@article {Lambrou2021.04.05.21254707, author = {Anastasia S. Lambrou and John T. Redd and Miles A. Stewart and Kaitlin Rainwater-Lovett and Jonathan K. Thornhill and Lynn Hayes and Gina Smith and George M. Thorp and Christian Tomaszewski and Adolphe Edward and Natalia El{\'\i}as Calles and Mark Amox and Steven Merta and Tiffany Pfundt and Victoria Callahan and Adam Tewell and Helga Scharf-Bell and Samuel Imbriale and Jeffrey D. Freeman and Michael Anderson and Robert P. Kadlec}, title = {Implementation of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody infusion sites at three medical centers in the United States: Strengths and challenges assessment to inform COVID-19 pandemic and future public health emergency use}, elocation-id = {2021.04.05.21254707}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2021.04.05.21254707}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background The COVID-19 pandemic caught the globe unprepared without targeted medical countermeasures, such as therapeutics, to target the emerging SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, in recent months multiple monoclonal antibody therapeutics to treat COVID-19 have been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Despite these authorizations and promising clinical trial efficacy results, monoclonal antibody therapies are currently underutilized as a treatment for COVID-19 across the U.S. Many barriers exist when deploying a new infused therapeutic during an ongoing pandemic with limited resources and staffing, and it is critical to better understand the process and site requirements of incorporating monoclonal antibody infusions into pandemic response activities.Methods We examined the monoclonal antibody infusion site process components, resources, and requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic using data from three initial infusion sites at medical centers in the U.S. supported by the National Disaster Medical System. A descriptive analysis was conducted using process assessment metrics to inform recommendations to strengthen monoclonal antibody infusion site implementation.Results The monoclonal antibody infusion sites varied in physical environment and staffing models due to state polices, infection control mechanisms, and underlying medical system structure, but exhibited a common process workflow. Sites operationalized an infusion process staffing model with at least two nurses per ten infusion patients. Monoclonal antibody implementation success factors included tailoring the infusion process to the patient community, strong engagement with local medical providers, batch preparing the therapy before patient arrival, placing the infusion center in proximity to emergency services, and creating procedures resilient to EUA changes. Infusion process challenges stemmed from confirming patient SARS-CoV-2 positivity, strained staff, scheduling needs, and coordination with the pharmacy for therapy preparation.Conclusions Infusion site processes are most effective when integrated into the pre-existing pandemic response ecosystems and can be implemented with limited staff and physical resources. As the pandemic and policy tools such as EUAs evolve, monoclonal antibody infusion processes must also remain adaptable, as practice changes directly affect resources, staffing, timing, and workflows. Future use may be aided by incorporating innovative emergency deployment techniques, such as vehicle and home-based therapy administration, and by developing drug delivery mechanisms that alleviate the need for observed intravenous infusions by medically-accredited staff.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) through HHS/ASPR contract $\#$: 75A50121C00003. None of the authors received any payments or influence from a third-party source for the work presented.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This clinical support activity was conducted as part of the ASPR public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and at the request of the host institutions. Under HHS Office of Health Research Protection guidelines, it was judged a non-research COVID-19 response activity. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) Environmental Health Services Board and all three medical sites also deemed this work non-human subjects research exempt from institution review board approval.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data was collected as part of the ASPR public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and is not publicly available.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/06/2021.04.05.21254707}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/06/2021.04.05.21254707.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }