Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life-threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. Methods In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. Results At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was −3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY-CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was −0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.98 to −0.08; P=0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (−0.20; 95% CI, −0.66 to 0.25; P=0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, −0.37 to 0.55; P=0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19–related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. Conclusions In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501 .)

IMPORTANCE Coronavirus disease 2019 continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29).RESULTS Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49for7000mg,-4.37forcombinationtreatment,and-3.80forplacebo.Comparedwithplacebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69)for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group werestatisticallysignificantfor10of84endpoints.TheproportionofpatientswithCOVID-19-related hospitalizationsorEDvisitswas5.8%(9events)forplacebo,1.0%(1event)for700mg,1.9%(2events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load...

Although amyloid imaging with PiB-PET, and now with F-18-labelled tracers, has produced remarkably consistent qualitative findings across a large number of centers, there has been considerable variability in the exact numbers reported as quantitative outcome measures of tracer retention. In some cases this is as trivial as the choice of units, in some cases it is scanner dependent, and of course, different tracers yield different numbers. Our working group was formed to standardize quantitative amyloid imaging measures by scaling the outcome of each particular analysis method or tracer to a 0 to 100 scale, anchored by young controls (≤45 years) and typical Alzheimer’s disease patients. The units of this scale have been named “Centiloids.” Basically, we describe a “standard” method of analyzing PiB PET data and then a method for scaling any “non-standard” method of PiB PET analysis (or any other tracer) to the Centiloid scale.

No abstract

ment of Alzheimer disease (AD) are hampered by the lack of noninvasive biomarkers of the underlying pathology. Between 10% and 20% of patients clinically diagnosed with AD lack AD pathology at autopsy, 1-3 and community physicians may not diagnose AD in 33% of patients with mild signs and symptoms. 4 Thus, a diagnostic biomarker may help clinicians separate patients who have AD pathology from those who do not. See also pp 261 and 304.