to identifying the appropriate candidates based on serological screening, and administering bamlanivimab to those who are already producing endogenous antibodies could lead to increased risk to those individuals,” he said. Deep added that he would favor administration of bamlanivimab “in those appropriately screened and eligible candidates, and it is my opinion that the benefits outweigh the risks in those individuals.”
Although the EUA for single-agent bamlanivimab has been revoked, “alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone,” Deep said. “The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19, and I would like to see some data about the benefits and risks of these agents,” he noted.
Limitations, Funding, and Disclosures
The main limitation of the study was the small size and the fact that it was a subgroup analysis of a trial that ended early because of futility, the researchers wrote. However, the Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19 (TICO) platform will proceed with clinical evaluation of additional COVID-19 treatments, they said.
The study was supported primarily by the U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Other funding sources included the Division of Clinical Research and Leidos Biomedical Research for the INSIGHT (International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials) Network, as well as an agreement between the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Research Triangle Institute for the PETAL (Prevention & Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury) Network and CTSN (Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network). Other support came from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the governments of Denmark (National Research Foundation), Australia (National Health and Medical Research Council), and the United Kingdom (Medical Research Council).
The medications used in the study were donated by Gilead Sciences and Eli Lilly.
The researchers had no financial conflicts do disclose. Deep and Pal had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
This article originally appeared on MDedge.com, part of the Medscape Professional Network.
Source: Read Full Article