Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Viral Pharmacodynamics of the Monoclonal Antibody Sotrovimab Administered via Intramuscular Injection in Participants with Early, Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics, including intramuscular (IM) formulations, may increase patient access. In COMET-TAIL, sotrovimab 500 mg IM was non-inferior to 500 mg intravenous (IV) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 progression; however, 250 mg IM was associated with more hospitalizations, despite similar viral load (VL) reductions to 500 mg IM. COMET-PEAK was a randomized, three-part study to assess safety, tolerability, and viral pharmacodynamics of sotrovimab in adults with early, mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Parts B/C evaluated sotrovimab 500-mg IV infusion versus 500-mg or 250-mg IM injection. The primary objective was to compare virologic response of sotrovimab IM versus IV (mean area under the curve from day 1 to day 8 [AUCD1–8] of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] VL); 90% confidence interval (CI) limits of 0.5–2.0 indicated equivalence. Parts B/C included 167 and 157 participants, respectively. Median age range was 42–47 years, and approximately 50% of participants had one or more risk factor for severe disease. The primary objective was met: the ratio of geometric mean VL AUCD1–8 of sotrovimab IM versus IV was 1.04 (90% CI 0.98–1.09; Part B) and 1.02 (90% CI 0.94–1.11; Part C). No new safety signals emerged for sotrovimab; IM administration was well tolerated, with few injection-site reactions. Both sotrovimab IM doses were equivalent to 500 mg IV with respect to SARS-CoV-2 VL change. IM administration was safe and well tolerated. The validity of VL as a biomarker for COVID-19 progression warrants further study. NCT04779879 (date of first registration: March 3, 2021), https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04779879 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".