Search

There is an unmet need for COVID-19 prevention in patient populations who have not mounted or are not expected to mount an adequate immune response to complete COVID-19 vaccination. We previously reported that a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of the monoclonal antibody combination casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) prevented symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections by 81·4% in generally healthy household contacts of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals over a 1-month efficacy assessment period. Here we present additional results, including the 7-month follow-up period (months 2-8), providing additional insights about the potential for efficacy in pre-exposure prophylaxis settings.This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in the USA, Romania, and Moldova in 2020-2021, before the emergence of omicron (B.1.1.529) and omicron-lineage variants. Uninfected and unvaccinated household contacts of infected individuals, judged by the investigator to be in good health, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 1200 mg CAS + IMD or placebo by subcutaneous injection according to a central randomisation scheme provided by an interactive web response system; randomisation was stratified per site by the test results of a local diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 and age group at baseline. COVID-19 vaccines were prohibited before randomisation, but participants were allowed to receive COVID-19 vaccination during the follow-up period. Participants who developed COVID-19 symptoms during the follow-up period underwent RT-PCR testing. Prespecified endpoints included the proportion of previously uninfected and baseline-seronegative participants (seronegative-modified full analysis set) who had RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in the follow-up period (post-hoc for the timepoints of months 2-5 and 6-8 only) and underwent seroconversion (ie, became seropositive, considered a proxy for any SARS-CoV-2 infections [symptomatic and asymptomatic]; prespecified up to day 57, post-hoc for all timepoints thereafter). We also assessed the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04452318.From July 13, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, 2317 participants who were RT-PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2 were randomly assigned, of whom 1683 (841 assigned to CAS + IMD and 842 assigned to placebo) were seronegative at baseline. During the entirety of the 8-month study, CAS + IMD reduced the risk of COVID-19 by 81·2% (nominal plt;0·0001) versus placebo (prespecified analysis). During the 7-month follow-up period, protection was greatest during months 2-5, with a 100% relative risk reduction in COVID-19 (nominal plt;0·0001; post-hoc analysis). Efficacy waned during months 6-8 (post-hoc analysis). Seroconversion occurred in 38 (4·5%) of 841 participants in the CAS + IMD group and in 181 (21·5%) of 842 in the placebo group during the 8-month study (79·0% relative risk reduction vs placebo; nominal plt;0·0001). Six participants in the placebo group were hospitalised due to COVID-19 versus none who received CAS + IMD. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events (including COVID-19) were reported in 24 (1·7%) of 1439 participants receiving CAS + IMD and in 23 (1·6%) of 1428 receiving placebo. Five deaths were reported, none of which were due to COVID-19 or related to the study drugs.CAS + IMD is not authorised in any US region as of Jan 24, 2022, because data show that CAS + IMD is not active against omicron-lineage variants. In this study, done before the emergence of omicron-lineage variants, a single subcutaneous 1200 mg dose of CAS + IMD protected against COVID-19 for up to 5 months of community exposure to susceptible strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the pre-exposure prophylaxis setting, in addition to the post-exposure prophylaxis setting that was previously shown.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann-La Roche, US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.

Jonathan Corren,1 Sarbjit S Saini,2 Remi Gagnon,3 Mark H Moss,4 Gordon Sussman,5 Joshua Jacobs,6 Elizabeth Laws,7 Elinore S Chung,8 Tatiana Constant,8 Yiping Sun,8 Jennifer Maloney,8 Jennifer D Hamilton,8 Marcella Ruddy,8 Claire Q Wang,8 Meagan P O’Brien8 1Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center, Baltimore, MD, USA; 3Clinique Spécialisée en Allergie de la Capitale, Québec, QC, Canada; 4Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 5Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 6Allergy and Asthma Clinical Research, Inc, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 7Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 8Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Tarrytown, NY, USACorrespondence: Meagan P O’BrienRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY, 10591, USATel +1 914 826-5271Email meagan.obrien@regeneron.comJonathan CorrenDepartments of Medicine and Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USATel +1 310 312-5050, ext 250Email jcorren@ucla.eduBackground: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proven as an effective therapy against some allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients unresponsive to intranasal corticosteroids and/or antihistamines but carries risk of systemic allergic reactions. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT+dupilumab vs SCIT alone.Methods: This phase 2a, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study conducted in 103 adults with grass pollen-induced SAR (NCT03558997) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to SCIT, dupilumab (300 mg every 2 weeks), SCIT+dupilumab, or placebo. SCIT was administered using an 8-week cluster protocol followed by 8 weeks of maintenance injections. Primary endpoint was change from pre-treatment baseline in area under the curve (AUC) in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) 0– 1 h following nasal allergen challenge (NAC) with timothy grass extract at Week 17.Results: Although 16 weeks of treatment with SCIT+dupilumab did not significantly improve TNSS AUC (0– 1 h) following NAC at Week 17 vs SCIT (least squares mean − 56.76% vs − 52.03%), a higher proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (61.5%) achieved SCIT maintenance dose vs SCIT (46.2%). A lower proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (7.7%) required epinephrine rescue treatment vs SCIT (19.2%). There were significantly fewer withdrawals in the SCIT+dupilumab group than in the SCIT group (n = 2 [7.7%] vs n = 8 [30.8%]; P = 0.0216); the majority of SCIT group withdrawals were due to SCIT-related intolerability, compared with no discontinuations from the SCIT+dupilumab group.Conclusion: In SAR patients, 16 weeks of SCIT+dupilumab may improve SCIT tolerability but did not incrementally reduce post-allergen challenge nasal symptoms compared with SCIT alone.Clinical Study Number: NCT03558997.Keywords: dupilumab, seasonal allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous immunotherapy, nasal allergen responses