Safety and Efficacy of Combined Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab Administered Intramuscularly or Intravenously in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021. Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days. Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route. Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".