BACKGROUND: Bebtelovimab is a potent, fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2, with broad neutralizing activity to all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including omicron variant lineages. Specialized developmental approaches accelerated the initiation of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bebtelovimab alone (BEB) or together with bamlanivimab (BAM) and etesevimab (ETE) delivered via slow intravenous push for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This portion of the phase 2, BLAZE-4 trial (J2X-MC-PYAH; NCT04634409) enrolled 714 patients (between May and July 2021) with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 within 3 days ([≤]3 days) of laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at low risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 (double-blinded) to placebo, BEB 175 mg, or BEB 175 mg+BAM 700 mg+ETE 1400 mg (BEB+BAM+ETE). Patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were randomized 2:1 (open-label) to BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE, and a subsequent treatment arm enrolled patients to BEB+BAM+ETE using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated criteria for High-risk. All treatments were administered intravenously over [≥]30 seconds (open-label BEB) or [≥]6.5 minutes (all other treatment arms). For the placebo-controlled patients (termed Low-risk), the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load (PHVL) (log viral load >5.27) on Day 7. For the open-label patients (termed High-risk), the primary endpoint was safety. In nonclinical studies, SARS-CoV-2 isolates were tested using an endpoint neutralization assay to measure BEB's inhibitory concentration greater than 99% (IC99). RESULTS: Baseline viral sequencing data were available from 611 patients; 90.2% (n=551) aligned with a variant of interest or concern (WHO designation), with the majority infected with delta (49.8%) or alpha (28.6%) variants. Among the Low-risk patients, PHVL occurred in 19.8% of patients treated with placebo, as compared to 12.7% (p=0.132) of patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE and 12.0% (p=0.097) of patients treated with BEB, a 36% and 40% relative risk reduction, respectively. Viral load-area under the curve analysis from baseline to Day 11 showed statistically signficant reductions for patients treated with BEB (p=0.006) and BEB+BAM+ETE (p=0.043) compared to patients who received placebo. Time to sustained symptom resolution was reduced by a median of 2 days for patients treated with BEB (6 days; p=0.003) and 1 day for patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE (7 days; p=0.289) compared to placebo (8 days). The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause deaths by day 29 were similar across treatment arms, as expected given the patients' risk status (the Low risk cohorts had a Low risk of hospitalization, and High risk cohorts received only active therapy without placebo). Overall, safety results were consistent with previous studies investigating mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were 9.7% in Low-risk (n=37/380) and 14.7% in High-risk (n=48/326) patients treated with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE; majority of AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported in 2.1% of High-risk patients (n=7/326), including one death (a cerebrovascular accident); 1 serious AE was reported among Low-risk patients. In an in vitro neutralization assay, BEB neutralized the omicron isolate (BA.1) with <2.44ng/ml estimated IC99. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, treatment with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE was associated with greater viral clearance, a reduction in time to sustained symptom resolution, and safety results consistent with mAbs that target SARS-CoV-2. Integration of clinical findings with in vitro neutralization of emerging viral variants offered a pragmatic framework for investigating the efficacy of a new antiviral mAb agent, as demonstrated by bebtelovimab.

Background Based on interim analyses and modeling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. Methods This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients >= 12 years old, with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and >= 1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. Results In total, 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients >= 65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Delta[95% confidence interval {CI}]=-5.0 [-8.0, -2.1], P <.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Delta[95% CI]=-0.99 [-1.33, -.66], P <.0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. Conclusions These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700/1400 mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04427501. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700 mg plus 1400 mg) reduced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and viral load in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, with persistently high viral load correlating with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or any-cause death.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Professional societies recommend abdominal ultrasound (US) with or without alpha fetoprotein (AFP) for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) surveillance; however, there are several emerging surveillance modalities, including abbreviated MRI and blood-based biomarker panels. Most studies have focused on provider perspectives for surveillance logistics, but few have assessed patient preferences. We aimed to measure preferences among patients with cirrhosis regarding HCC surveillance modalities.METHODS:We conducted a choice-based conjoint survey to patients with cirrhosis at four institutions. Participants were provided 15 scenarios in which they were asked to choose surveillance modalities based on five test attributes: benefits, i.e. sensitivity for early HCC (range: 35-95%), physical harm, i.e. false positives requiring additional testing (range: 10-40%), financial harm, i.e. out-of-pocket costs (range: $10-100), test logistics and convenience, i.e. duration of testing (range: 10-60 min). Hierarchical Bayes discrete choice conjoint analysis was used to derive attribute importance, and preference shares were determined by simulation.RESULTS:In total 91% (182/199) of approached patients consented to participate in the study and 98% (n=179) successfully completed the survey. Surveillance benefits (importance: 51.3%, 95%CI: 49.0-53.4%) were valued more than risk of physical harm (importance: 7.6%, 95%CI 7.0-8.2%), financial harm (importance: 15.2%, 95%CI 14.0-16.3%), convenience (importance: 9.3%, 95%CI 8.5-10.1%) and test logistics (importance: 16.7%, 95%CI 15.4-18.1%). Based on simulations including all possible tests, patients preferred abbreviated MRI (29.0%), MRI (23.3%), or novel blood-based biomarkers (20.9%) to ultrasound alone (3.4%) or with AFP (8.8%).CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cirrhosis prioritize early HCC detection over potential surveillance-related harms or inconvenience.

Importance:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19.Objective:To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants:The BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020.Interventions:Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156).Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29).Results:Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49 for 7000 mg, -4.37 for combination treatment, and -3.80 for placebo. Compared with placebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69) for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group were statistically significant for 10 of 84 end points. The proportion of patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or ED visits was 5.8% (9 events) for placebo, 1.0% (1 event) for 700 mg, 1.9% (2 events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment.Conclusions and Relevance:Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed for bamlanivimab monotherapy. Further ongoing clinical trials will focus on assessing the clinical benefit of antispike neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 as a primary end point.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427501.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life-threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. Methods In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. Results At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was −3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY-CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was −0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.98 to −0.08; P=0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (−0.20; 95% CI, −0.66 to 0.25; P=0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, −0.37 to 0.55; P=0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19–related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. Conclusions In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.)

Background: Immunization for Hepatitis A (HAV) and Hepatitis B (HBV) is recommended for Hepatitis C (HCV) patients as superinfection can increase the risk of adverse events. Since immunogenicity increases with each successive dose in the vaccine series, completing the series provides the best chance of maximal protection. Standard of care (SOC) approaches such as provider driven vaccination after serologic testing results in poor series completion rates. Universal vaccination (UV), where patients are vaccinated for HAV/HBV without prior serologic testing, is a commonly identified as an effective vaccination strategy. Patient and provider outreach interventions have also been recommended to improve vaccination rates. Studies of the effectiveness and implementation of these strategies is lacking. Methods: Veteran patients were eligible if they attended a HCV group medical appointment and had evidence of chronic HCV without history of immunization/serologic evidence of immunity to HBV alone or HAV and HBV. Using a 2x2 factorial design assuming no interactions, consenting subjects were randomized to one of four vaccination strategies: 1) UV alone 2) UV plus outreach 3) outreach plus SOC 4) or SOC alone. UV was initiated at enrollment prior to serologic testing. Outreach interventions included a phone and mailed reminder to subjects about the need for vaccination and an electronic reminder sent to subjects' primary care provider. Vaccine series completion rates were compared amongst the two strategies using a chi-square analysis. A series completion failure was defined as failure to receive all three doses of the HBV or combined HAV/HBV series within 14 months of study enrollment. The implementation of each strategy was studied including recording the time per subject required to perform each strategy. Results: Those who received the UV strategy had a reduction in series completion failures compared to SOC RR: 0.46 (0.27; 0.81); p < 0.01. The mean time needed to conduct UV was 7.3 (± 3) minutes. Unnecessary vaccinations based upon follow up serologies were observed. Those receiving UV were more likely to receive an unnecessary vaccination RR: 4.4 (1.7; 12). Subjects receiving the outreach intervention did not experience a reduction in series completion failures compared to SOC RR: 0.82 (0.49; 1.67); p=0.3. The mean time needed to perform outreach interventions was 7.75 (± 2) minutes. Conclusions: The UV strategy resulted in a large reduction of series completion failures compared to SOC, with time required similar to the outreach strategy. Outreach efforts were labor intensive and did not result in lower rates of series completion failures. Further study of clinic workflow is needed to reduce the time required to perform UV and to identify methods to avoid unnecessary vaccinations.