Search

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted lung transplant recipients (LTR), who remain vulnerable to severe COVID-19 despite vaccination, prompting the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as a treatment option. This systematic review summarizes the clinical efficacy of mAbs against COVID-19 in adult LTR and provides a perspective on the role of mAbs for infectious diseases in the future. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane was conducted for studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult LTR or solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) including LTR with drug-specific outcomes. Twelve studies were included. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with mAbs reduced COVID-19 breakthrough infection in LTR. Early treatment of COVID-19 with mAbs correlated with a reduced incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, although statistical significance varied among studies. Overall, observational studies have demonstrated a potential benefit of mAbs in the treatment of COVID-19 in LTR, both in prophylaxis and early treatment, as well as the importance of early administration. Moreover, mAb therapy appeared safe and could be a viable option against other pathogens, a route that warrants further investigation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display%5frecord.php?RecordID=382133, identifier CRD42022382133. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We evaluated the fully human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 trial for COVID-19. Methods Nonhospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Noninferiority comparison was undertaken for 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. A secondary outcome was time to sustained symptom resolution. Results Enrollment ended early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence; 255 adults were in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms (absolute difference 2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.3%-8.6%); and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0%; 95% CI, −2.3%-4.5%) for Omicron. All risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were not significant. Time to symptom resolution was significantly shorter for SAB-185 for Omicron only: 18 versus >25 days; P =.006. Conclusions SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies MAB (casirivimab and imdevimab) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 with risk factors in real word settings. Materials and methods. A non-interventional non-comparative observational study with primary prospective data collection included 108 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 (mean age 61 years), who had risk factors for developing severe disease. All patients (n=108) were treated with a combination of MAB casirivimab and imdevimab intravenous single infusion 1200 mg (600 mg of each component). The efficacy and safety of MAB were assessed at 7, 14, and 28 days after infusion. Results. Efficacy. Indications for hospitalization by day 7 from the moment of MAB administration were in 0.9% (n=1), by day 14 in 1.9% (n=2), by day 28 in 0.9% of patients; to stay in the intensive care units by the 7th day in 4.6% (n=5), by the 14th day in 0.9% (n=1), by the 28th day in 0.9% (n=1) patients. During 28 days of follow up, the need for mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was registered in 2/108 (1.8%) patients. There were no deaths directly related to COVID-19 in the assessed cohort of patients. Safety. By the 28th day of the follow up, no adverse effects due to MAB therapy were registered. Conclusion. An analysis of the results of a non-interventional observational study summarized in this article showed the high efficacy and safety of virus-neutralizing MAB combination (casirivimab and imdevimab) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 with of risk factors for severe COVID-19 in real word settings.

IntroductionCasirivimab and imdevimab (CAS/IMV) are two non-competing, high-affinity human IgG1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, that showed a survival benefit in seronegative hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to estimate the day-28 risk of mechanical ventilation (MV) and death in individuals hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and receiving CAS/IMV. Additionally, it aimed to identify variables measured at the time of hospital admission that could predict these outcomes and derive a prediction algorithm.MethodsThis is a retrospective, observational cohort study conducted in 12 hospitals in Italy. Adult patients who were consecutively hospitalized from November 2021 to February 2022 receiving CAS/IMV were included. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of MV or death by day 28 from treatment initiation, and β-coefficients from the model were used to develop a risk score that was derived by means of leave-one-out internal cross-validation (CV), external CV, and calibration. Secondary outcome was mortality.ResultsA total of 480 hospitalized patients in the training set and 157 patients in the test set were included. By day 28, 36 participants (8%) underwent MV and 28 died (6%) for a total of 58 participants (12%) experiencing the composite primary endpoint. In multivariable analysis, four factors [age, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and platelets] were independently associated with the risk of MV/death and were used to generate the proposed risk score. The accuracy of the score in the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.80 and 0.77 in internal validation and test for the composite endpoint and 0.87 and 0.86 for death, respectively. The model also appeared to be well calibrated with the raw data.ConclusionThe mortality risk reported in our study was lower than that previously reported. Although CAS/IMV is no longer used, our score might help in identifying which patients are not likely to benefit from monoclonal antibodies and may require alternative interventions.

Abstract Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) prevent COVID-19 progression when administered early. We compared mAb treatment outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients during Delta wave and assessed the feasibility of implementing stricter eligibility criteria in the event of mAb scarcity. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of casirivimab/imdevimab recipients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection in an emergency department or outpatient infusion center (July 1–August 20, 2021). Primary outcome was all-cause hospital admission within 30 days post-treatment between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients during Delta surge in the Bronx, NY. Results A total of 250 patients received casirivimab/imdevimab (162 unvaccinated vs. 88 vaccinated). The median age was 39 years for unvaccinated patients, and 52 years for vaccinated patients (p

Background: Lung transplant recipients (LTRs) are at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐associated complications. Methods: We aimed to describe the outcomes of polymerase chain reaction‐documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection in LTRs followed at our institution from March 2020 to July 2022. The primary outcome investigated was hospitalization or death from COVID‐19‐related symptoms within 28 days from diagnosis. Results: Overall, 60 cases were included, of which 18 (30%) reached the primary outcome. Only one patient (2%) died. Anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were administered as early treatment in 36 patients (casirivimab/imdevimab = 2, sotrovimab = 31, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab = 3). Multivariate analysis revealed that age >60 years (p =.003; odds ratio [OR] 9.41; confidence interval [CI] 2.52–41.05) was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome, while administration of mAbs as early treatment (p =.030; OR 0.23; CI 0.06–0.87) was associated with a lower risk. No effect of vaccination and SARS‐CoV‐2 variant was observed. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity values did not decrease among 37 patients who had spirometry performed 1 month after COVID‐19. Conclusions: We observed a relatively low morbidity and mortality of COVID‐19 in LTR. mAb administration was associated with a better outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are now widely used in high-income countries to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 outpatients at risk for developing severe disease. Very few data are available on the use of mAbs in special populations, including pregnant and postpartum women. Here we present our early experience with mAbs in these two populations. Methods: Electronic records of pregnant and postpartum women treated with mAbs at Careggi University Hospital, Florence, were retrieved. Relevant data were extracted (age, presence of risk factors for COVID-19, oxygen support, mAb type, gestational age, and pregnancy status). When available, outcomes at 28 days after administration were also included. Results: From March 1st to September 30th 2021, eight pregnant and two postpartum women have been treated with mAbs at our center. The median age was 31 years (IQR 30–33.5, range 29–38), median gestational age was 24 weeks. Seven patients had additional risk factors. According to the Italian disposition, all patients received casirivimab/imdevimab, with five receiving a 2.4 mg dose and five receiving a 8 g dose. Eight patients improved. One developed myocarditis, considered a COVID-19 complication. Another required a transient increase of low flow oxygen support before improving and being discharged. At a 28 days follow-up, all patients were clinically recovered. We did not observe mAbs related adverse events. Conclusion: Although preliminary data should be interpreted with caution, it is remarkable how mAbs were well tolerated by pregnant women with COVID-19. Further data on mAbs in this special population should be collected but the use of mAbs in pregnant and postpartum patients should be considered. Even thus oral antivirals are becoming available, they are not recommended in pregnant and postpartum women. This population may specifically benefit from treatment with last generation mAbs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to provide in vitro data on the neutralization capacity of different monoclonal antibody (mAb) preparations against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) delta and omicron variant, respectively, and describe the in vivo RNA kinetics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients treated with the respective mAbs. Virus neutralization assays were performed to assess the neutralizing effect of the mAb formulations casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab on the SARS‐CoV‐2 delta and omicron variant. Additionally, respiratory tract SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA kinetics are provided for 25 COVID‐19 patients infected with either delta variant (n = 18) or omicron variant (n = 7) treated with the respective mAb formulations during their hospital stay. In the virus neutralization assay, sotrovimab exhibits neutralizing capacity at therapeutically achievable concentrations against the SARS‐CoV‐2 delta and omicron variant. In contrast, casivirimab/imdevimab had neutralizing capacity against the delta variant but failed neutralization against the omicron variant except for a very high concentration above the currently recommended therapeutic dosage. In patients with delta variant infections treated with casivirimab/imdevimab, we observed a rapid decrease of respiratory viral RNA at day 3 after mAb therapy. In contrast, no such prompt decline was observed in patients with delta variant or omicron variant infections receiving sotrovimab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent in-vitro data have shown that the activity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) varies according to the variant of concern (VOC). No studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different mAbs against Omicron VOC. Methods: The MANTICO trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacy of early treatments with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and sotrovimab in outpatients aged 50 or older with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. As the patient enrolment was interrupted for possible futility after the onset of the Omicron wave, the analysis was performed according to the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The primary outcome was coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression (hospitalisation, need of supplemental oxygen therapy, or death through day 14). Secondary outcomes included the time to symptom resolution, assessed using the product-limit method. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model were used to assess the association with predictors. Log rank test was used to compare survival functions. Results: Overall, 319 patients were included. Among 141 patients infected with Delta, no COVID-19 progression was recorded, and the time to symptom resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups (Log-rank Chi-square 0.22, p 0.90). Among 170 patients infected with Omicron (80.6% BA.1 and 19.4% BA.1.1), two COVID-19 progressions were recorded, both in the bamlanivimab/etesevimab group, and the median time to symptom resolution was 5 days shorter in the sotrovimab group compared with the bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups (HR 0.53 and HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36–0.77 and 95% CI 0.30–0.67, p

ABSTRACT Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) targeting the Spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is a key strategy to prevent severe COVID-19. Here, the efficacy of two monoclonal antibody bitherapies against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed on 92 patients at high risk of severe COVID-19 between March and October 2021 (Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France). Nine patients died despite appropriate management. From 14 days following treatment initiation, we observed a slower viral load decay for patients treated with the bitherapy Bamlanivimab/Etsevimab compared to the Casirivimab/Imdevimab association therapy (P = 0.045). The emergence of several mutations on the Spike protein known to diminish antiviral efficacy was observed from 1 to 3 weeks after infusion. The Q493R mutation was frequently selected, located in a region of joint structural overlap by Bamlanivimab/Etsevimab antibodies. Despite that this study was done on former SARS-CoV-2 variants (Alpha and Delta), the results provide new insights into resistance mechanisms in SARS-CoV-2 antibodies neutralization escape and should be considered for current and novel variants. IMPORTANCE Monoclonal antibody bitherapies (MAbs) are commonly prescribed to treat severe SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, and the rapid growth of resistance mutation emergence is alarming globally. To explore this issue, we conducted both clinical and genomic analyses of SARS-CoV-2 in a series of patients treated in 2021. We first noticed that the two dual therapies prescribed during the study had different kinetics of viral load decay. Rapidly after initiation of the treatments, resistance mutations emerged in the interface between the MAbs and the target Spike glycoprotein, demonstrating the importance to continuously screen the viral genome during treatment course. Taken together, the results highlight that viral mutations may emerge under selective pressure, conferring a putative competitive advantage, and could rapidly spread, as observed for the Omicron variant.

Post-coronavirus disease 2019 (post-COVID-19) condition, previously referred to as long COVID, includes a post-acute syndrome defined by the presence of nonspecific symptoms occurring usually 3 months from the onset of the acute phase and lasting at least 2 months. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represent a high-risk population for COVID-19. Moreover, the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is often absent or inadequate. The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the treatment landscape of COVID-19 allowed to reduce hospitalization and mortality in mild-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection, but limited data are available in hematological patients. We here report the effective use of casirivimab/imdevimab (CI) in the treatment of two CLL patients with persistent infection and post-COVID-19 condition. Full genome sequencing of viral RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs was performed at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and before the administration of CI. Both patients experienced persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection with no seroconversion for 8 and 7 months, respectively, associated with COVID symptoms. In both cases after the infusion of CI, we observed a rapid negativization of the nasal swabs, the resolution of post-COVID-19 condition, and the development of both the IgG against the trimeric spike protein and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. The analysis of the viralgenomein the periode lapsed from the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and the administration of mAbs showed the development of new mutations, especially in the S gene. The genome variations observed during the time suggest a role of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection as a possible source for the development of viral variants. The effects observed in these two patients appeared strongly related to passive immunity conferred by CI treatment permitting SARS-CoV-2 clearance and resolution of post-COVID-19 condition. On these grounds, passive anti-SARSCoV-2 antibody treatment may represent as a possible therapeutic option in some patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy has emerged as one of the mainstay treatment options for SARS-CoV-2. To improve speed of delivery and decrease bedside nursing needs, subcutaneous (SC) delivery of mAbs has been explored as an alternative to standard intravenous (IV) administration. To date, data regarding the effectiveness of SC compared with IV mAb are lacking. This retrospective cohort analysis conducted between April 2021 and August 2021 compared hospitalization rates among patients receiving IV versus SC administration of casirivimab/imdevimab (Regen-COV) at a single institution in Arkansas. Casirivimab/imdevimab was a promising mAb therapy utilized during the height of the Delta variant surge of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Before resistance developed by the Omicron variant, casirivimab/imdevimab was utilized for outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients at risk of deterioration. Primary outcomes of this investigation were the 30-day post-treatment rate of hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) care during hospitalization. There was no increased risk of hospitalization or ICU care with SC administration compared with IV administration. As SARS-CoV-2 continues to mutate into variants such as Omicron and develop resistance to existing mAbs, these preliminary findings of noninferiority of SC versus IV warrant ongoing investigation into SC administration of other mAbs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) prevent COVID-19 progression when administered early. We compared mAb treatment outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients during Delta wave and assessed the feasibility of implementing stricter eligibility criteria in the event of mAb scarcity.Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of casirivimab/imdevimab recipients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection in an emergency department or outpatient infusion center (July 1-August 20, 2021). Primary outcome was all-cause hospital admission within 30 days post-treatment between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients during Delta surge in the Bronx, NY.Results: A total of 250 patients received casirivimab/imdevimab (162 unvaccinated vs. 88 vaccinated). The median age was 39 years for unvaccinated patients, and 52 years for vaccinated patients (p < 0.0001). The median number of EUA criteria met was 1 for unvaccinated and 2 for vaccinated patients (p < 0.0001). Overall, 6% (15/250) of patients were admitted within 30 days post-treatment. Eleven unvaccinated patients (7%) were admitted within 30-days compared to 4 (5%) vaccinated patients (p = 0.48).Conclusions: All-cause 30-day admission was not statistically different between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. When federal allocation of therapies is limited, programs must prioritize patients at highest risk of hospitalization and death regardless of vaccination status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management of COVID-19 patients with humoral immunodeficiency is challenging. We describe a woman with COVID-19 with multiple relapses due to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment. She was successfully treated with casirivimab/imdevimab and confirmed to have neutralizing antibodies. This case suggests that monoclonal antibodies have therapeutic and prophylactic value in patients with humoral immunodeficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-coronavirus disease 2019 (post-COVID-19) condition, previously referred to as long COVID, includes a post-acute syndrome defined by the presence of non-specific symptoms occurring usually 3 months from the onset of the acute phase and lasting at least 2 months. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represent a high-risk population for COVID-19. Moreover, the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is often absent or inadequate. The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the treatment landscape of COVID-19 allowed to reduce hospitalization and mortality in mild–moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection, but limited data are available in hematological patients. We here report the effective use of casirivimab/imdevimab (CI) in the treatment of two CLL patients with persistent infection and post-COVID-19 condition. Full genome sequencing of viral RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs was performed at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and before the administration of CI. Both patients experienced persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection with no seroconversion for 8 and 7 months, respectively, associated with COVID symptoms. In both cases after the infusion of CI, we observed a rapid negativization of the nasal swabs, the resolution of post-COVID-19 condition, and the development of both the IgG against the trimeric spike protein and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. The analysis of the viral genome in the period elapsed from the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and the administration of mAbs showed the development of new mutations, especially in the S gene. The genome variations observed during the time suggest a role of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection as a possible source for the development of viral variants. The effects observed in these two patients appeared strongly related to passive immunity conferred by CI treatment permitting SARS-CoV-2 clearance and resolution of post-COVID-19 condition. On these grounds, passive anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody treatment may represent as a possible therapeutic option in some patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Patients with immune-mediated diseases (IMID) such as systemic sclerosis (SSc), who are treated with B cell depleting treatments, are at risk for developing severe COVID-19 due to inadequate humoral immune response. During B cell depletion, therapeutic substitution of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (mAbs) might be helpful to prevent severe COVID-19. It has been shown, that in non-IMID patients mABs reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load and lower the risk of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. However, there are limited data on the effect of mAbs in IMID patients after exposure, especially in patients treated with B cell depleting agents. Herein, we report a case of a rituximab treated SSc patient who developed COVID-19 and was successfully treated with a combination of mAbs (casirivimab/imdevimab). With this case we show that IMID patients may benefit from post-exposure administration of mAbs. In our case treatment with neutralizing autoantibodies was safe and a possible contributor in protecting the patient from mechanical ventilation and eventually death. We frame this case within the current evidence from the literature and provide a perspective on the future potential role of mAbs for treating IMID patients suffering from COVID-19.

This study reports on hemodynamic changes observed during monoclonal antibody (mAb) administration for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome-coronavirus-2. Findings from this study may have implications for patient safety. Hemodynamic data from 705 patients who received subcutaneous or intravenous mAb therapy during February 1, 2021–September 30, 2021 in clinics in Arkansas, USA were reviewed. Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests were used to assess blood pressure before and after treatment. Results showed 386 (54.7%) patients experienced a drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >5 mmHg. The average drop in SBP was 9.2 mmHg for those patients. Two hundred and eighty-one (39.9%) patients experienced a drop in SBP of >10 mmHg with an average drop in SBP of 12.0 mmHg. The Emergency Use Authorization for mAb does not list hypotension as a contraindication for treatment. Our findings suggest mAb therapy should be administered in an environment where vitals are monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Casirivimab/imdevimab (REGN-COV), a cocktail of neutralizing antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, was shown to be an effective treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis measure for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the antibody titers among patients who received REGN-COV with the purpose of evaluating this therapeutic and prophylactic option from the serological point of view. Methods: We collected serological data of patients with COVID-19 who were treated with REGN-COV 1200 mg (casirivimab 600 mg/imdevimab 600 mg). Antibody titers were assessed within 24 h before and within 48 h after the administration of REGN-COV using ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G (IgGNC), which is against nucleocapsid protein, and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (IgGSP), which is against spike protein. Results: A total of nine patients were evaluated. IgGSP was elevated after REGN-COV administration with a median of 208,370 Arbitrary Units/mL while simultaneous IgGNC remained low. With the simple linear regression model, the IgGSP after the REGN-COV administration was correlated with the reciprocal of ideal body weight. Conclusion: The high titer of IgGSP supports the clinical benefit of therapeutic and prophylactic use of REGN-COV from the serological point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Comparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta. Methods: Allocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7. Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period. Results: COVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p<0.001) on D7. Conclusions: In a pre-Omicron epidemiologic scenario, CAS/IMD reduced risk of clinical progression of COVID-19 compared to BAM/ETE. This effect was not associated with a concomitant difference in virological response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesComparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta.MethodsAllocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7.Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period.ResultsCOVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p

There is a growing interest in using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the early stages of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection to prevent disease progression. Little is known about the efficacy of mAbs against the delta variant of concern and its clinical presentations. We evaluated the effect of casirivimab/imdevimab treatment among five delta vaccine breakthrough patients. Symptomatic non-hospitalized vaccinated patients were submitted to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). Blood analysis and chest Computed Tomography were also performed. A cocktail of casirivimab/imdevimab was administrated, and patients were monitored weekly. Clinical evolution was evaluated by the regression of the symptoms, negative results by real-time RT-PCR, and by the need of hospitalization: these aspects were considered as significant outcomes. In four cases, symptom reversion and viral load reduction were observed within 2 days and 7 days after mAbs treatment, respectively. Only one case, suffering from thymoma, was hospitalized 2 days later because of respiratory failure, which reverted within 18 days. mAbs treatment seems to be safe and effective against the delta variant and its clinical manifestations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical companies and physicians are exploring extensive research initiatives to identify agents, compounds, and other therapeutic approaches. Consideration has been given to the repurposing of older medicinal agents and using traditional agents to control the inflammatory process preceding viral pneumonia development and lung damage. Several monoclonal antibody cocktails have received EUA approval, and convalescent plasma remains a favorable option in hospitalized patients. To date, remdesivir is the only FDA pharmaceutical on the market to treat patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19. The purpose of this review is to discuss some current pharmaceutical options, approved and developing, currently used in the treatment of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to stress the health care system. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were effective in reducing COVID-19–related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in their respective clinical trials. However, these results have yet to be reproduced in a practical setting following implementation of current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance. Methods This retrospective cohort study included outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 infection, who had mild/moderate symptoms for 10 days or less, and who were deemed high-risk for severe COVID-19 under FDA's Emergency Use Authorization for mAbs. Patients who received either bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from 18 November 2020 through 5 January 2021 were included (n = 200). This was compared against a control cohort of randomly selected high-risk COVID-19 outpatients who declined or were not referred for mAb treatment during the same period (n = 200). The primary outcome was a composite of 29-day COVID-19–related hospitalizations and/or ED visits. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary endpoint, 29-day all-cause mortality, and serious adverse drug events. Results Patients treated with mAbs were significantly less likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED compared with patients not treated with mAb (13.5% vs 40.5%; odds ratio, 0.23 [95% confidence interval,.14–.38]; P  < .001). The mortality rate was 0% in the mAb group compared with 3.5% in the control group (P  = .02). Only 2 patients receiving mAb experienced a serious adverse event requiring treatment. Conclusions Among high-risk COVID-19 outpatients with mild/moderate symptoms, early administration of mAbs can potentially reduce the strain on the health care system during the current pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Klinická Mikrobiologie a Infekční Lékařství is the property of TRIOS, spol. sr.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Casirivimab/imdevimab, a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies, is currently approved for emergency use in high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 to reduce risk of hospitalization and/or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the United States, there is no approved monoclonal antibody therapy for patients hospitalized for complications due to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe here the use of casirivimab/imdevimab in a 52-year-old fully vaccinated, immunocompromised man admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Waning humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been reported arguing for booster vaccinations even in healthy populations. Multiple sclerosis (MS) immunotherapy with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies may negatively influence morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. The opportunity to treat patients at risk for a severe COVID-19 course with specific monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 represents an important novel measure for patient safety. We report a patient with waning humoral vaccination response around five months after two mRNA vaccination doses upon initiation of ocrelizumab treatment. Symptomatic COVID-19 infection was treated with casirivimab/imdevimab with rapid symptom recovery.

Since the outbreak and subsequent declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic in March 2020, concerted efforts have been applied by the scientific community to curtail the spread of the disease and find a cure. While vaccines constitute a vital part of the public health strategy to reduce the burden of COVID-19, the management of this disease will continue to rely heavily on pharmacotherapy. This study aims to provide an updated review of pharmacological agents that have been developed and/or repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. To this end, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid databases. Relevant clinical studies on drugs used in the management of COVID-19 were identified and evaluated in terms of evidence of efficacy and safety. To date, the FDA has approved three therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization: convalescent plasma, remdesivir, and casirivimab/imdevimab (REGN-COV2). Drugs such as lopinavir/ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, anakinra, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, interferons, tissue plasminogen activator, intravenous immunoglobulins, and nafamosat have been used off-label with mixed therapeutic results. Adjunctive administration of corticosteroids is also very common. The clinical experience with these approved and repurposed drugs is limited, and data on efficacy for the new indication are not strong. Overall, the response of the global scientific community to the COVID-19 pandemic has been impressive, as evident from the volume of scientific literature elucidating the molecular biology and pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and the approval of three new drugs for clinical management. Reviewed studies have shown mixed data on efficacy and safety of the currently utilized drugs. The lack of standard treatment for COVID-19 has made it difficult to interpret results from most of the published studies due to the risk of attribution error. The long-term effects of drugs can only be assessed after several years of clinical experience; therefore, the efficacy and safety of current COVID-19 therapeutics should continue to be rigorously monitored as part of post-marketing studies.

Objectives: To describe the clinical and virological characteristics of COVID-19 patients treated in a hospital with casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab between June 2021 and April 2022 and to report the logistics for administering these monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)., Methods: All COVID-19 adult patients treated with mAbs at CHU Charleroi (Belgium) were included. A multidisciplinary monoclonal antibodies team (MMT) was dedicated to identify eligible patients and coordinate the administration of mAbs in a temporary structure created within the hospital., Results: A total of 69 COVID-19 patients were treated with casirivimab/imdevimab (11.6%) and sotrovimab (88.4%) within a median of 4 days of symptom onset, mainly during the Omicron B.1.1.529 period (71%); no severe adverse events occurred. Thirty-eight (55%) were outpatients, and among the 31 inpatients, 42% were nosocomial COVID-19. The median age was 65 years [IQR, 50-73], and 53.6% were male. The most common risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 were immunosuppression (72.5%), arterial hypertension (60.9%) and age>65 years (47.8%). One fifth were SARS-CoV-2-unvaccinated patients. The median Belgian MASS score for patient prioritization was 6 [IQR, 4-8]. On Day 29, 10.5% of the outpatients were hospitalized, and 1.4% were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU); there were no COVID-19-related deaths. General practitioners referred 19.4% of the outpatients., Conclusions: In our experience, mAbs were prescribed in very high-risk patients with no adverse events, few progressions to severe COVID-19, and no related deaths. Our MMT has improved coordination of COVID-19 treatment and contribute to enhance communication with primary care.

Introduction: Transplant recipients (TRs) are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are used for treating mild-to-moderate COVID-19. However, reports comparing the efficacy of COVID-19 treatment without/with mAbs in TRs are limited. We assessed the efficacy of casirivimab/imdevimab against mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in TRs., Methods: Forty-one patients were retrospectively evaluated. The duration until defervescence, oxygen (O 2 ) requirement ≥5 L, and neutralizing antibody levels were compared in TRs with COVID-19 without/with casirivimab/imdevimab., Results: Casirivimab/imdevimab was correlated with shorter duration until defervescence and non-requirement of O 2  ≥ 5 L in TRs with COVID-19 [mean: without/with: 6 vs. 2; P = 0.0002, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.3333, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.1763-0.6301; 15 vs. 8; P < 0.0001, HR = 0.5333, 95% CI = 0.2878-0.9883; P = 0.0377, HR = 0.1502, 95% CI = 0.02511-0.8980]. Casirivimab/imdevimab was associated with early defervescence after adjusting for sex and age (P = 0.013, HR = 0.412, 95% CI = 0.205-0.826). The antibody levels between patients without/with casirivimab/imdevimab on the day of hospitalization were not significantly different (P = 0.1055), including 13 TRs with vaccination. Antibody levels were higher in patients with casirivimab/imdevimab at 3-5 days after hospitalization than in those without, at 7-9 days after hospitalization (P < 0.0001, mean, without/with: 414.9/40000 AU/mL)., Conclusion: Casirivimab/imdevimab was effective and increased the neutralizing antibody in TRs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, it may contribute toward preventing the progression., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Background: Most patients with SARS-CoV-2 are non-infectious within 2 weeks, though viral RNA may remain detectable for weeks. However there are reports of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, with viable virus and ongoing infectivity months after initial detection. Beyond individuals, viral evolution during persistent infections may be accelerated, driving emergence of mutations associated with viral variants of concern. These patients often do not meet inclusion criteria for clinical trials, meaning clinical and virologic characteristics, and optimal management strategies are poorly evidence-based., Methods: We analysed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection from a regional testing laboratory in South-West England between March 2020 and December 2021, with at least two SARS-CoV-2 positive samples separated by ≥ 56 days were identified. Excluding those with confirmed or likely re-infection, we identified patients with persistent infection, characterised by an ongoing clinical syndrome consistent with COVID-19 alongside monophyletic viral lineage of SARS-CoV-2. We examined clinical and virologic characteristics, treatment, and outcome. We further performed a literature review investigating cases of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, reviewing patient characteristics and treatment., Results: We identified six patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. All were hypogammaglobulinaemic and had underlying haematological malignancy, with four having received B-cell depleting therapy. Evidence of viral evolution, including accrual of mutations associated with variants of concern, was demonstrated in five cases. Four patients ultimately cleared SARS-CoV-2. In two patients, clearance followed treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab. Both survived beyond thirty days following viral clearance, having experienced infections of 305- and 269-days duration respectively, after failed attempts at clearance with alternative therapies. We found 60 cases of confirmed persistent infection in the literature, with a further 31 probable cases. Of those, 80% of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies cleared SARS-CoV-2, and none died., Conclusion: Haematological malignancy and patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies represent key groups at risk of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Throughout persistent infection, SARS-CoV-2 can evolve rapidly, giving rise to significant mutations, including those implicated in variants of concern. Monoclonal antibodies appear to be a promising therapeutic option, potentially in combination with antivirals, crucial for individuals, and for public health., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Context: Vaccination status has been shown to be linked to patient-centered outcomes in those with COVID-19. However, minimal data have explored the relationship between vaccination status and representation rates after receiving monoclonal antibodies (MABs) the Delta strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a community setting., Objectives: The authors sought to determine if there was a difference in patient-centered outcomes between those who were vaccinated and unvaccinated after the administration of casirivimab/imdevimab for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the time when the Delta strain was most prevalent., Methods: A convenience sample of consecutive adults given casirivimab/imdevimab at either an outpatient infusion center or within the emergency department (ED) were included in analysis. Patient demographics, authorized-use qualifiers from the emergency use authorization (EUA), baseline vital signs at the time of infusion, representation rates to a healthcare provider within the hospital's network, and any admissions to the hospital following infusion were all collected from the patient's electronic medical record. Vaccination status was confirmed in both the patient's electronic medical record and the Arizona State Immunization Information System (ASIIS). Analysis was conducted utilizing descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data, and the chi-squared analysis for nominal data., Results: In total, 743 patients were included in the study, with 585 being unvaccinated and 158 being vaccinated at the time of administration. Those in the vaccinated group were more likely to be older (60.0 vs. 55.0 years; p<0.001) and to have a history of diabetes (18.4% vs. 11.3%; p=0.02), hypertension (39.9% vs. 28.5%; p=0.006), immunosuppression (7.0% vs. 1.4%; p<0.001), and chronic kidney disease (7.0% vs. 3.4%; p=0.05). In the entire sample, 105 (14.1%) patients had an unexpected return visit to either the ED or urgent care at 28 days, with 17 (2.3%) requiring hospitalization. Patients who were vaccinated were more likely to represent for care after casirivimab/imdevimab infusion (20.3% vs. 12.5%; p=0.01), but no difference was noted in hospitalization rates between the two groups (18.8% vs. 15.1%; p=0.15)., Conclusions: MAB therapy with casirivimab/imdevimab for the outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was associated with a low rate of hospitalization. However, those who were vaccinated were more likely to present for unexpected return care at either the ED or urgent care within 28 days of the initial infusion., (© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: Casirivimab and imdevimab are effective in preventing hospitalization in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, disease progression after casirivimab and imdevimab administration has been reported. This study aimed to elucidate the risk factors for disease progression after casirivimab and imdevimab administration., Methods: This retrospective study included patients with COVID-19 who received casirivimab and imdevimab at Hiroshima City Funairi Citizens Hospital between August 6, 2021, and October 10, 2021. All patients had at least one risk factor for severe disease and were treated on admission. The patients' background characteristics and test results at the first visit were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups (progressed and improved) based on whether they progressed to acute respiratory failure during hospitalization., Results: Sixty-seven patients were included: 9 patients in the progressed group (median age, 56 years) and 58 patients in the improved group (median age, 51 years). Age, coexistence rate of diabetes, cycle threshold value of polymerase chain reaction test, rate of detectable pneumonia on chest radiographs or chest computed tomography images, lymphocyte count, and the levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, glucose, and glycated hemoglobin were significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the coexistence of diabetes and the presence of detectable pneumonia on chest radiographs were independent factors predicting the progression to acute respiratory failure., Conclusion: Acute respiratory failure after antibody therapy with casirivimab and imdevimab may develop in patients with diabetes or detectable pneumonia on chest radiographs at the first visit., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Japanese Respiratory Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus that has caused an unprecedented global pandemic, with few treatment options currently available. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a promising treatment approach to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infections., Objective: The primary objective is to compare hospitalization rates of high-risk patients who tested positive for COVID-19 within 28 days between those who received mAb infusions versus those who did not. Secondary objectives were emergency department (ED) visits and mortality within 28 days of a positive test., Methods: This single-center, institutional review board-approved, retrospective, observational cohort study included patients aged 19 years and older who tested positive for COVID-19 between December 2, 2020 and February 28, 2021. Patients who received the mAbs bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab were compared with patients who did not receive mAb infusions to examine hospitalization rates, ED visits, and mortality within 28 days of the positive COVID-19 test., Results: A total of 2780 patients were evaluated for inclusion using electronic chart review via Cerner. Of the 1612 patients who met inclusion criteria, 568 received an mAb infusion (mAb group) and 1044 did not (non-mAb group). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Of the patients in the mAb group, 34 (6%) were hospitalized versus 397 (38%) in the non-mAb group. Patients with ED visits included 111 (20%) and 672 (64%) in the mAb and non-mAb groups, respectively. Finally, 5 patients in the mAb group experienced mortality (0.9%) versus 83 (8%) in the non-mAb group. Each endpoint achieved statistical significance with a P value of <0.0001., Conclusion: Monoclonal antibody infusions are effective in preventing hospitalization, ED visits, and mortality in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Casirivimab/imdevimab, a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies, is currently approved for emergency use in high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 to reduce risk of hospitalization and/or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the United States, there is no approved monoclonal antibody therapy for patients hospitalized for complications due to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe here the use of casirivimab/imdevimab in a 52-year-old fully vaccinated, immunocompromised man admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection., (Copyright © 2022 Baylor University Medical Center.)

Since the outbreak and subsequent declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic in March 2020, concerted efforts have been applied by the scientific community to curtail the spread of the disease and find a cure. While vaccines constitute a vital part of the public health strategy to reduce the burden of COVID-19, the management of this disease will continue to rely heavily on pharmacotherapy. This study aims to provide an updated review of pharmacological agents that have been developed and/or repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. To this end, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid databases. Relevant clinical studies on drugs used in the management of COVID-19 were identified and evaluated in terms of evidence of efficacy and safety. To date, the FDA has approved three therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization: convalescent plasma, remdesivir, and casirivimab/imdevimab (REGN-COV2). Drugs such as lopinavir/ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, anakinra, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, interferons, tissue plasminogen activator, intravenous immunoglobulins, and nafamosat have been used off-label with mixed therapeutic results. Adjunctive administration of corticosteroids is also very common. The clinical experience with these approved and repurposed drugs is limited, and data on efficacy for the new indication are not strong. Overall, the response of the global scientific community to the COVID-19 pandemic has been impressive, as evident from the volume of scientific literature elucidating the molecular biology and pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and the approval of three new drugs for clinical management. Reviewed studies have shown mixed data on efficacy and safety of the currently utilized drugs. The lack of standard treatment for COVID-19 has made it difficult to interpret results from most of the published studies due to the risk of attribution error. The long-term effects of drugs can only be assessed after several years of clinical experience; therefore, the efficacy and safety of current COVID-19 therapeutics should continue to be rigorously monitored as part of post-marketing studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]