Borgen, Molly J. Destro

Abstract Background Remdesivir is FDA-approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Many patients improve clinically to allow for hospital dismissal before completing the 5-day course. In prior work, those who continued remdesivir in an outpatient setting had better outcomes. Here, we assessed patients’ perspectives and the economic impact of this outpatient practice. Methods During a one-year period, 3,029 patients received remdesivir for COVID-19 in the hospital; of them, 542 were dismissed to continue remdesivir in the outpatient setting and were surveyed. The cost of care was compared between those who remained in the hospital vs. those who were dismissed. Results 470 of 542 patients were surveyed, and 93 (19.8%) responded. Responders were older than non-responders (median, 63 vs. 58 years). The majority (70.5%) had symptoms resolved by the time of the survey. Ten patients (11.4%) had persistent symptoms attributed to long COVID-19, including fatigue (30.1%), brain fog (23.7%), and insomnia (18.3%). 73.8% were excited to learn about the outpatient remdesivir program. The majority (81.0%) felt that receiving therapy at home was the right decision; 79.5% had support and felt the benefits of completing treatment at home. The majority were satisfied with communication before (75.6%) and during (80.5%) the outpatient appointment, information on benefits (80.3%) and risks (58.5%), time spent at the infusion center (88.6%), quality of care (82.3%) and overall experience (76.0%). The benefits of treatment were high-value (82.6%), while the infusions' cost, inconvenience, and discomfort were unimportant for most responders. After adjusting for gender, comorbidity score, and WHO scale, the predicted costs for the groups were $16,544 (inpatient) and $9,097 (outpatient) per patient (difference of $7,447; p< .01). During this study, we estimated a total of 1,077 hospital room-days were made available to other patients. Conclusion An outpatient remdesivir program that allowed for early dismissal was perceived favorably by patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The program resulted in significant cost and resource savings, the latter in terms of the availability of hospital rooms for other patients needing critical services. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria Bijan J. Borah, Ph.D., Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisor/Consultant|Exact Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Ravindra Ganesh, M.B.B.S., M.D., Alpaca Health: Advisor/Consultant Raymund R. Razonable, MD, Allovir: Endpoint Adjudication Committee|American Society of Transplantation: Board Member|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: DSMB|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies emerged as effective early treatment of high-risk individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Although their clinical and safety outcomes have been reported, patient perspectives of these experimental therapies have not been evaluated. In this survey participated by 644/2412 (26.7% response) individuals evaluated for anti-spike monoclonal antibody therapies, the majority of 523 patients who received the antibody infusion were very satisfied with their overall patient experience, the quality of care provided, and various aspects of medical care. They voiced satisfaction with the communication with providers before and during treatment, including education provided about monoclonal antibody treatment, the potential benefits and adverse effects, detailed instructions on the process of infusion, and safety protocols employed at the infusion facilities. Nearly a quarter (23.6%) of 121 patients who declined therapy indicated they would accept treatment should it be offered again. These patient perspectives may be used to guide healthcare facilities and providers in optimizing the care provided to high-risk outpatients with COVID-19.

Abstract Background Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. Methods Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. Results The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9–2.2] and 1.6 [.8–2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. Conclusions This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

Abstract Background Residents of nursing homes and long‐term care facilities are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) but may not be able to access monoclonal antibody therapies offered at outpatient infusion centers due to frailty and logistical issues. We describe a mobile monoclonal antibody infusion program for patients with COVID‐19 in skilled nursing facilities and provide descriptive data on its outcomes. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Collaboration between Mayo Clinic and skilled nursing facilities in Southeast Minnesota was developed to administer anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization. Participants Seventy five residents of skilled nursing facilities at high risk of COVID‐19 complications. Exposure Emergency use treatment with bamlanivimab and casirivimab–imdevimab. Measurements Hospitalization and medically attended visits. Results The mobile infusion unit, staffed by Mayo Clinic Infusion Therapy registered nurses and supported by the skilled nursing facility staff, infused anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies to 45 of 75 patients (average age, 77.8 years) in December 2020. The infusions occurred at an average of 4.3 days after COVID‐19 diagnosis. Fourteen days after infusion, there were no deaths, two emergency department visits, and three hospitalizations, for a combined event rate of 11.1%. There was one reported adverse event. Conclusion The implementation of a mobile infusion unit embedded in a collaborative process resulted in rapid infusion of monoclonal antibodies to high‐risk COVID‐19 patients in skilled nursing facilities, who would otherwise be unable to access the novel therapies. The therapies were well tolerated and appear beneficial. Further study is warranted to explore the scalability and efficacy of this program.