Abstract
Purpose Emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have impacted the in vitro activity of sotrovimab 500 mg, with reduced fold change in EC50 for the Omicron BA.2 sublineage and onward. The correlation between this reduction and clinical efficacy outcomes is unknown. In the absence of clinical trials assessing the efficacy of sotrovimab against emerging variants, real-world evidence becomes a critical source of information. A systematic literature review (SLR) of published observational studies was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of sotrovimab on severe clinical outcomes during the Omicron BA.2 subvariant predominance period.
Methods Searches of indexed electronic databases for peer-reviewed journals, preprint articles, and conference abstracts published between January 1, 2022 and November 3, 2022 were undertaken using a combination of search terms for COVID-19, sotrovimab, and observational study design. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).
Results From the 343 unique titles and abstracts identified, five studies were eligible for inclusion in the SLR. Included studies displayed heterogeneity in study design and population. The OpenSAFELY study, which received a high NOS score and had a sufficient sample of patients treated with sotrovimab during BA.2 predominance, demonstrated clinical effectiveness during both BA.1 (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–0.88; p = 0.014) and BA.2 (adjusted HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.71; p = 0.001) periods vs molnupiravir. Furthermore, a US-based study that also received a high NOS score reported that sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of 30-day all-cause hospitalization or mortality compared with no monoclonal antibody treatment during the BA.2 subvariant surge in March (adjusted relative risk (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.27–0.62) and April 2022 (adjusted RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.08–3.54). Although only a limited number of studies evaluated sotrovimab during both the BA.1 and BA.2 periods, these demonstrated that clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab were consistently low across both periods. One large study directly compared data from the two periods and found no evidence of a difference in the clinical outcomes of sotrovimab-treated patients with sequencing-confirmed BA.1 and BA.2 (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74–1.86).
Conclusion The observational data presented in this SLR provide evidence that the effectiveness of sotrovimab (IV 500 mg) is maintained against Omicron BA.2 in both ecological and sequencing-confirmed studies, either through the demonstration of low and comparable rates of severe clinical outcomes between the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 periods, or by comparison against an active comparator or no treatment within the Omicron BA.2 period.
Why carry out this study?
Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have impacted the in vitro activity of sotrovimab 500 mg, with reduced fold change in EC50 relative to wild-type for the Omicron BA.2 sublineage and onward; the clinical relevance of this difference on outcomes for BA.2 (and other variants) is unknown.
Given the complexity of generating formal clinical trial data in the context of the constantly evolving SARS-CoV-2 landscape, real-world evidence is a key source of information with which to assess the effectiveness of treatments such as sotrovimab on newly predominant or emerging variants.
We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the effectiveness of sotrovimab for the early treatment of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes during the period predominated by the Omicron BA.2 subvariant.
What was learned from the study?
Sotrovimab treatment was associated with low proportions of severe clinical outcomes (such as all-cause or COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality) in patients infected during periods of Omicron BA.2 predominance, despite reduction in the in vitro neutralization activity of sotrovimab.
These data support continued clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab during Omicron BA.2 predominance.
Competing Interest Statement
MD, DCG, AS, and EJL are employees of, and/or stock/shareholders in, GSK. MS is a contracted employee of GSK and does not hold stocks or shares in GSK. CR and LL are employees of PPD Evidera, which received funding from GSK to conduct the study
Funding Statement
This study was funded by GSK in collaboration with Vir (study number 219682).
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:
Source data were openly available before the initiation of the study; see manuscript reference list for sources.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All datasets generated for this study are included in this manuscript.
