1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Pregnancy : A Cohort Study

      other
      , PharmD, , PhD, PharmD, , MD, PhD, , PharmD, , MD, MSc, UPMC Magee Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Group *
      Annals of Internal Medicine
      American College of Physicians

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Randomized controlled trials of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of COVID-19 excluded pregnant persons. A retrospective, propensity score–matched, cohort study was conducted in a large health care system to examine the effect of several mAbs on hospitalization, obstetric-associated safety outcomes, and death during pregnancy.

          Abstract

          Visual Abstract.
          Monoclonal Antibody Treatment in Pregnancy.

          Randomized controlled trials of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of COVID-19 excluded pregnant persons. A retrospective, propensity score–matched, cohort study was conducted in a large health care system to examine the effect of several mAbs on hospitalization, obstetric-associated safety outcomes, and death during pregnancy.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, no studies have evaluated adverse events and effectiveness of mAbs in pregnant persons compared with no mAb treatment.

          Objective:

          To determine the frequency of drug-related adverse events and obstetric-associated safety outcomes after treatment with mAb compared with no mAb treatment of pregnant persons, and the association between mAb treatment and a composite of 28-day COVID-19–related hospital admission or emergency department (ED) visit, COVID-19–associated delivery, or mortality.

          Design:

          Retrospective, propensity score–matched, cohort study.

          Setting:

          UPMC Health System from 30 April 2021 to 21 January 2022.

          Participants:

          Persons aged 12 years or older with a pregnancy episode and any documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction or antigen test).

          Intervention:

          Bamlanivimab and etesevimab, casirivimab and imdevimab, or sotrovimab treatment compared with no mAb treatment.

          Measurements:

          Drug-related adverse events, obstetric-associated safety outcomes among persons who delivered, and a risk-adjusted composite of 28-day COVID-19–related hospital admission or ED visit, COVID-19–associated delivery, or mortality.

          Results:

          Among 944 pregnant persons (median age [interquartile range (IQR)], 30 years [26 to 33 years]; White (79.5%; n = 750); median Charlson Comorbidity Index score [IQR], 0 [0 to 0]), 552 received mAb treatment (58%). Median gestational age at COVID-19 diagnosis or treatment was 179 days (IQR, 123 to 227), and most persons received sotrovimab (69%; n = 382). Of those with known vaccination status, 392 (62%) were fully vaccinated. Drug-related adverse events were uncommon ( n = 8; 1.4%), and there were no differences in any obstetric-associated outcome among 778 persons who delivered. In the total population, the risk ratio for mAb treatment of the composite 28-day COVID-19–associated outcome was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.4). The propensity score–matched risk ratio was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.1). There were no deaths among mAb-treated patients compared with 1 death in the nontreated control patients. There were more non-COVID-19–related hospital admissions in the mAb-treated persons in the unmatched cohort (14 [2.5%] vs. 2 [0.5%]; risk ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 21.7); however, there was no difference in the propensity score–matched rates, which were 2.5% mAb-treated vs. 2% untreated (risk ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.58% to 2.8%).

          Limitations:

          Drug-related adverse events were patient and provider reported and potentially underrepresented. Symptom severity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 testing was not available for nontreated patients.

          Conclusion:

          In pregnant persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, adverse events after mAb treatment were mild and rare. There was no difference in obstetric-associated safety outcomes between mAb treatment and no treatment among persons who delivered. There was no difference in 28-day COVID-19–associated outcomes and non-COVID-19–related hospital admissions for mAb treatment compared with no mAb treatment in a propensity score–matched cohort.

          Primary Funding Source:

          No funding was received for this study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

          Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality Among Pregnant Women With and Without COVID-19 Infection : The INTERCOVID Multinational Cohort Study

            This cohort study assesses the association between COVID-19 and maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis compared with concomitantly enrolled pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis. Question To what extent does COVID-19 in pregnancy alter the risks of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with pregnant individuals without COVID-19? Findings In this multinational cohort study of 2130 pregnant women in 18 countries, women with COVID-19 diagnosis were at increased risk of a composite maternal morbidity and mortality index. Newborns of women with COVID-19 diagnosis had significantly higher severe neonatal morbidity index and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index compared with newborns of women without COVID-19 diagnosis. Meaning This study indicates a consistent association between pregnant individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis and higher rates of adverse outcomes, including maternal mortality, preeclampsia, and preterm birth compared with pregnant individuals without COVID-19 diagnosis. Importance Detailed information about the association of COVID-19 with outcomes in pregnant individuals compared with not-infected pregnant individuals is much needed. Objective To evaluate the risks associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with not-infected, concomitant pregnant individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study that took place from March to October 2020, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, not-infected women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each infected woman was identified, at any stage of pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed up until hospital discharge. Exposures COVID-19 in pregnancy determined by laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and/or radiological pulmonary findings or 2 or more predefined COVID-19 symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measures were indices of (maternal and severe neonatal/perinatal) morbidity and mortality; the individual components of these indices were secondary outcomes. Models for these outcomes were adjusted for country, month entering study, maternal age, and history of morbidity. Results A total of 706 pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1424 pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled, all with broadly similar demographic characteristics (mean [SD] age, 30.2 [6.1] years). Overweight early in pregnancy occurred in 323 women (48.6%) with COVID-19 diagnosis and 554 women (40.2%) without. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis were at higher risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia (relative risk [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27-2.43), severe infections (RR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.63-7.01), intensive care unit admission (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.13-8.10), maternal mortality (RR, 22.3; 95% CI, 2.88-172), preterm birth (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.30-1.94), medically indicated preterm birth (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.56-2.51), severe neonatal morbidity index (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.69-4.18), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.66-2.75). Fever and shortness of breath for any duration was associated with increased risk of severe maternal complications (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.92-3.40) and neonatal complications (RR, 4.97; 95% CI, 2.11-11.69). Asymptomatic women with COVID-19 diagnosis remained at higher risk only for maternal morbidity (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.54) and preeclampsia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.63). Among women who tested positive (98.1% by real-time polymerase chain reaction), 54 (13%) of their neonates tested positive. Cesarean delivery (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.18-3.91) but not breastfeeding (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85) was associated with increased risk for neonatal test positivity. Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab in Mild or Moderate Covid-19

              Background Patients with underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whereas vaccine-derived immunity develops over time, neutralizing monoclonal-antibody treatment provides immediate, passive immunity and may limit disease progression and complications. Methods In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, a cohort of ambulatory patients with mild or moderate Covid-19 who were at high risk for progression to severe disease to receive a single intravenous infusion of either a neutralizing monoclonal-antibody combination agent (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab, administered together) or placebo within 3 days after a laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The primary outcome was the overall clinical status of the patients, defined as Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 29. Results A total of 1035 patients underwent randomization and received an infusion of bamlanivimab–etesevimab or placebo. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 53.8±16.8 years, and 52.0% were adolescent girls or women. By day 29, a total of 11 of 518 patients (2.1%) in the bamlanivimab–etesevimab group had a Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause, as compared with 36 of 517 patients (7.0%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, −4.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.4 to −2.3; relative risk difference, 70%; P<0.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab–etesevimab group; in the placebo group, 10 deaths occurred, 9 of which were designated by the trial investigators as Covid-19–related. At day 7, a greater reduction from baseline in the log viral load was observed among patients who received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab than among those who received placebo (difference from placebo in the change from baseline, −1.20; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.94; P<0.001). Conclusions Among high-risk ambulatory patients, bamlanivimab plus etesevimab led to a lower incidence of Covid-19–related hospitalization and death than did placebo and accelerated the decline in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501 .)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Intern Med
                Ann Intern Med
                aim
                Annals of Internal Medicine
                American College of Physicians
                0003-4819
                1539-3704
                15 November 2022
                15 November 2022
                : M22-1329
                Affiliations
                [01]Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (E.K.M.)
                [02]Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, and Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (L.L., C.M.)
                [03]Department of Pharmacy, Magee-Womens Hospital, UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (A.O.)
                [04]Office of Healthcare Innovation, UPMC, Pittsburgh, Clinical Research Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, and Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (C.W.S.).
                Author notes
                Note: Dr. McCreary takes full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. GlaxoSmithKline/Vir Biotechnology donated some of the sotrovimab used in this study.
                Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge staff at UPMC Clinical Analytics, the UPMC Wolff Center, and Biostatistics and Data Management Core at the CRISMA Center in the Department of Critical Care Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh for curating and managing the data. The authors also thank the clinical staff of the UPMC monoclonal antibody infusion centers as well as the support and administrative staff behind this effort, including but not limited to: Jodi Ayers, Roshni Bag, Ashley Beyerl, Trudy Bloomquist, Patty Boland, Mikaela Bortot, Jonya Brooks, Julie Brown, James Cable, Sherry Casali, Donna Cochran, Kate Codd-Palmer, Jeana Colella, Amy Cooper, Jennifer Dueweke, Jesse Duff, Janice Dunsavage, Jessica Fesz, Kathleen Flinn, Daniel Gessel, Jennifer Gutshall, Shawn Gronlund, Amy Helmuth, Erik Hernandez, Larry Hruska, Rosella Hoffman, Allison Hydzik, Le Ann Kaltenbaugh, LuAnn King, Jim Krosse, Sheila Kruman, Zachary Lenhart, Amy Lukanski, Sharon Mackall, Hilary Maskiewicz, Debra Masser, Rebecca Medva, Jenny Lynne Morris, Theresa Murillo, Christine O’Neill, Carolyn Persichetti, Lea Plagens, Melanie Pierce, Teressa Polcha, Kevin Pruznak, Dejeana Rawlins, Debra Rogers, Johnanne Ross, Rozalyn Russell, Samantha Sacco, Sarah Sakaluk, Heather Schaeffer, Robert Shulik, Libby Shumaker, Susan Spencer, Betsy Tedesco, Troy Treanor, Ken Trimmer, Brehan Wolff, Shannon Work, Jennifer Zabala, and their entire teams. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of the members of the UPMC Magee Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Group: Rich Beigi, Maribeth McLaughlin, Hyagriv Simhan, Harold Wiesenfeld, Scarlet Lau, Michael Haley, Sandy Trizzino, Ashley Steiner, Lauren Wiser, Michelle Adam, Tina Borneman, David T. Huang, Richard J. Wadas, Russell Meyers, J. Ryan Bariola, Mark Schmidhofer, Graham Snyder, Donald M. Yealy, Derek C. Angus, Tami Minnier, Judith A. Shovel, Debbie Albin, Oscar C. Marroquin, Kevin Collins, Adam King, Kevin E. Kip, Mary Kay Wisniewski, Colleen Sullivan, Meredith Axe, William Garrard, Stephanie Montgomery, Ghady Haidar, Paula L. Kip, Rachel L. Zapf, Sharen Ziska, Jessica Shirley, and Rebecca Medva.
                Grant Support: Dr. Seymour was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119519).
                Reproducible Research Statement:  Study protocol: Available from Dr. McCreary (e-mail, mccrearye3@ 123456upmc.edu ). Statistical code: Available from Dr. Lemon (e-mail, lemonl@ 123456upmc.edu ). Data set: Not available.
                Corresponding Author: Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, UPMC, Forbes Tower, 3600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail, mccrearye3@ 123456upmc.edu .
                Previous Posting: This manuscript was posted as a preprint on medRxiv on 21 April 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.04.20.22274090
                Author Contributions: Conception and design: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, A. Oakes, C.W. Seymour.
                Analysis and interpretation of the data: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, C. Megli, A. Oakes, C.W. Seymour.
                Drafting of the article: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, C.W. Seymour.
                Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, C. Megli, C.W. Seymour.
                Final approval of the article: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, C. Megli, A. Oakes, C.W. Seymour.
                Statistical expertise: L. Lemon, C.W. Seymour.
                Collection and assembly of data: L. Lemon, E.K. McCreary, C. Megli, A. Oakes.
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6705-2225
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6806-7787
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6579-3908
                Article
                aim-olf-M221329
                10.7326/M22-1329
                9747093
                36375150
                713a5d39-f126-4e27-9cc4-6b9f299d9db4
                Copyright @ 2022

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use for research, analyses, and text and data mining through PubMed Central. Acknowledgement of the original source shall include a notice similar to the following: "© 2020 American College of Physicians. Some rights reserved. This work permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research
                10117, Adverse events
                2758, Adverse reactions
                3942, Cohort studies
                3122457, COVID-19
                2237, Outpatients
                10071, Pregnancy
                3792, Safety
                early, Currently Online First
                coronavirus, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
                poc-eligible, POC Eligible

                Comments

                Comment on this article