Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Recurrences are common after antibiotic therapy. Actoxumab and bezlotoxumab are human monoclonal antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B, respectively. METHODS We conducted two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, MODIFY I and MODIFY II, involving 2655 adults receiving oral standard-of-care antibiotics for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection. Participants received an infusion of bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight), actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram each), or placebo; actoxumab alone (10 mg per kilogram) was given in MODIFY I but discontinued after a planned interim analysis. The primary end point was recurrent infection (new episode after initial clinical cure) within 12 weeks after infusion in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS In both trials, the rate of recurrent C. difficile infection was significantly lower with bezlotoxumab alone than with placebo (MODIFY I: 17% [67 of 386] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −10.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −15.9 to −4.3; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 16% [62 of 395] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −9.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −15.5 to −4.3; P<0.001) and was significantly lower with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab than with placebo (MODIFY I: 16% [61 of 383] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −11.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.4 to −5.9; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 15% [58 of 390] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −16.4 to −5.1; P<0.001). In prespecified subgroup analyses (combined data set), rates of recurrent infection were lower in both groups that received bezlotoxumab than in the placebo group in subpopulations at high risk for recurrent infection or for an adverse outcome. The rates of initial clinical cure were 80% with bezlotoxumab alone, 73% with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab, and 80% with placebo; the rates of sustained cure (initial clinical cure without recurrent infection in 12 weeks) were 64%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar among these groups; the most common events were diarrhea and nausea. CONCLUSIONS Among participants receiving antibiotic treatment for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection, bezlotoxumab was associated with a substantially lower rate of recurrent infection than placebo and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The addition of actoxumab did not improve efficacy. (Funded by Merck; MODIFY I and MODIFY II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01241552 and NCT01513239.

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)

Geriatric assessment as an aide to understanding falls in older adults with cancer

PURPOSE: In older adults, falls are a common cause of functional decline, institutionalization, and reduced quality of life. This study (1) investigates the prevalence of falls in a large sample of community-dwelling older adults with a cancer diagnosis and (2) evaluates the association of falls with domains of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) that pertain to falls risk. METHODS: Patients completed a CGA that includes a self-reported measure of number of falls in the past 6 months. Summary statistics are used to describe prevalence of falls and associations with hypothesized risk factors using Fisher’s exact tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1172 patients were enrolled, mean age 73 (65–99), 74 % female, and 89 % Caucasian. Two hundred fifty-six (22 %) reported one or more falls within the last 6 months. Patients with at least one instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) or physical function deficit had more falls as compared those with no deficits identified (p≤0.001). The number of daily medications, comorbidities, Timed Up and Go score >14 s, and poor vision were also associated with increased falls (p≤0.001). Reduced physical function, poor vision, and low performance status had the highest adjusted odds ratio (3.6, 3.4, and 3.0, respectively) for falls. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of falls in community-dwelling older patients with a cancer diagnosis. Falls are significantly associated with several measures of geriatric assessment including IADL, physical function, comorbidities, medications, and vision. Timely identification and management of risk factors for falls are important considerations in the care of older cancer patients