SAB-185治疗非住院成人COVID-19的安全性和有效性:随机临床试验。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Kara W Chew, Babafemi O Taiwo, Carlee Moser, Eric S Daar, David Alain Wohl, Justin Ritz, Arzhang Cyrus Javan, Jonathan Z Li, William Fischer, Alexander L Greninger, Christoph Bausch, Thomas Luke, Robert Call, Gene Neytman, Mark J Giganti, Courtney V Fletcher, Michael D Hughes, Joseph J Eron, Judith S Currier, Davey M Smith
{"title":"SAB-185治疗非住院成人COVID-19的安全性和有效性:随机临床试验。","authors":"Kara W Chew, Babafemi O Taiwo, Carlee Moser, Eric S Daar, David Alain Wohl, Justin Ritz, Arzhang Cyrus Javan, Jonathan Z Li, William Fischer, Alexander L Greninger, Christoph Bausch, Thomas Luke, Robert Call, Gene Neytman, Mark J Giganti, Courtney V Fletcher, Michael D Hughes, Joseph J Eron, Judith S Currier, Davey M Smith","doi":"10.1093/infdis/jiae369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.</p>","PeriodicalId":50179,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kara W Chew, Babafemi O Taiwo, Carlee Moser, Eric S Daar, David Alain Wohl, Justin Ritz, Arzhang Cyrus Javan, Jonathan Z Li, William Fischer, Alexander L Greninger, Christoph Bausch, Thomas Luke, Robert Call, Gene Neytman, Mark J Giganti, Courtney V Fletcher, Michael D Hughes, Joseph J Eron, Judith S Currier, Davey M Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/infdis/jiae369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae369\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景为了满足对新型COVID-19疗法的需求,我们在一项3期临床试验中评估了全人多克隆抗体产品SAB-185:方法:在COVID-19症状出现后7天内的非住院高危成人按1:1随机分配至开放标签SAB-185 3,840单位/公斤或卡西利韦单抗/伊马单抗1200毫克。对Omicron前人群进行了非劣效性比较(预计卡西利单抗/伊美单抗完全活跃),对Omicron人群进行了优效性比较(预计卡西利单抗/伊美单抗不活跃)。主要结果是全因住院/死亡和第28天≥3级治疗突发不良事件(TEAE)的复合结果。次要结果包括症状持续改善和缓解的时间:由于 Omicron 出现后住院率/死亡率较低,因此提前终止了入组。733 名成人接受了随机治疗,其中 255 人接受了奥美康治疗前的分析,392 人接受了奥美康治疗后的分析。Omicron前SAB-185和casirivimab/imdevimab两组分别有6人(5.0%)和3人(2.2%)发生住院/死亡(绝对差异[95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]),非劣效性不确定;Omicron两组分别有5人(2.5%)和3人(1.5%)发生住院/死亡(绝对差异1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%])。≥3级TEAE的风险比分别为0.94 [0.52,1.71](奥美康前)和1.71 [0.96,3.07](奥美康)。SAB-185 的症状改善和缓解时间更短,中位数分别为 11 天 vs 14 天(奥美康前)和 11 天 vs 13 天(奥美康)(症状改善),16 天 vs 24 天和 18 天 vs >25 天(症状缓解),P 结论:SAB-185具有可接受的安全性,在奥米控人群中症状缓解更快。还需要进行更多研究来确定其对 COVID-19 的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial.

Methods: Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution.

Results: Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only.

Conclusions: SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
3.10%
发文量
449
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1904, The Journal of Infectious Diseases (JID) is the premier global journal for original research on infectious diseases. The editors welcome Major Articles and Brief Reports describing research results on microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and related disciplines, on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases; on the microbes that cause them; and on disorders of host immune responses. JID is an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信