Pooled analysis of the MANTICO2 and MONET randomized controlled trials comparing drug efficacy for early treatment of COVID-19 during Omicron waves

Abstract

Background

The clinical effectiveness of early therapies for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, comparing antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) during the Omicron era, has not been conclusively assessed through a post-approval comparative trial. We present a pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials conducted during Omicron waves.

Methods

The MANTICO2/MONET trial is a pooled analysis of two multicentric, independent, phase-4, three-arm, superiority, randomized, open-label trials. Nonhospitalized patients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (≤5 days after symptoms’ onset) and at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 500 mg of intravenous sotrovimab (SOT) or 600 mg of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) or oral 5-days course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) 300/100 mg BID. Primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization or death within 29 days after randomization. Fisher’s exact test for pooled data and incidence of failure was reported as overall and by arm with respective 95% CI. Pairwise comparisons across the arms were conducted using unadjusted exact logistic regression. An analysis by means of a doubly robust marginal model using augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) was also conducted to estimate the potential outcomes (Pom) in each treatment group and their difference by the average treatment effect (ATE). Analysis of symptom persistence within 30 days after randomization was performed using a 2-level hierarchical mixed-effects logistic model with a random intercept at the patient’s level. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were adjusted for age and sex and calculated using ANOVA-like methods for the mixed effects logistic model. These trials are registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2021-002612-31 (MANTICO2) and EudraCT2021–004188-28 (MONET) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05321394 (MANTICO2).

Findings

Between March 2022 and February 2023, 991 patients (SOT = 332, TGM/CGM = 327, NMV/r = 332) were enrolled in 15 Italian centers. The overall mean age was 66 years; 482 participants (48.80%) were male, and 856 were vaccinated with at least a primary course (86%). Among the 8/991 hospitalizations observed, one resulted in death. The overall estimate of failure was 0.81% (95%CI; 0.35–1.58%). The odds ratio (OR) for the primary outcome in the NMV/r arm compared to the TGM/CGM and SOT arms was 8.41 (95% CI 1.21 to infinity; p = 0.015) and 2.42 (95% CI 0.19 to infinity; p = 0.499), respectively. No significant difference was observed between SOT and TGM/CGM (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.032–1.83; p = 0.174). Results were similar when we applied the marginal weighted model accounting for potential residual confounding bias. There was no evidence for a difference in the prevalence of symptoms between treatment groups, except for cough, which was higher in the SOT group compared to the other two groups at the 21-day follow-up (P = 0.039) and a higher prevalence of nausea at the 7-day follow-up in the NMV/r group compared to the mAbs group (p = 0.036).

Interpretation

NMV/r was superior to TGM/CGM in reducing hospital admission or death in clinically vulnerable patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated within 5 days of symptoms’ onset. No significant difference in symptom prevalence over time across the arms was found.