Abstract
Background Antiviral therapy has a greater impact when provided early in the disease to outpatients, potentially preventing hospitalization and subsequent deaths, while reducing healthcare system pressure. Controversies persist about the best treatment option for COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression to hospital. No head-to-head RCT has been conducted to compare the three major modalities in current use-oral/intravenous antivirals, monoclonal antibodies and COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP).
Methods We assembled data from March 2020 to April 2022 from published outpatient RCTs examining authorized COVID-19 therapies with hospitalization as the major endpoint, and that also assessed mortality, symptom resolution, underlying risk factors for progression, timing and dose of the intervention in relationship to evolving variants of concern (VOC).
Findings CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most RCTs targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies and some concerns for eight. The I2 statistic heterogeneity amongst the outpatient trials with endpoint hospitalization is 72% (p-< 0.01).
Interpretation The emerging resistance of Omicron BA.2 and related sublineages (XE, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) to monoclonal antibodies suggests a pressing need to reevaluate CCP (nowadays largely available from vaccinees with high neutralizing antibody levels) for COVID19 outpatients at risk of disease progression, especially in settings with constrained medical resources.
Funding This study was funded by the US Department of Defense, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency and NIH.
Evidence before this study To date no head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) has ever compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. We assembled RCTs with hospitalization as the primary endpoint. A literature search of MEDLINE (through PubMed), medRxiv and bioRxiv databases was carried out inclusive of RCTs published from March 2020 to April 2022 inclusive, using the search terms (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “coronavirus disease 2019”) AND (“treatment” OR “therapy”) AND (“outpatient” OR “hospitalization”). The risk of bias obtained at COVID-19-Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), was low in half of the studies with some concerns for the remaining.
Added value of this study This systematic review compared outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy. Trials of monoclonals were performed prior to the recognition that they had become ineffective against the Omicron sublineages.
Implications of all the available evidence Monoclonal antibodies and small chemical antivirals each have drawbacks. Both take time to be developed and are expensive. Monoclonals can lose efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events. Convalescent plasma retains its potency and is likely to be the only accessible therapeutic option for low-and-middle income countries.
Competing Interest Statement
DS, DFH, AC were investigators in the CSSC-004 study; D.F. and M.F. were investigators in the TSUNAMI RCT of CCP. DJS reports AliquantumRx Founder and Board member with stock options (macrolide for malaria), Hemex Health malaria diagnostics consulting and royalties for malaria diagnostic test control standards to Alere- all outside of submitted work. AC reports being part of the scientific advisory board of SabTherapeutics and has received personal fees from Ortho Diagnostics, outside of the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant disclosures.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) (contract number: W911QY2090012) (DS, AC, DH), with additional support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, State of Maryland, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 3R01AI152078-01S1 (DS, AC), NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences U24TR001609-S3 and UL1TR003098 (DH).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We assembled outpatient COVID-19 RCTs with hospitalization as the primary outcome, by searching MEDLINE (through PubMed), medRxiv and bioRxiv databases for the period of March 2020, to April 2022 inclusive, with English language as the only restriction. We also screened the reference list of reviewed articles for additional studies not captured in our initial literature search. We included only RCTs dealing with antiviral agents (either intentional or repurposed), and excluded supportive treatments (e.g.: antihypertensive, anticoagulants, anti-inflammatory drugs). We also excluded case reports, case series, non-randomized trials, review articles, meta-analyses and original research articles reporting only aggregate data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Datasets used for this systematic review are publicly available in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv.
