MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3204152979 · doi:10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.45.1.0

Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Use of Casirivimab + Imdevimab, and Sotrovimab for Adults in Ontario

2021· report· en· W3204152979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob Bailey, Andrew M. Morris, Sally Bean, Jonathan B. Gubbay, Yona Lunsky, Samir H. Patel, Vanessa Tran, Katherine J. Miller, Zainab Abdurrahman, Stephanie Carlin, William Ciccotelli, Jennifer Gibson, Tiffany Kan, Bradley J. Langford, Elizabeth Leung, Ullanda Neil, Sumit Raybardan, Janet Smylie, Anupma Wadhwa, Peter Jüni, Menaka Pai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critically and Moderately Ill Patients In clinically unstable patients with no history of COVID-19 infection or full vaccination, casirivimab + imdevimab at a dose of 8000 mg IV is recommended if patients are within 9 days of onset of any COVID-19 symptom AND have demonstrated rapid clinical deterioration. Antibody testing is not required in this case. In clinically stable patients with or without a history of COVID-19 infection or full vaccination, casirivimab + imdevimab at a dose of 8000 mg IV may be considered if patients are within 9 days of onset of any COVID-19 symptom AND are not at risk of acute decompensation AND if COVID-19 anti-spike antibody testing demonstrates that they are seronegative. Casirivimab + imdevimab is not recommended for moderately/critically ill patients who are beyond 9 days of onset of any COVID-19 symptom, whether or not they are presumed to have immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Mildly Ill Patients Antibody testing is not required in mildly ill patients. In patients with no history of COVID-19 infection or full vaccination, casirivimab + imdevimab at a dose of 1200 mg intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) is recommended if patients have confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 AND are within 7 days of onset of any COVID-19 symptom AND have at least one of the following risk factors: age > 50, obesity, cardiovascular disease (including hypertension), chronic lung disease (including asthma), chronic metabolic disease (including diabetes), chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, or receipt of immunosuppressants. In patients with a history of COVID-19 infection or full vaccination, casirivimab + imdevimab at a dose of 1200 mg IV or SC may be considered if patients have confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 AND are within 7 days of onset of any COVID-19 symptom. In patients with a history of COVID-19 infection or full vaccination with risk factors other than immunocompromise or immunosuppression, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies are not recommended as these patients have presumed immunity. In patients with no risk factors, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies are not recommended as these patients are at low risk of adverse outcomes. At this time, for mildly ill patients, casirivimab + imdevimab 1200mg IV or SC is preferred over sotrovimab 500mg IV due to practical considerations (i.e. it can also be administered subcutaneously). Ontario’s supply of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies is limited, and demand by eligible patients may exceed supply in the near future. Understanding the impact of these agents on patient and system important outcomes will ensure that they are used to greatest benefit. There are clear barriers to allocating SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies ethically and equitably. A number of strategies are suggested to address these barriers, including optimization of distribution, supply, administration, and allocation, dashboarding, and application of an evidence-informed risk framework for patient selection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.374
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.044 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→