Sotrovimab 500mg/8ml solution for infusion vials

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30). CONCLUSION: The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ABSTRACT Background and Aim Remdesivir and Sotrovimab have emerged as potential treatment options for patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs in the context of COVID‐19 management. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar up to July 2024. The effectiveness outcomes examined included mortality rate, hospitalization rate, emergency department visits, ICU admission, and adverse events. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions was evaluated using a standardized tool, and data from the identified studies were meticulously analyzed using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA) software. Results The analysis incorporated a total of 9 studies involving 7841 patients. The meta‐analysis findings indicated no significant disparity between the Remdesivir and Sotrovimab groups concerning mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50–24.11, p = 0.20), hospitalization rate (OR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.85–5.22, p = 0.10), emergency department visit (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.11–5.62, p = 0.82), and intensive care unit (2.37, 95% CI: 0.18–29.90, p = 0.50). Moreover, comparable rates of adverse events were observed across both groups (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.39–2.47, p = 0.97). The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Conclusion The study findings suggest that there is no significant difference in effectiveness between Remdesivir and Sotrovimab in the treatment of COVID‐19 patients. Further research is needed to provide a more comprehensive comparison of these interventions for COVID‐19.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with monoclonal antibodies provides rapid, passive immunity and may stop COVID-19 disease progression. The study evaluated the effect of bamlanivimab (BAM) or BAM + etesevimab (ETE)/sotrovimab compared to placebo on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The phase 2, randomized, single-dose study included patients aged between ≥ 18 and < 65 years, not hospitalized at the time of randomization, and had ≥ 1 mild or moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Study included arms 1-6 (placebo, BAM 175 mg + ETE 350 mg, BAM 700 mg + ETE 1400 mg, BAM 2800 mg + ETE 2800 mg, BAM 700 mg alone, and BAM 350 mg + ETE 700 mg, respectively), BAM 700 mg + ETE 700 mg unintentional dosing; and arms 7 and 8 (BAM 700 mg + sotrovimab 500 mg and placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 log viral load > 5.27 on day 7 (persistently high viral load [PHVL]) who received BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab). RESULTS: A total of 725 patients, mean age 39.6 years (range 18-75 years), 50.2% male were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 1-6; and a total 202 patients, mean age 38 years (range 18-63 years), 53.5% female were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 7 and 8. A significantly lower proportion of patients in arms 2-6 and arm 7 experienced PHVL on day 7 compared to placebo. On day 7, patients in arms 2, 3, and 6 consistently experienced significantly greater reduction in viral load than placebo. Significant improvement was observed in time to viral load clearance and time to symptom improvement by day 29 in some arms compared to placebo. No new safety concerns were observed with drug combinations. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab) experienced a PHVL at day 7. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04634409.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an unprecedented healthcare crisis, one that threatened to overwhelm health systems and prompted an urgent need for early treatment options for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomised clinical trials established the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) early in the pandemic; in vitro data subsequently led to use of the mAbs being discontinued, without clear evidence on how these data were linked to outcomes. In this study, we describe and compare real-world outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab versus untreated patients. METHODS: Electronic health records from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) were used to identify US patients (aged ≥ 12 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 (positive test or ICD-10: U07.1) in an ambulatory setting (27 September 2021-30 April 2022) who met Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) high-risk criteria. Patients receiving the mAb sotrovimab within 10 days of diagnosis were assigned to the sotrovimab cohort, with the day of infusion as the index date. Untreated patients (no evidence of early mAb treatment, prophylactic mAb or oral antiviral treatment) were assigned to the untreated cohort, with an imputed index date based on the time distribution between diagnosis and sotrovimab infusion in the sotrovimab cohort. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation or death (both all-cause) within 29 days of index, reported as descriptive rate and adjusted [via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)] odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of nearly 2.9 million patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during the analysis period, 4992 met the criteria for the sotrovimab cohort, and 541,325 were included in the untreated cohort. Before weighting, significant differences were noted between the cohorts; for example, patients in the sotrovimab cohort were older (60 years versus 54 years), were more likely to be white (85% versus 75%) and met more EUA criteria (mean 3.1 versus 2.2) versus the untreated cohort. The proportions of patients with 29-day hospitalisation or death were 3.5% (176/4992) and 4.5% (24,163/541,325) in the sotrovimab and untreated cohorts, respectively (unadjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.91; p = 0.001). In adjusted analysis, sotrovimab was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of hospitalisation or death compared with the untreated cohort (IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.92; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab demonstrated clinical effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes (hospitalisation, mortality) in the period 27 September 2021-30 April 2022, which included Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants and an early surge of Omicron BA.2 variant.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

SUMMARY Background Sotrovimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody that has been proposed as a treatment for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia. In the sotrovimab comparison, eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual care alone or usual care plus a single 1g dose of sotrovimab, using web-based unstratified randomisation. Participants were retrospectively categorised according to their baseline serum SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen concentration as ‘high-antigen’ or ‘low-antigen’, using the median concentration as a cut-off. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge alive from hospital, and, among those not on invasive ventilation at baseline, progression to invasive ventilation or death. Recruitment closed on 31 March 2024 when funding ended. ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04381936 ). Findings From 4 January 2022 to 19 March 2024, 1723 patients were recruited to the sotrovimab comparison. 720 (42%) were classified as high-antigen, 717 (42%) as low-antigen, and 286 (17%) had unknown antigen status. Over 80% of patients were vaccinated, over 80% had anti-spike antibodies at randomisation, and almost all were infected with Omicron variants. In the prespecified primary efficacy population of high-antigen patients, 82/355 (23%) allocated sotrovimab versus 106/365 (29%) allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-0.99; p=0.046). In an analysis of all randomised patients (regardless of antigen status), 177/828 (21%) allocated sotrovimab versus 201/895 (22%) allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.16; p=0.60). Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, sotrovimab was associated with reduced mortality in the primary analysis population of patients with a high serum SARS-CoV-2 antigen concentration at baseline, but not in the overall population. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

Abstract licence: CC BY

BACKGROUND: Sotrovimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in the RECOVERY trial, an investigator-initiated, individually randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial testing treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia to 107 UK hospitals were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual care alone or usual care plus a single 1 g infusion of sotrovimab, using web-based unstratified randomisation. Participants were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years, or aged 12-17 years if weighing at least 40kg, and had confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with no medical history that would put them at significant risk if they participated in the trial. Participants were retrospectively categorised as having a high antigen level if baseline serum SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen was above the median concentration (the prespecified primary efficacy population), otherwise they were categorised as having a low antigen level. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were assessed among all participants, regardless of antigen level. Recruitment closed on March 31, 2024, when funding ended. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: From Jan 4, 2022, to March 19, 2024, 1723 patients were enrolled in the RECOVERY sotrovimab comparison. Of these, 828 (48%) were assigned to usual care plus sotrovimab and 895 (52%) were assigned to usual care only. Mean patient age was 70·7 years (SD 14·8) and 1033 (60%) were male. 720 (42%) patients were classified as having a high antigen level, 717 (42%) as having a low antigen level, and 286 (17%) had unknown antigen status. 1389 (81%) patients were vaccinated, 1179 (82%) of 1438 patients with known serostatus had anti-spike antibodies at randomisation, and 1021 (>99%) of 1026 patients with sequenced samples were infected with omicron variants. Among patients with a high antigen level, 82 (23%) of 355 assigned to sotrovimab versus 106 (29%) of 365 assigned usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·56-0·99; p=0·046). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of antigen status), 177 (21%) of 828 patients assigned to sotrovimab versus 201 (22%) of 895 assigned to usual care died within 28 days (0·95, 0·77-1·16; p=0·60). Infusion reactions were recorded in 12 (2%) of 781 patients receiving sotrovimab. We found no difference between groups in any other safety outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia, sotrovimab was associated with reduced mortality in the primary analysis population who had a high serum SARS-CoV-2 antigen concentration at baseline, but not in the overall population. Treatment options for patients admitted to hospital are limited, and mortality in those receiving current standard of care was high. The emergence of high-level resistance to sotrovimab among subsequent SARS-CoV-2 variants restricts its current usefulness, but these results indicate that targeted neutralising antibody therapy could potentially still benefit some patients admitted to hospital who are at high risk of death in an era of widespread vaccination and omicron infection. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Abstract licence: CC BY