Articles

Efficacy and safety of intramuscular administration of

tixagevimab–cilgavimab for early outpatient treatment of
COVID-19 (TACKLE): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial
Hugh Montgomery, F D Richard Hobbs, Francisco Padilla, Douglas Arbetter, Alison Templeton, Seth Seegobin, Kenneth Kim,
Jesus Abraham Simón Campos, Rosalinda H Arends, Bryan H Brodek, Dennis Brooks, Pedro Garbes, Julieta Jimenez, Gavin C K W Koh,
Kelly W Padilla, Katie Streicher, Rolando M Viani, Vijay Alagappan, Menelas N Pangalos, Mark T Esser, on behalf of the TACKLE study group

Summary
Background Early intramuscular administration of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibody combination, Lancet Respir Med 2022
tixagevimab–cilgavimab, to non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 has potential to prevent disease Published Online
progression. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tixagevimab–cilgavimab in preventing progression to June 7, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/
severe COVID-19 or death.
S2213-2600(22)00180-1
See Online/Comment
Methods TACKLE is an ongoing, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 95 sites in https://doi.org/10.1016/
the USA, Latin America, Europe, and Japan. Eligible participants were non-hospitalised adults aged 18 years or older S2213-2600(22)00213-2
with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by RT-PCR or an antigen test) from any respiratory Department of Medicine,
tract specimen collected 3 days or less before enrolment and who had not received a COVID-19 vaccination. A University College London,
WHO Clinical Progression Scale score from more than 1 to less than 4 was required for inclusion and participants London, UK
(Prof H Montgomery MD);
had to receive the study drug 7 days or less from self-reported onset of mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms or Nuffield Department of
measured fever. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a single tixagevimab–cilgavimab 600 mg Primary Care Health Sciences,
dose (two consecutive 3 mL intramuscular injections, one each of 300 mg tixagevimab and 300 mg cilgavimab) or University of Oxford, Oxford,
UK (Prof F D R Hobbs FMedSci);
placebo. Randomisation was stratified (using central blocked randomisation with randomly varying block sizes) by
Centro de Investigación en
time from symptom onset, and high-risk versus low-risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Participants, Cardiología y Metabolismo,
investigators, and sponsor staff involved in the treatment or clinical evaluation and monitoring of the participants Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
were masked to treatment-group assignments. The primary endpoints were severe COVID-19 or death from any (F Padilla MD); Biometrics,
Vaccines and Immune
cause through to day 29, and safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04723394.
Therapies, BioPharmaceuticals
Research and Development,
Findings Between Jan 28, 2021, and July 22, 2021, 1014 participants were enrolled, of whom 910 were randomly AstraZeneca, Boston, MA, USA
assigned to a treatment group (456 to receive tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 454 to receive placebo). The mean age of (D Arbetter MPH); Biometrics,
Vaccines and Immune
participants was 46·1 years (SD 15·2). Severe COVID-19 or death occurred in 18 (4%) of 407 participants in the
Therapies (A Templeton PhD,
tixagevimab–cilgavimab group versus 37 (9%) of 415 participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction 50·5% S Seegobin PhD), Clinical
[95% CI 14·6–71·3]; p=0·0096). The absolute risk reduction was 4·5% (95% CI 1·1–8·0; p<0·0001). Adverse events Pharmacology and Safety
occurred in 132 (29%) of 452 participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 163 (36%) of 451 participants in Sciences
(R H Arends PhD*), Clinical
the placebo group, and were mostly of mild or moderate severity. There were three COVID-19-reported deaths in the
Development, Vaccines and
tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and six in the placebo group. Immune Therapies
(G C K W Koh PhD), and Vaccines
Interpretation A single intramuscular tixagevimab–cilgavimab dose provided statistically and clinically significant and Immune Therapies
(M N Pangalos PhD)
protection against progression to severe COVID-19 or death versus placebo in unvaccinated individuals and safety BioPharmaceuticals Research
was favourable. Treating mild to moderate COVID-19 earlier in the disease course with tixagevimab–cilgavimab and Development,
might lead to more favourable outcomes. AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK;
ARK Clinical Research,
Long Beach, CA, USA
Funding AstraZeneca. (K Kim MD); Köhler & Milstein
Research/Hospital Agustín
Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. O’Horán, Mérida, Yucatán,
Mexico (J A S Campos MD);
Development Operations
Introduction variants emerge that might confer decreased vaccine (B H Brodek BSc), Patient
COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing symptomatic effectiveness.1,3,4 Safety, Chief Medical Office
and severe COVID-19;1 however, some populations remain SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies and (D Brooks MD), Clinical
at risk as SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate.2 Older adults, antiviral therapies have been shown to be effective in Pharmacology and
Quantitative Pharmacology,
individuals with multiple comorbidities, and those who the treatment of non-hospitalised adults with COVID-19 Clinical Development, Vaccines
are immunocompromised are at risk of severe COVID-19 who are at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 and Immune Therapies
outcomes from breakthrough infections, especially as new and death.5–9 Further evidence suggests that earlier (P Garbes MD, J Jimenez BSc,

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1 1

 Articles
R M Viani MD), Translational
Medicine, Vaccines and
Immune Therapies
(K Streicher PhD), Late-stage
Development, Respiratory and
Immunology (V Alagappan MD),
and Vaccines and Immune
Therapies (M T Esser PhD),
BioPharmaceuticals Research
and Development,
AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg,
MD, USA; Clinical
Development, Late-stage
Development, Vaccines and
Immune Therapies,
BioPharmaceuticals Research
and Development,
AstraZeneca, Durham, NC, USA
(K W Padilla PharmD)
*Affiliation at time this work was
conducted
Correspondence to:
Dr Mark Esser, Vaccines and
Immune Therapies,
BioPharmaceuticals Research
and Development, AstraZeneca,
Gaithersburg, MD, USA
mark.esser@astrazeneca.com
See Online for appendix
2 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
Research in context
Evidence before this study
Before the TACKLE study began (January, 2021), monoclonal
antibodies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 were
in early stages of development and, as a consequence, there
were few published clinical trials. Since then, randomised,
placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials have been published
for different monoclonal antibodies. A literature search of
PubMed from date of inception to Jan 11, 2022, using the
terms “SARS-CoV-2” or “COVID-19” and “monoclonal
antibodies” or “mAbs” with the filters of “randomised
controlled trial” and “clinical trial, phase 3”, and no language
restrictions, identified 117 peer-reviewed publications related
to the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies in patients
with COVID-19. Of these, only five reported on use in the
outpatient treatment setting, and none reported on
monoclonal antibodies using an intramuscular route of
administration.
Added value of this study
This study provides evidence of the efficacy and safety of a
single 600 mg intramuscular dose of tixagevimab–cilgavimab
for the treatment of COVID-19 in non-hospitalised adults
administration of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal
antibodies and antivirals leads to more favourable
clinical outcomes.6,9 However, effectiveness of some
SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies might
be limited by the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2
variants.8,10,11 Therefore, additional COVID-19 treatment
options are needed in populations at increased risk of
severe disease to mitigate the risk for severe outcomes
and reduce the burden on health-care systems, and in
preparation for the possible emergence of more malign
variants of concern.
Tixagevimab–cilgavimab (AZD7442, Catalent,
Bloomington, IN, USA) is a combination of two fully
human, extended half-life SARS-CoV-2-neutralising
monoclonal antibodies that simultaneously bind to
distinct, non-overlapping epitopes of the viral spike
protein receptor-binding domain.12 Tixagevimab–
cilgavimab has been shown to have neutralisation
activity in vitro against the original SARS-CoV-2 and
variants of concern.12 Tixagevimab–cilgavimab can be
administered by intramuscular injection and has
received authorisation in various countries, including
US Food and Drug Administration emergency use
authorisation for the prevention of COVID-19 in
specific adults and children (aged 12 years and older
weighing at least 40 kg).13
This ongoing phase 3 trial (TACKLE) aims to evaluate
the safety and efficacy of a single 600-mg intramuscular
dose of tixagevimab–cilgavimab for the treatment of
COVID-19 in non-hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with
mild to moderate COVID-19 to prevent progression to
severe COVID-19 or death.
with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk of progression
to severe disease, who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a long-acting antibody, with
longer half-life compared with other monoclonal antibodies
published so far. Tixagevimab–cilgavimab was the first
monoclonal antibody combination to receive US Food and
Drug Administration authorisation for use in COVID-19
prevention, providing extended protection from a single
intramuscular dose. Other authorised anti-SARS-CoV-2
monoclonal antibodies are indicated to be administered
intravenously and subcutaneously. It is therefore of interest
to evaluate the efficacy of intramuscular tixagevimab–
cilgavimab in treating mild to moderate COVID-19.
Implications of all the available evidence
The TACKLE results add to the growing evidence supporting
tixagevimab–cilgavimab use as treatment against SARS-CoV-2
in different settings and provide additional support beyond the
emergency use authorisation for prevention of COVID-19.
Further studies of tixagevimab–cilgavimab treatment are
needed among individuals who have received COVID-19
vaccination.
Methods
Study design
TACKLE is an ongoing, phase 3, randomised, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. The trial is
being conducted at 95 sites in the USA, Latin America,
Europe, and Japan. The proportion of hospital versus
non-hospital study sites is included in the appendix (p 7).
The study was conducted in accordance with the Good
Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of
Helsinki, Council for International Organizations of
Medical Sciences International Ethical guidelines,
applicable International Conference on Harmonisation
Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and all applicable laws
and regulations. The protocol, protocol amendments, and
all other relevant documentation were reviewed and
approved by an institutional review board or ethics
committee. The protocol (including amendments) and
statistical analysis plan are in the appendix (pp 21–205).
Participants
Eligible participants were non-hospitalised adults
(definition of hospitalisation in the appendix p 9) aged
18 years or older with a documented laboratory-confirmed
SARS-CoV-2 infection, as determined by RT-PCR (testing
for viral RNA) or an antigen test (testing for presence of
SARS-CoV-2 proteins) from any respiratory tract
specimen collected 3 days or less before enrolment
(day 1). A WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of more
than 1 to less than 4 (appendix p 15) was required for
inclusion. Participants had to receive study drug 7 days or
less (inclusive; day 1 symptom count started from the first
day of symptoms) from self-reported onset of mild to
 Definition of being at high-risk of progression to severe COVID-19
••
Persons aged ≥65 years at randomisation.
Persons aged <65 years and having ≥1 of the following conditions:
– Cancer
– Chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma
– Obesity (body mass index ≥30; may be based on self-report of recent height and weight measurement)
– Hypertension
– Cardiovascular disease (including history of smoke)
– Diabetes
– Chronic kidney disease
– Chronic liver disease
– Immunocompromised state from solid organ transplant, blood or bone marrow transplant, immune deficiencies, human
immunodeficiency virus, use of corticosteroids, or use of other immunosuppressive medicines
– Sickle cell disease
– Smoking (current or former)
moderate COVID-19 symptoms or measured fever.
Peripheral saturation of arterial blood with oxygen
(oxygen saturation) of 92% or more obtained at rest by
study staff within 24 h before enrolment (day 1) was
required. Participants could not be involved in another
clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2
during the study period until reaching hospitalisation or
28 days after study entry, whichever was earliest.
Participants were excluded if they had a history of
hospitalisation or were currently hospitalised for
COVID-19, or if they had a current need for hospitalisation
or immediate medical attention in a clinic or emergency
room service in the clinical opinion of the site investigator.
Due to local public health guidelines, some sites in Japan
and Russia were required to hospitalise participants for
isolation purposes upon testing positive for COVID-19;
these participants were excluded from the primary
analysis, but were included in the full analysis set (all
randomly assigned participants who received study drug)
and the third supportive estimand of the primary analysis.
Participants could be enrolled if the only reason for
hospitalisation related to a local policy-driven need for
isolation. Participants were excluded if they had history of
hypersensitivity, infusion-related reaction, or severe
adverse reaction following administration of a monoclonal
antibody, or if they had previously received an
investigational or licensed vaccine or other monoclonal
antibody or biologic indicated for the prevention of
SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 before study entry, or if
administration of these products was expected
immediately after enrolment. Full inclusion and exclusion
criteria are provided in the appendix (pp 7–11). All
participants provided written informed consent.
Randomisation and masking
All participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to
receive either tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo using
interactive response technology. Randomisation was
stratified (using central blocked randomisation) by time
from symptom onset (≤5 days vs >5 days), and high-risk
versus low-risk of progression to severe COVID-19
(including those aged ≥65 years, immunocompromised
individuals, and those with comorbidities, such as cancer
and chronic diseases). At least 60% of enrolled participants
were required to meet the protocol definition of being at
high risk. Full definition of individuals at high risk are
included in the appendix (p 11). An external third-party
vendor (Signant Health; Blue Bell, PA, USA) was
responsible for creating and housing the randomisation
scheme. A method of randomly varying block sizes with
1:1 randomisation of treatment within each block of cells
was used. The participants, investigators, and sponsor
staff involved in the treatment or clinical evaluation and
monitoring of the participants were masked to treatment-
group assignments. Masked study site staff could enrol
participants. Study drug containers were not numbered
before sending to the study sites; tixagevimab–cilgavimab
www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
Articles
was distributed as an open-label product vial, and placebo
was normal saline solution provided by the site. Both
were handled by an unmasked pharmacist at the study
site who received a notification on what treatment to
assign for each participant. Syringe masking was done to
maintain masking.
Procedures
On day 1, participants were given either tixagevimab–
cilgavimab as a single 600 mg dose (two consecutive
3 mL intramuscular injections, one each of 300 mg
tixagevimab and 300 mg cilgavimab) or saline placebo
(0·9% NaCL; two consecutive 3 mL intramuscular
injections).
The first 20 participants who received the study drug
(approximately ten allocated to tixagevimab–cilgavimab
and approximately ten allocated to placebo) formed
a sentinel group (randomly assigned 1:1 without
stratification) and underwent safety monitoring for 4 h
post-dose and daily follow-up for the first 4 days after
receiving the study drug. An independent Data Safety
Monitoring Board reviewed safety data through to day 8
and provided a recommendation to continue or to halt
dosing of additional participants. The next 80 participants
received the study drug with safety monitoring for 2 h
post-dose. Subsequent participants received the study drug
with safety monitoring for 1 h post-dose. Further details on
study drug allocation, post-dose follow-up, and criteria for
study suspension are provided in the appendix (pp 11–12).
Participants will be monitored for safety purposes for
456 days after receiving the study drug, to allow
assessment of safety over 5 half-lives for tixagevimab–
cilgavimab (approximately 450 days). The primary
analysis was conducted 30 days after approximately
43 primary endpoint events had been observed, and
additional analysis will be conducted after all participants
have been followed up through to day 169. A final analysis
will be conducted once all participants have completed
the study at day 457. The Data Safety Monitoring Board
will continue to monitor safety throughout the study.
Participants were recruited into one of two independent
cohorts: cohort 1 (approximately 300 participants) and
cohort 2 (up to approximately 1400 participants. Clinical
assessments included supplemental oxygen use recorded
at screening and at each in-person visit. Clinical
assessment at in-person follow-up visits was done at days
1, 3, 6, 15, 29, 85, 169, and 366 for cohort 1, and days 1, 6,
29, 85, 169, and 366 for cohort 2. At study entry, if
peripheral oxygen saturation was less than 92% on usual
supplemental oxygen requirements, the participant was
referred for emergency department evaluation and did not
receive the study drug, and after day 1 to day 29, peripheral
oxygen saturation measurements of less than 96% were
reviewed and referred for medical attention. Severe
COVID-19 was assessed for each participant.
For safety assessments, a complete physical exami-
nation was done at screening and at day 366. Adverse
3
 Articles

events were reported by the participant; the investigator sequencing, mid-turbinate nasal swabs and plasma were
and any designees were responsible for detecting, collected on days 1, 3, 6, 15, and 29 for cohort 1 and days 1,
documenting, and recording events that met the 6, and 29 for cohort 2 for qualitative and quantitative
definition of an adverse event. Non-serious adverse SARS-CoV-2 RNA assessment.
events were collected from receipt of the study drug Clinical samples were screened for antidrug antibody
throughout the study, up to and including the last visit. assessment (at days 1, 29, 85, 169, 366, and optional at
Serious adverse events and adverse events of special day 457) against tixagevimab and cilgavimab separately
interest were (and will continue to be) recorded from the using an enhanced chemiluminescence solution-phase
time of signing of the informed consent form throughout bridging method. Samples were reported screen positive
the study, up to and including the last visit. for antidrug antibody in the screening assay if the mean
Full methods for complete physical examinations, enhanced chemiluminescence value was at or above the
virological, and antidrug antibody assessments are value of the plate-specific cut point factor.
provided in the appendix (pp 12–13). Targeted physical
examination was done at each in-person visit (days 1, 3, 6, Outcomes
15, 29, 85, and 169 for cohort 1, days 1, 6, 29, 85, and 169 The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of either
for cohort 2). A complete physical examination was done severe COVID-19 or death from any cause through to
at day 366 and included, but was not limited to, day 29, with severe COVID-19 being defined as a
assessment of height, bodyweight, general appearance, minimum of either pneumonia (fever, cough, tachypnoea
head, ears, eyes, nose, throat, neck, skin, in addition to or dyspnoea, and lung infiltrates) or hypoxaemia (oxygen
cardiovascular, respiratory, abdominal, and nervous saturation <90% in room air, severe respiratory distress,
systems. For virological assessments including viral or both), plus a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of
5 or more.14 The treating principal investigators were
responsible for determining whether participants met the
1014 participants enrolled* criteria of severe COVID-19 based on specific clinical
parameters. Each reported event was reviewed by the
104 not randomly assigned masked AstraZeneca Global Study Team to confirm the
82 screen failure principal investigator’s classification of a participant as
15 participant withdrawal
7 other
having severe COVID-19, as well as confirming participant
hospitalisations where severe COVID-19 was not reported.
Independent adjudication of these results was deemed
910 randomly assigned
unnecessary since misclassification of events was unlikely
based on the defined clinical criteria, the clinical
experience of the treating principal investigators, and
456 assigned to tixagevimab–cilgavimab 454 assigned to placebo masked oversight from the Global Study Team.
The primary safety endpoints were adverse events,
serious adverse events, and adverse events of special
4 did not receive treatment 3 did not receive treatment
interest throughout the study. Adverse events of special
interest included anaphylaxis and other serious
452 received tixagevimab–cilgavimab 451 received placebo hypersensitivity reactions, including immune complex
disease and injection site reactions.
16 participants withdrawn 19 participants withdrawn Secondary endpoints at day 29 included the incidence
from study from study of respiratory failure, levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasal
7 participant withdrawal 7 participant withdrawal swabs, and incidence of antidrug antibodies to
6 deaths 5 deaths†
2 lost to follow-up 2 lost to follow-up tixagevimab–cilgavimab in serum. Respiratory failure
1 physician decision 2 adverse event was defined as a requirement for mechanical ventilation,
3 other
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, non-invasive
ventilation, or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen delivery.
452 included in full analysis set 451 included in full analysis set The key secondary endpoint was a composite of death
413 included in primary efficacy analysis 421 included in primary efficacy analysis from any cause or hospitalisation for COVID-19
(modified full analysis set)‡ (modified full analysis set)‡
452 included in primary safety analysis 451 included in primary safety analysis complications or sequalae to day 169. Other secondary
(safety analysis set) (safety analysis set) endpoints were whether tixagevimab–cilgavimab reduces
the progression of participant-reported COVID-19-
Figure 1: Trial profile associated symptoms to day 29, the differences in
*Informed consent received. †This differs from the initial number of deaths shown in table 3 because one death symptom duration between tixagevimab–cilgavimab and
occurred after the data cutoff, but the adverse event began before the data cutoff, thus the outcome was recorded.
This death is excluded from the figure because the record itself is after the data cutoff. ‡Participants excluded from placebo to day 29, and the single-dose pharmacokinetics
the primary analysis modified full analysis set comprised those hospitalised at baseline for isolation purposes of tixagevimab–cilgavimab. See appendix p 12 for full
(in Japan and Russia) or those randomly assigned after 7 days of symptom onset. details of secondary endpoints.

4 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1

 Articles

Exploratory endpoints included hospitalisation for any cause in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group relative
COVID-19 disease or its complications through to to the placebo group.
day 29 (post hoc), and baseline and emergent viral The primary efficacy endpoint was calculated for the
resistance to tixagevimab–cilgavimab per viral genotypic modified full analysis set, which comprised all
analysis (prespecified). participants in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned
The study has a follow-up period of 457 days. Here, we participants who received study drug) who received study
report data from the primary data cutoff (Aug 21, 2021), drug 7 days or less from symptom onset and were not
at which time all ongoing study participants had hospitalised at baseline (up to and including day 1) for
completed at least 29 days of study follow-up. The key isolation purposes. Data collected following an
secondary endpoint of a composite of death from any intercurrent event (receipt of COVID-19 treatment
cause or hospitalisation for COVID-19 complications or product before day 29 without already having met the
sequalae to day 169 is not yet available and will be
analysed using a later data cutoff and reported
Tixagevimab– Placebo Total
elsewhere. Analyses of other secondary endpoints cilgavimab (n=451) (N=903)
including the progression of participant-reported (n=452)
COVID-19-associated symptoms and differences in Age, years 46·3 (15·4) 45·9 (15·0) 46·1 (15·2)
symptom duration will also be reported elsewhere. Age group, years
Analyses through to the end of the study (day 457) will ≥18 to <65 393 (87%) 394 (87%) 787 (87%)
be done after the final database lock after the last patient ≥65 to <75 38 (8%) 46 (10%) 84 (9%)
last visit.
≥75 21 (5%) 11 (2%) 32 (4%)
Sex
Statistical analysis
Female 239 (53%) 216 (48%) 455 (50%)
For the sample size, up to approximately 1700 participants
Male 213 (47%) 235 (52%) 448 (50%)
were planned to be randomly assigned to receive a single
Ethnicity
600-mg dose of tixagevimab–cilgavimab administered
Hispanic or Latino 230 (51%) 238 (53%) 468 (52%)
intramuscularly (up to approximately 850 participants)
Not Hispanic or Latino 222 (49%) 213 (47%) 435 (48%)
or placebo (up to approximately 850 participants).
Race
Enrolment was planned to stop once approximately
White 285 (63%) 274 (61%) 559 (62%)
43 primary events had been observed in the primary
American Indian or Alaska Native 100 (22%) 115 (26%) 215 (24%)
analysis population. This is an event-driven study with a
Asian 30 (7%) 21 (5%) 51 (6%)
primary analysis initiated 30 days after approximately
43 primary endpoints had been confirmed in the primary Black or African American 16 (4%) 20 (4%) 36 (4%)

analysis population. The study had 90% or more power Unknown, not reported, multiple, or missing data 21 (5%) 21 (5%) 42 (5%)
to detect a relative risk (RR) reduction of 65% in the Body-mass index, kg/m² 28·9 (5·5) 29·2 (6·6) 29·0 (6·0)
incidence of severe COVID-19 or death between the Time from symptom onset, days 4·9 (1·6) 5·0 (1·6) 5·0 (1·6)
study groups, based on the assumption that severe Serum for SARS-CoV-2 serology
COVID-19 or death in the placebo group would be 4·6%. Positive 60 (13%) 67 (15%) 127 (14%)
These assumptions reflected a protocol amendment Negative 384 (85%) 374 (83%) 758 (84%)
(version 7·0, July 5, 2021), following observed event rates Missing data 8 (2%) 10 (2%) 18 (2%)
of 4·6% to 5·8% in control groups from published At high risk of progression to severe COVID-19* 404 (89%) 405 (90%) 809 (90%)
studies.5,7 Accordingly, statistical power was reduced Risk factors for severe COVID-19
from 95% to 90% to accommodate the decrease in One or more risk factor 400 (89%) 399 (89%) 799 (89%)
expected event rate while maintaining a reasonable Obesity, body mass-index >30 kg/m² 195 (43%) 193 (43%) 388 (43%)
sample size and required number of events for analysis. Smoking 180 (40%) 184 (41%) 364 (40%)
Further details on protocol amendments, in addition to Hypertension 135 (30%) 121 (27%) 256 (28%)
protocol deviations, are provided in the appendix (p 7). Diabetes 53 (12%) 55 (12%) 108 (12%)
For the primary efficacy endpoint, the RR reduction in Chronic lung disease or asthma 58 (13%) 50 (11%) 108 (12%)
incidence of severe COVID-19 or death from any cause in Cardiovascular disease 42 (9%) 38 (8%) 80 (9%)
the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group relative to the placebo Cancer 18 (4%) 15 (3%) 33 (4%)
group was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chronic kidney disease 10 (2%) 9 (2%) 19 (2%)
(CMH) test. The primary efficacy endpoint was a binary Chronic liver disease 7 (2%) 13 (3%) 20 (2%)
response, and the CMH test was used to investigate Immunocompromised state 22 (5%) 23 (5%) 45 (5%)
treatment effect stratified by the two stratification factors
Data are mean (SD) or n (%). *High risk of progression defined as at least one risk factor, including age (≥65 years old)
at randomisation. Efficacy was estimated by the common or having at least one comorbidity (cancer, chronic lung disease, obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease,
RR or risk ratio from the CMH test. The RR diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, immunocompromised state, sickle cell disease, or smoking).
reduction = 100 × (1 – RR) represented the percentage
Table 1: Participant demographics and baseline clinical characteristics in the full analysis set
reduction in incidence of severe COVID-19 or death from

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1 5

 Articles

Population Tixagevimab– Placebo RR reduction (95% CI) p value

cilgavimab
Primary efficacy endpoints and supportive estimands
Primary endpoint: severe COVID-19 Modified full analysis set* 18/407 (4%) 37/415 (9%) 50·5% (14·6–71·3) 0·0096
or death from any cause through to
day 29
First supportive estimand: severe Non-hospitalised participants who 9/253 (4%) 27/251 (11%) 66·9% (31·1–84·1) 0·0017
COVID-19 or death from any cause received study drug ≤5 days from
through to day 29 symptom onset (early intervention
analysis set)
Second supportive estimand: severe Modified full analysis set* 12/407 (3%) 33/415 (8%) 63·0% (29·4–80·6) 0·0015
COVID-19 or death from any cause
from day 4 through to day 29
Third supportive estimand: severe Full analysis set† 24/446 (5%) 41/444 (9%) 41·6% (5·0–64·1) 0·028
COVID-19 or death from any cause
through to day 29
Fourth supportive estimand: severe Non-hospitalised participants, who 14/347 (4%) 36/345 (10%) 61·3% (29·7–78·7) 0·0011
COVID-19 or death from any cause were seronegative at baseline and
through to day 29 received study drug ≤7 days from
symptom onset (seronegative
analysis set)
Secondary and exploratory endpoints
Secondary endpoint: prevention of Modified full analysis set 3/405 (1%) 11/412 (3%) 71·9% (0·3–92·1) 0·036
respiratory failure
Exploratory: hospitalisation for Modified full analysis set 17/413 (4%) 40/421 (10%) ·· ··
COVID-19 including complications
through to day 29
Data are n/N (%). RR=relative risk. Results from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by time from symptom onset (≤5 days vs >5 days) and risk of progression to severe
COVID-19 (high risk vs low risk). RR reduction represents the percentage reduction in incidence of severe COVID-19 or death from any cause in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab
group relative to the placebo group. A RR reduction >0 represents favourable efficacy in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group. For the primary outcome and supportive
estimands, p<0·05 indicates a statistically significant result; missing response data were not imputed. For the secondary outcome, p<0·05 indicates a nominally statistically
significant result, as this analysis was not included in the multiple testing hierarchy. *Six patients from each group had missing data and were not included in this analysis.
†Six patients in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and seven patients in the placebo group had missing data and were not included in this analysis.

Table 2: Primary efficacy endpoints and supportive analyses, and secondary efficacy endpoints

primary efficacy endpoint) were analysed using an
intention-to-treat strategy, therefore, no censoring was
done for the intercurrent event.
To support the primary endpoint, Kaplan-Meier curves
were used to summarise time to severe COVID-19 or
death from any cause during the first 28 days post-dose
for each randomly assigned group. A stratified log-rank
test was conducted to assess the difference between
groups. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to
obtain a hazard ratio (HR) and respective 95% CIs, with
the stratification factors included as covariates.
Supportive analyses of the primary endpoint
(supportive estimands) were done using the same
statistical methodology as described for the primary
efficacy endpoint. The first supportive estimand (early
intervention) analysis included all participants in the
modified full analysis set who received dosing up to and
including 5 days from symptom onset. The second
supportive estimand analysis was done in the modified
full analysis set and only considered events occurring
from day 4 through to day 29. The third supportive
estimand analysis was done in the full analysis set
(ie, including participants who might have been excluded
from the primary analysis due to being hospitalised for
isolation purposes). The fourth supportive estimand
analysis was done in participants in the modified full
analysis set who were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at
baseline.
The primary endpoint and four supportive estimands
were tested sequentially in a hierarchical order to control
for multiplicity; p values for secondary endpoint analyses
should be considered nominal. Analyses used for all
secondary endpoints reported in this manuscript and
further information on the supportive estimands are
shown in the appendix (pp 13–14). Secondary endpoints
with binary outcomes were analysed using CMH as in
the primary efficacy analysis, and those with time-to-
event outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier.
Viral load was analysed using a mixed model for repeated
measures, for which the least squares mean differences
were reported. The change from baseline of SARS-CoV-2
RNA, and RNA levels at each treatment visit from nasal
swabs were summarised using descriptive statistics.
The safety analysis was done in the safety analysis set,
which included all participants who received the study
drug. Erroneously treated participants were analysed
according to the treatment they actually received. No
statistical testing was done for the safety endpoints. SAS
(version 9.4) was used for all statistical analysis. This trial
is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04723394.

6 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1

 Articles

Role of the funding source older. 455 (50%) participants were female, 448 (50%) were
The funder of the study was responsible for manufacturing male, and 559 (62%) were White.
tixagevimab–cilgavimab, for designing the study, for In the primary efficacy analysis, severe COVID-19 or
acquiring, analysing, and interpreting the data, for death occurred in 18 (4%) of 407 participants in the
writing the report, and reviewing the manuscript. tixagevimab–cilgavimab group versus 37 (9%) of
415 participants in the placebo group (RR reduction 50·5%
Results [95% CI 14·6–71·3]; p=0·0096; table 2). Six participants
Between Jan 28, 2021, and July 22, 2021, 1014 participants from each group were not included in the primary
were enrolled, of whom 910 were randomly assigned to a analysis due to missing data (ie, 407 and 415 were
treatment group (456 to receive tixagevimab–cilgavimab included rather than 413 and 421). The absolute risk
and 454 to receive placebo). 413 participants in the reduction was 4·5% (95% CI 1·1–8·0; p<0·0001). The
tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 421 in the placebo four supportive analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint
group were included in the modified full analysis set also showed significant reductions in the development of
(figure 1). 43 participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab severe COVID-19 or death with tixagevimab–cilgavimab
group and 33 in the placebo group were excluded from versus placebo (table 2).
the primary analysis because they were either hospitalised Kaplan-Meier probability of severe COVID-19 or death
at baseline for isolation purposes (in Japan and Russia), from any cause occurring up to day 29 is summarised in
or were randomly assigned after 7 days of symptom onset. figure 2A. The supplementary Cox Regression analysis
Median safety follow-up was 84·0 days (tixagevimab– showed a 51% reduction in the risk for severe COVID-19
cilgavimab IQR 31·0–86·0, placebo IQR 30·0–86·0) in or death from any cause for tixagevimab–cilgavimab
both treatment groups. versus placebo (figure 2A). Additional supportive
Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint by time from
the groups (table 1). Mean age was 46·1 years (SD 15·2) symptom onset showed reduction in severe COVID-19
and 116 (13%) of 903 participants were aged 65 years or or death with tixagevimab–cilgavimab compared with

A
100 Treatment group
99
Probability of severe COVID-19 or death (%)

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab
98 Placebo
10 HR 0·49 (95% CI 0·28–0·86); p=0·010
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Time since receiving study drug (days)
Number at risk
Tixagevimab–cilgavimab 413 412 409 407 402 399 396 396 394 394 394 394 394 392 392 391 391 390 390 390 389 389 389 389 389 388 386 385 376 0
Placebo 421 420 417 415 410 403 391 389 386 383 381 381 381 381 380 379 379 379 379 378 378 378 377 377 377 376 375 370 365 0

B
Time from symptom Number of participants with event RR reduction (95% CI)
onset to random
assignment Tixagevimab– Placebo, n/N (%)
cilgavimab, n/N (%)

≤1 day 0/6 0/6 NE (NE)

≤2 days 0/29 3/34 (9%) 100% (NE)
≤3 days 1/90 (1%) 8/84 (10%) 88·0% (9·4–98·4)
≤4 days 4/172 (2%) 17/157 (11%) 78·4% (37·4–92·6)
≤5 days 9/253 (4%) 27/251 (11%) 66·9% (31·1–84·1)
≤6 days 11/329 (3%) 32/345 (9%) 64·1% (29·9–81·6)
≤7 days 18/407 (4%) 37/415 (9%) 50·5% (14·6–71·3)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Favours tixagevimab–cilgavimab

(Figure 2 continues on next page)

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1 7

 Articles

C
Number of participants with event RR reduction (95% CI)

Tixagevimab– Placebo, n/N (%)

cilgavimab, n/N (%)

Age
<65 years 10/359 (3%) 29/364 (8%) 65·1% (29·6 to 82·7)
≥65 years 8/48 (17%) 8/51 (16%) –6·9% (–159·9 to 56·0)
<75 years 12/389 (3%) 35/405 (9%) 64·3% (32·3 to 81·2)
≥75 years 6/18 (33%) 2/10 (20%) –49·0% (–424·9 to 57·7)
<80 years 15/398 (4%) 36/410 (9%) 57·2% (23·2 to 76·2)
≥80 years 3/9 (33%) 1/5 (20%) NE (NE)
Sex
Figure 2: Analysis of the
composite primary endpoint Male 10/186 (5%) 21/211 (10%) 44·9% (–12·8 to 73·1)
of severe COVID-19 or death Female 8/221 (4%) 16/204 (8%) 52·9% (–7·5 to 79·4)
from any cause up to day 29 Race
after receiving study drug American Indian or Alaskan Native 2/97 (2%) 14/113 (12%) 84·3% (25·0 to 96·7)
(A) Kaplan-Meier plot of time Asian 0/10 1/9 (11%) NE (NE)
to severe COVID-19 or death
Black or African American 0/15 1/19 (5%) 100 (NE)
from any cause through to
day 29 in the modified full Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders 0/0 0/0 NE (NE)
analysis set. p value is based on White 15/265 (6%) 18/253 (7%) 19·4% (–55·7 to 58·3)
log-rank test stratified by time Other 0/0 0/0 NE (NE)
from symptom onset (≤5 days Ethnicity
vs >5 days), when applicable, Hispanic or Latino 8/218 (4%) 25/230 (11%) 66·5% (26·0 to 84·9)
and risk of progression to
Not Hispanic or Latino 10/189 (5%) 12/185 (7%) 18·7% (–81·0 to 63·5)
severe COVID-19 (high risk vs
low risk). Total number of Region
patients censored: USA 2/62 (3%) 2/36 (6%) 30·3% (–359·7 to 89·4)
tixagevimab–cilgavimab group Europe 11/173 (6%) 11/175 (6%) –3·5% (–129·0 to 53·2)
n=389, placebo group n=378. Latin America 5/166 (3%) 24/201 (12%) 74·5% (32·8 to 90·3)
(B) Forest plot of RR reduction Asia 0/6 0/3 NE (NE)
estimates for severe COVID-19
Risk group
or death from any cause
High 17/364 (5%) 33/371 (9%) 47·5% (7·5 to 70·2)
through to day 29 by time from
symptom onset at random Low 1/43 (2%) 4/44 (9%) 75·4% (–115·1 to 97·2)
assignment. Day 1 symptom COVID-19 comorbidity
count started from the first day ≥1 15/360 (4%) 33/365 (9%) 53·9% (16·6 to 74·5)
of symptoms. RR reductions 0 3/47 (6%) 4/50 (8%) 21·0% (–209·4 to 79·8)
represent the percentage
Baseline vitamin D
reduction in incidence of severe
<30 ng/mL 15/270 (6%) 25/276 (9%) 39·5% (–12·8 to 67·6)
COVID-19 or death from any
cause in the tixagevimab– ≥30 ng/mL 2/72 (3%) 3/74 (4%) 32·1% (–270·0 to 87·5)
cilgavimab group relative to Baseline zinc
placebo. A RR reduction >0 <100 µg/dL 15/301 (5%) 26/296 (9%) 44·1% (–4·3 to 70·0)
represents favourable efficacy ≥100 µg/dL 2/33 (6%) 2/38 (5%) 19·1% (–427·8 to 87·6)
in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab
Standard of care
group. (C) Forest plot of RR
Antiviral 0/0 0/0 NE (NE)
reduction estimates for severe
COVID-19 or death from any Antiviral, not active against COVID-19 2/15 (13%) 0/12 NE (NE)
cause through to day 29 by Antibiotic 2/24 (8%) 5/32 (16%) 65·5% (–99·6 to 94·0)
participant subgroup in the Immune–based 2/7 (29%) 0/3 NE (NE)
modified full analysis set. Corticosteroids 1/11 (9%) 1/14 (7%) –18·2% (–2988·5 to 95·5)
Arrows denote 95% CI bounds
Adjunctive 8/183 (4%) 23/206 (11%) 61·2% (14·4 to 82·4)
that are lower than the scale
Other 1/36 (3%) 0/42 NE (NE)
shown. Results in panel C were
from a Cochran-Mantel- None 7/209 (3%) 13/189 (7%) 49·0% (–25·1 to 79·2)
Haenszel test with stratification Baseline serum SARS-CoV-2 antibody
factors used in the primary Positive 4/52 (8%) 1/62 (2%) –436·2% (–5515·2 to 48·8)
analysis. For the subgroups of Negative 14/347 (4%) 36/345 (10%) 61·3% (29·7 to 78·7)
age, risk of progression was not
a stratification factor. If there
–450 –400 –350 –300 –250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100
was no stratification factor, a
χ² test was used. HR=hazard Favours placebo Favours tixagevimab–cilgavimab
ratio. NE=not evaluable. RR reduction (%)
RR=relative risk.

8 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1

 Articles

placebo in the 7 days after symptom onset. The greatest

Tixagevimab– Placebo
reductions in development of severe COVID-19 or death cilgavimab (n=451)
were observed when tixagevimab–cilgavimab was (n=452)
administered as early as possible after symptom onset, Any adverse event* 132 (29%) 163 (36%)
as shown by the RR reductions at 3 days or less Mild 67 (15%) 65 (14%)
(prespecified subgroup), 5 days or less and, at 7 days or Moderate 34 (8%) 50 (11%)
less (prespecified subgroup) from symptom onset Severe 22 (5%) 30 (7%)
(figure 2B). Total deaths 6 (1%) 6 (1%)†
For most participant subgroups, reductions in the Acute myocardial infarction or acute left ventricular failure 1 (<1%) 0
risk of developing severe COVID-19 or death with
Sudden cardiac death 1 (<1%) 0
tixagevimab–cilgavimab were consistent with the
COVID-19 pneumonia with outcome of death 2 (<1%) 4 (1%)
primary analysis (figure 2C). Most events were observed
COVID-19 with outcome of death 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
in participants at high risk of progression to severe
COVID-19 pneumonia, superinfection bacterial, or septic shock 0 1 (<1)
COVID-19 (figure 2C). Although the number of events
Malignant disease progression 1 (<1) 0
was low in participants at low risk of progression to
Any serious adverse event including death 33 (7%) 54 (12%)
severe COVID-19, a large but not statistically significant
Any treatment-related adverse event‡ 23 (5%) 21 (5%)
RR reduction with tixagevimab–cilgavimab was
Any adverse event leading to study withdrawal§ 5 (1%) 7 (2%)
observed in this group. There was a low proportion of
Common adverse events
seropositive participants, those aged 75 years or older,
COVID-19 pneumonia 26 (6%) 49 (11%)
and those on corticosteroids at baseline (table 1,
Headache 5 (1%) 2 (<1%)
figure 2C) and concomitantly a small number of events
in these subgroups, resulting in low RR reductions Any adverse event of special interest 15 (3%) 15 (3%)

with wide 95% CIs. Injection site pain 8 (2%) 10 (2%)

There was a significant reduction in respiratory failure
in participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group
compared with the placebo group (table 2).
Antidrug antibody data were available in a subset of
participants up to 84 days after receiving the study drug.
Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies to tixagevimab–
cilgavimab occurred in six (5%) of 134 participants, with
a low median titre of 120, which was very close to the
lower limit of quantification of the antidrug antibody
assay of 3·348 log10 copies per mL (2228 copies per mL).
Further details on the antidrug antibody assay are shown
in the appendix (p 13).
There was a greater reduction in viral shedding for
tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo between baseline
and day 6 (appendix p 19), with mean change in log10 viral
RNA from baseline to day 6 of –1·9 (95% CI –1·7 to –2·1)
in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab groups versus –1·5
(–1·3 to –1·7) in the placebo group.
Adverse events were reported by 132 (29%) of
452 participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group
and 163 (36%) of 451 in the placebo group. The most
common adverse event in both groups was COVID-19
pneumonia (table 3). Serious adverse events were
reported by 33 (7%) participants in the tixagevimab–
cilgavimab group and 54 (12%) in the placebo group.
The most common serious adverse event was COVID-19
pneumonia (appendix p 18). Most adverse events
were mild or moderate in severity (table 3). The
most common adverse event of special interest was
injection site pain (table 3). Investigators reported
three (1%) COVID-19 deaths in the tixagevimab–
cilgavimab group compared with six (1%) in the placebo
group; deaths due to any cause were reported for
six (1%) participants in each treatment group (table 3).
Injection site erythema 2 (<1%) 2 (<1%)
Injection site discomfort 2 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Injection site bruising 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Injection site haematoma 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Injection site induration 1 (<1%) 0
Injection site inflammation 1 (<1%) 0
Injection site nodule 1 (<1%) 0
Injection site warmth 0 1 (<1%)
*Each participant is counted only once (based on their maximum reported intensity) within a treatment group.
†This differs from the initial number of deaths shown in figure 1 because one death occurred after the data cutoff, but
the adverse event began before the data cutoff, thus the outcome was recorded. This death is excluded from figure 1
because the record itself is after the data cutoff. ‡Possibly related, as assessed by the investigator. Includes adverse
events that occurred through to the end of the study. §Two participants in the placebo group discontinued from the
study due to adverse events. Percentages are based on the total numbers of participants in the treatment group.
Participants with multiple events of the same preferred term are counted only once in that preferred term. Participants
with events in more than one preferred term within the same system organ class are counted only once in that system
organ class row. Includes adverse events that occurred through to the end of the study. Adverse events of special
interest includes injection site reactions and anaphylaxis and other serious hypersensitivity reactions, including
immune complex disease. See details in protocol section 8·3·4 in the appendix (p 21).
Table 3: Adverse events in the safety analysis set
In prespecified exploratory analysis, viral sequencing
in 413 tixagevimab–cilgavimab participants, and
421 placebo participants, indicated that the alpha (B.1.1.7)
SARS-CoV-2 variant was the most prevalent through to
day 29 (258 [60%] of 834 sequenced samples), followed by
gamma (P.1; 84 [20%]), delta (B.1.617.2; 66 [15%]), lambda
(C.37; 20 [5%]), mu (B.1.621; two [1%]), and beta
(B.1.351; one [<1%]; appendix p 17).
In the post-hoc exploratory analysis, fewer participants
were hospitalised for COVID-19 in the tixagevimab–
cilgavimab group versus the placebo group across all
reported hospital settings (table 2; appendix p 16). Fewer
participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group
compared with the placebo group were admitted to the

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1 9

 Articles
intensive care unit due to COVID-19, required admission
to an inpatient hospital setting, required acute hospital
care at home (acute hospital care at home occurred if
physician determines condition is appropriate for acute
in-patient hospitalisation, and if patients were evaluated
daily), or were admitted to the emergency department for
longer than 24 h (appendix p 16).
Discussion
Findings from the TACKLE study suggest that a single,
intramuscular, 600 mg dose of tixagevimab–cilgavimab
was associated with statistically and clinically significant
protection against the development of severe COVID-19
or death in non-hospitalised unvaccinated adults with
mild to moderate COVID-19. Additional prespecified
analyses showed that earlier treatment with tixagevimab–
cilgavimab led to more favourable outcomes (reduced
risk for progression to severe COVID-19 and death).
Tixagevimab–cilgavimab had a favourable safety profile
and was well tolerated.
Treatments are needed for individuals who develop
SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and are at high risk
for severe disease, hospitalisation, and death, such as older
adults, those with multiple comorbidities, and individuals
with impaired immune systems.5,15–18 Additionally, cases of
prolonged and unresolved SARS-CoV-2 infection have
been reported in immunocompromised individuals,
which might result in the emergence of new variants.19
Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the global
population remain unvaccinated20 and are at increased risk
of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19 compared
with vaccinated individuals.18,21,22 This study showed a
reduced risk of progression to severe COVID-19 or death
with tixagevimab–cilgavimab in a population where
approximately 90% of participants were at high risk of
severe COVID-19, including older adults, those with
comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, chronic
lung disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, or
individuals who were immunocompromised. As such,
these data support the potential of tixagevimab–cilgavimab
to provide a new treatment option for individuals who
require protection from severe COVID-19 outcomes.
The incidence of adverse events was similar in the
tixagevimab–cilgavimab and placebo groups, with most
being mild or moderate in severity. Specifically, the
incidence of injection site pain was similar in both
groups. Although all-cause mortality was similar between
the groups, there were fewer COVID-19-reported deaths
in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group than the placebo
group. Overall, these safety results are consistent with
the phase 3 PROVENT and STORM CHASER trials of
tixagevimab–cilgavimab.13,23 Safety monitoring for
tixagevimab–cilgavimab will continue in the ongoing
sponsor-funded TACKLE, PROVENT (NCT04625725),
and STORM CHASER (NCT04625972) trials, as well as
the collaborative ACTIV-2 (NCT04518410), ACTIV-3
(NCT04501978), and DisCoVeRy (NCT04315948) trials.
10 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
Although other SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal
antibodies have shown effectiveness against COVID-19
in the treatment setting,5,6 the intramuscular admin-
istration of tixagevimab–cilgavimab might offer clinical
advantages, especially in outpatient and primary care
settings. Tixagevimab–cilgavimab was specifically
formulated for intramuscular administration, which
allows for early intervention and ease of access,
facilitating its use in the real world. The extended half-
life of 90 days of tixagevimab–cilgavimab (compared
with the shorter half-lives of 18–32 days of other
SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies24,25),
resulting from specific YTE genetic modifications (that
result in Met252Tyr/Ser254Thr/Thr256Glu),12 could
potentially also confer long-term protection against
symptomatic COVID-19, as shown in the PROVENT
study.23 Although antiviral therapies are effective in the
treatment of COVID-19,8,9 multiple treatment options
are needed in the armamentarium against COVID-19
due to the risk of resistance occurring against any
specific drug.26
In addition to the YTE modifications, tixagevimab and
cilgavimab also include triple amino acid modifications,
designed to reduce both Fc receptor interactions and the
theoretical risk of antibody-enhanced disease. Indeed,
non-human primate studies of tixagevimab–cilgavimab
confirmed that the triple amino acid modification ablates
all downstream Fc-effector functions (cellular responses
and complement cascade), with no effect on neutralisation
activity or clearance of SARS-CoV-2.12 This is supported by
the faster reductions in SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA from
nasal swabs with tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo
shown in TACKLE.
The strengths of this study include a population with
high prevalence of comorbidities considered to be risk
factors for progression of COVID-19. The diversity of the
study population is shown by the large proportion of
Hispanic and American Indian and Alaska Native
participants, reflecting the large contribution to the study
population from Latin America, including Mexico. These
data consistently showed that more hospitalisations
occurred in the placebo group than the tixagevimab–
cilgavimab group, regardless of hospital setting (which
ranged from the emergency room to intensive care
units), supporting tixagevimab–cilgavimab utility across
a variety of health-care settings.
The limitations of this study include a low proportion
of Black and African American and Asian participants,
especially given the disproportionate effect of COVID-19
among these populations.27 The study was also limited by
the exclusion of individuals previously vaccinated against
COVID-19, and the low number of immunocompromised
individuals and older adults. Although increased age is a
major risk factor for severe COVID-19, recruitment of
those older than 65 years was limited, mainly due to
prioritisation of older adults for vaccination when the
study was enrolling. Due to these limited numbers of

participants, there was a small number of events for
several findings, resulting in wide 95% CIs. Other
limitations include the absence of formal and specific
assessment for COVID-19 deaths beyond investigator
decision. The duration of available data limited
interpretation of safety (median follow up 84·0 days) and
some secondary endpoints. Although this study did not
measure T cells or assess antibody-dependent cellular
cytotoxicity, previous evidence suggests that antibodies
against tixagevimab–cilgavimab show little to no
antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activity.12 Efficacy
against the omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant
cannot be derived from this study given the study period
reported; however, tixagevimab–cilgavimab has been
shown to retain neutralising activity against omicron in
vitro. Despite reduction in neutralisation against the
omicron BA.1 subvariant, the half maximal inhibitory
concentration values ranged from 51 to 277 ng/mL.10–12
Other SARS-CoV-2 neutralising monoclonal antibodies
have been shown to differ in neutralising abilities for
variants of concern such as omicron.10,11 Further in-vitro
studies showed minimal loss of neutralising activity
against the (now dominant) omicron BA.2 subvariant
compared with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (5-fold reduction
in live virus assays and 3-fold reduction in pseudovirus
assays).28 Further evidence is expected from planned real-
world studies that will assess the effects of tixagevimab–
cilgavimab with COVID-19 vaccination, including its use,
effectiveness, and acceptability in clinical practice, in
immunocompromised individuals with breakthrough
infections, and against omicron.
To our knowledge, data from TACKLE are the first from
an outpatient treatment study of a long-acting monoclonal
antibody combination with intramuscular administration
for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. These results
show that tixagevimab–cilgavimab provided statistically
and clinically significant protection against the
development of severe COVID-19 or death in unvaccinated
individuals and was well tolerated. Tixagevimab–
cilgavimab administered intramuscularly presents a
potential additional option for treating mild to moderate
COVID-19 in individuals at high risk, and contributes to
the armamentarium against COVID-19, which is crucial
for reducing the burden on health-care systems.
Contributors
All authors contributed to data interpretation, writing, and editing of the
manuscript, and all reviewed and approved the manuscript for
submission. All authors had access to the raw study data. Data in the
manuscript were verified by DA, SS, AT, RHA, KS, RMV, PG, VA, KWP,
GCKWK, BHB, and MTE. HM was International co-ordinator for the
TACKLE trial and contributed to the data interpretation and writing of
the manuscript. FDRH contributed to study design, study permissions,
interpretation of the data, drafting and editing of the manuscript, and
operationalisation of TACKLE in the UK. FP contributed to the
supervision, validation, and visualisation of the data. DA, AT, and SS
contributed to the study design concept, statistical analysis plan, and the
interpretation of results. KK contributed to the group discussion of the
manuscript. JASC contributed intellectual participation in the structure
of the manuscript, reviewing of literature, revision of statistical analysis,
data interpretation, the selection of the graphic information, the group
www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
Articles
discussion of the manuscript, and the form of the presentation.
RHA contributed to the dose selection, pharmacokinetics, and antidrug
antibody analyses. BHB contributed to project delivery and
administration, and resources. DB contributed to the data analysis,
interpretation, and study design. PG contributed to data analysis,
interpretation, project administration, and supervision. JJ contributed to
the study design and data collection and quality. GCKWK contributed to
the review and agreement of the statistical analysis plan, the review of
study results, and agreement on interpretation, including additional
analyses required and key conclusions. KWP was directly involved in
data curation, investigation, methodology (of amendments), project
administration, and as the clinical scientist for TACKLE, directly
assessed and verified the quality of the data (in a masked fashion).
KS contributed to the conceptualisation of the study, investigation,
and validation of the data. RMV was involved in the study design,
collection and interpretation of data, and data checking of information.
VA contributed to the study design, study execution, data collection,
data analysis, and interpretation of the manuscript. MNP contributed to
study conceptualisation and design, data analysis and interpretation,
funding acquisition, project administration, and resourcing. MTE was
involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of
data, as well as conceptualisation, formal analysis, methodology, project
administration, supervision, and data checking of information provided
in the manuscript. Ultimate responsibility for opinions, conclusions,
and data interpretation lies with the authors. All authors were involved
in the drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors
approved the final version of the manuscript and were responsible for
the final decision to submit for publication.
Declaration of interests
HM has received consultation fees from AstraZeneca and is supported
by the UK National Institute for Health Research’s Comprehensive
Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals.
He has consulted for Millfield Medical Ltd on the development of a new
continuous positive airway pressure machine. JASC reports serving on
advisory boards for Pfizer and Eli Lilly; and serving on advisory boards
and as a speaker for AstraZeneca and Roche. FDRH reports funding
from AstraZeneca to cover meeting attendances and operationalisation
of TACKLE in the UK as UK principal investigator. He has received
funding by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for
Health and Care Research (NIHR) for national Urgent Public Health
COVID-19 trials, and as Director of the NIHR Applied Research
Collaboration, Oxford Thames Valley, and investigator on the Oxford
Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR MedTech. FP has received
personal fees and grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer
Ingelheim, Ferrer, Kowa, Medix, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme,
Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, and Silanes. KK has received research
grants for the conduct of the TACKLE trial, reports funding from
Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Adagio, and serves as a speaker
for Regeneron. DA, AT, SS, RHA, BHB, DB, PG, JJ, GCKWK, KWP,
RMV, KS, VA, MNP, and MTE are employees of, and hold or may hold
stock in, AstraZeneca.
Data sharing
Data underlying the findings described in this manuscript may be
requested in accordance with AstraZeneca’s data sharing policy
described at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/
Submission/Disclosure. AstraZeneca Group of Companies allows
researchers to submit a request to access anonymised participant-level
clinical data, aggregate clinical or genomics data (when available),
and anonymised clinical study reports through the Vivli web-based data
request platform.
Acknowledgments
We thank the trial participants, their families, and all investigators
involved in this study. Yee-Man Ching, of AstraZeneca facilitated author
discussions, coordinated manuscript development and critically For Good Clinical Practice
reviewed the manuscript. Marius Albulescu and Karen Near of guidelines see http://annals.org/
AstraZeneca were involved in the study design of TACKLE. Medical aim/article/2424869/good-
writing support was provided by India Wright and editorial support was publication-practice-
provided by Sharmin Saleque, Joe Alling, Cellan Ellis, and communicating-company-
Matthew Stone, all of Core Medica, London, UK, supported by sponsored-medical-research-
AstraZeneca according to Good Publication Practice guidelines. gpp3
11
 Articles
References
1 Piechotta V, Harder T. Waning of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness:
individual and public health risk. Lancet 2022; 399: 887–89.
2 Limb M. Covid-19: Scientists and medics warn that it is too soon to
lift all restrictions in England. BMJ 2022; 376: o469.
3 Juthani PV, Gupta A, Borges KA, et al. Hospitalisation among
vaccine breakthrough COVID-19 infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2021;
21: 1485–86.
4 Dessie ZG, Zewotir T. Mortality-related risk factors of COVID-19:
a systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies and 423,117
patients. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21: 855.
5 Dougan M, Nirula A, Azizad M, et al. Bamlanivimab plus
etesevimab in mild or moderate COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2021;
385: 1382–92.
6 Gupta A, Gonzalez-Rojas Y, Juarez E, et al. Early treatment for
COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody sotrovimab.
N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1941–50.
7 Weinreich DM, Sivapalasingam S, Norton T, et al. REGEN-COV
antibody combination and outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19.
N Engl J Med 2021; 385: e81.
8 National Institutes of Health. Therapeutic management of
nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. 2022. https://www.
covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-
management/nonhospitalized-adults--therapeutic-
management/?utm_source=site&utm_medium=home&utm_
campaign=highlights (accessed March 18, 2022).
9 Hammond J, Leister-Tebbe H, Gardner A, et al. Oral nirmatrelvir
for high-risk, nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. N Engl J Med
2022; 386: 1397–408.
10 VanBlargan LA, Errico JM, Halfmann PJ, et al. An infectious
SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 omicron virus escapes neutralization by
therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Nat Med 2022; 28: 490–95.
11 Dejnirattisai W, Huo J, Zhou D, et al. SARS-CoV-2
Omicron-B.1.1.529 leads to widespread escape from neutralizing
antibody responses. Cell 2022; 185: 467–84.e15.
12 Loo YM, McTamney PM, Arends RH, et al. The SARS-CoV-2
monoclonal antibody combination, AZD7442, is protective in
nonhuman primates and has an extended half-life in humans.
Sci Transl Med 2022; 14: eabl8124.
13 US Food and Drug Administration. Fact sheet for healthcare
providers: emergency use authorization for Evusheld™
(tixagevimab co-packaged with cilgavimab). 2021. https://www.fda.
gov/media/154701/download (accessed March 6, 2022).
14 WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characterisation
Management of COVID-19 Infection. A minimal common outcome
measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;
20: e192–97.
15 Antonelli M, Penfold RS, Merino J, et al. Risk factors and disease
profile of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK users of the
COVID Symptom Study app: a prospective, community-based,
nested, case-control study. Lancet Infect Dis 2022; 22: 43–55.
12 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Published online June 7, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
16 Agrawal U, Katikireddi SV, McCowan C, et al. COVID-19 hospital
admissions and deaths after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19
vaccinations in 2·57 million people in Scotland (EAVE II):
a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 1439–49.
17 Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland CA, Mehta N, et al. Risk prediction of
covid-19 related death and hospital admission in adults after
COVID-19 vaccination: national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2021;
374: n2244.
18 Egan C, Turtle L, Thorpe M, Harrison EM, Semple MG,
Docherty AB. Hospital admission for symptomatic COVID-19 and
impact of vaccination: analysis of linked data from the Coronavirus
Clinical Information Network and the National Immunisation
Management Service. Anaesthesia 2022; 77: 605–08.
19 Kemp SA, Collier DA, Datir RP, et al. SARS-CoV-2 evolution during
treatment of chronic infection. Nature 2021; 592: 277–82.
20 Our World in Data. Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations. 2022.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations (accessed
March 18, 2022).
21 Danza P, Koo TH, Haddix M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and
hospitalization among adults aged ≥18 years, by vaccination status,
before and during SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant
predominance—Los Angeles County, California, November 7, 2021–
January 8, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71: 177–81.
22 Iacobucci G. Covid-19: How is vaccination affecting hospital
admissions and deaths? BMJ 2021; 374: n2306.
23 Levin MJ, Ustianowski A, De Wit S, et al. Intramuscular AZD7442
(tixagevimab–cilgavimab) for prevention of COVID-19. N Engl J Med
2022; published online April 20. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa2116620.
24 O’Brien MP, Forleo-Neto E, Musser BJ, et al. Subcutaneous
REGEN-COV antibody combination to prevent COVID-19.
N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1184–95.
25 US Food and Drug Administration. Fact sheet for health care
providers: emergency use authorization (EUA) of bamlanivimab
and etesevimab. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/145802/
download (accessed March 14, 2022).
26 Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. NERVTAG: antiviral
drug resistance and the use of directly acting antiviral drugs (DAAs)
for COVID-19, 8 December 2021. 2021. https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/nervtag-antiviral-drug-resistance-and-the-
use-of-directly-acting-antiviral-drugs-daas-for-covid-19-8-
december-2021/
nervtag-antiviral-drug-resistance-and-the-use-of-directly-acting-
antiviral-drugs-daas-for-covid-19-8-december-2021 (accessed
March 18, 2022).
27 Phiri P, Delanerolle G, Al-Sudani A, Rathod S. COVID-19 and
Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities: a complex
relationship without just cause. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2021;
7: e22581.
28 Iketani S, Liu L, Guo Y, et al. Antibody evasion properties of
SARS-CoV-2 omicron sublineages. Nature 2022; 604: 553–56.