BIM aided information and visualization repository for managing construction delay claims

Delays in construction result in a multitude of negative effects on project performance, and severe dismays among participating parties. This study aims to digitize the traditional process of recording and managing the construction delays using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Extensive literature review followed by semi-structure interviews of 21 industry experts were carried out to identify the issues faced by construction stakeholders in managing construction delays. To resolve these issues, a plugin named BIM-based Construction Delays Recorder (BIM-CDR) is developed using Application Programming Interface (API) of the most commonly used BIM software i.e. Autodesk Revit. BIM-CDR provides a centralized repository, encompassing detailed information related to delays, which can be retrieved and visualized to analyze their impact on delay claims. To assess the effectiveness of BIM-CDR, a feasibility study is conducted with the experts’ review panel. The results revealed that BIM-CDR can record wide-ranging information related to all the significant issues causing delays on construction sites, and can help in effectively managing their corresponding claims. The advantages of the developed prototype include visualization of delays’ location, facilitation of delay analysis and effective delays management. Moreover, it also promotes transparency and speedy settlement of delay related claims without any unwanted disputes.

Rising Star Early-Career Faculty Award Lecture and Cyber-Pedagogy Panel Discussion

The Rising Star Early-Career Faculty Award lecture will feature an address by 2021 recipient Candace S. Brown, PhD, MA, MEd, of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. The Rising Star Early-Career Faculty Award acknowledges new faculty whose teaching and leadership stand out as influential and innovative. This event will also feature a panel discussion led by the AGHE Awards Review Panel titled, “Cyber-Pedagogy to the Rescue: Creating Effective Online Programming for Students and Trainees During the Pandemic.”

The changing face of MedEdPublish

MedEdPublish has come a long way since it was launched in 2016 by AMEE as an independent academic e-journal that supports scholarship in health professions education. Beginning as a relatively small, in-house publication on a web platform adapted for the purpose, we invited members of our community of practice to submit articles on any topic in health professions education, and encouraged a wide range of article types. All articles were published so long as they met editing criteria and where within scope. Reviews were welcomed from both members of our Review panel and the general readership, all published openly with contributors identified. Many articles attracted several reviews, responses and comments, creating interactive discussion threads that provided learning opportunities for all. The outcome surpassed our expectations, with over 500 articles submitted during 2020, beyond the capacity of our editing team and platform to achieve our promise of rapid publishing. We have now moved to a much larger and powerful web platform, developed by F1000 Research and within the Taylor and Francis stable, the home of AMEE’s other journal, Medical Teacher. Most of our innovations are supported by the new platform and there is scope for further developments. We look forward to an exciting new phase of innovation, powered by the F1000 platform.

337. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load Does Not Predict Incident Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19

Background The risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 warrant further study. We leveraged a cohort in the Military Health System (MHS) to identify clinical and virological predictors of incident deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and other VTE within 90-days after COVID-19 onset. Methods PCR or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected MHS beneficiaries were enrolled via nine military treatment facilities (MTF) through April 2021. Case characteristics were derived from interview and review of the electronic medical record (EMR) through one-year follow-up in outpatients and inpatients. qPCR was performed on upper respiratory swab specimens collected post-enrollment to estimate SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The frequency of incident DVT, PE, or other VTE by 90-days post-COVID-19 onset were ascertained by ICD-10 code. Correlates of 90-day VTE were determined through multivariate logistic regression, including age and sampling-time-adjusted log10-SARS-CoV-2 GE/reaction as a priori predictors in addition to other demographic and clinical covariates which were selected through stepwise regression. Results 1473 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled through April 2021. 21% of study participants were inpatients; the mean age was 41 years (SD = 17.0 years). The median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 0 (IQR = 0 - 1, range = 0 - 13). 27 (1.8%) had a prior history of VTE. Mean maximum viral load observed was 1.65 x 107 genome equivalents/reaction. 36 (2.4%) of all SARS-CoV-2 cases (including inpatients and outpatients), 29 (9.5%) of COVID-19 inpatients, and 7 (0.6%) of outpatients received an ICD-10 diagnosis of any VTE within 90 days after COVID-19 onset. Logistic regression identified hospitalization (aOR = 11.1, p = 0.003) and prior VTE (aOR = 6.2 , p = 0.009) as independent predictors of VTE within 90 days of symptom onset. Neither age (aOR = 1.0, p = 0.50), other demographic covariates, other comorbidities, nor SARS-CoV-2 viral load (aOR = 1.1, p = 0.60) were associated with 90-day VTE. Conclusion VTE was relatively frequent in this MHS cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral load did not increase the odds of 90-day VTE. Rather, being hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 and prior VTE history remained the strongest predictors of this complication. Disclosures Simon Pollett, MBBS, Astra Zeneca (Other Financial or Material Support, HJF, in support of USU IDCRP, funded under a CRADA to augment the conduct of an unrelated Phase III COVID-19 vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca as part of USG response (unrelated work)) Ryan C. Maves, MD, EMD Serono (Advisor or Review Panel member)Heron Therapeutics (Advisor or Review Panel member) David A. Lindholm, MD, American Board of Internal Medicine (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Member of Auxiliary R&D Infectious Disease Item-Writer Task Force. No financial support received. No exam questions will be disclosed ., Other Financial or Material Support David Tribble, M.D., DrPH, Astra Zeneca (Other Financial or Material Support, HJF, in support of USU IDCRP, funded under a CRADA to augment the conduct of an unrelated Phase III COVID-19 vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca as part of USG response (unrelated work))

120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis

Background C-itra is the drug of choice for treatment of most non-CNS, non-life-threatening forms of endemic mycoses (EM), including histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, sporotrichosis and talaromycosis. SUBA represents a new formulation of itraconazole that utilizes nanotechnology to improve bioavailability when administered orally. SUBA is formulated as nanoparticles allowing for absorption in the small bowel while not relying on gastric acidity for optimal absorption. MSG-15 is an open-label, comparative clinical trial comparing SUBA to c-itra for the treatment of EM. Herein we report the final PK and AE profiles of these two compounds. Methods Subjects with proven and probable EM were eligible this open-label comparative study. The protocol allowed up to 14 d of prior therapy with any antifungal for this episode of EM. Subjects were randomized to receive either SUBA 130 mg po bid or c-itra 200 mg po bid for up to 6 months. Follow up occurred at 7, 14, 28, 42, 84 and 180 d post-enrollment. PK samples were obtained at 7, 14, and 42 d. Clinical assessment, including symptom assessment, AEs, overall drug tolerance, and quality of life were assessed at each visit. We used descriptive statistics for this analysis. Results 89 subjects with EM entered the trial, including 43 on SUBA and 46 on c-itra. We measured PK serum levels of itra and hydroxyl-itra at days 7, 14, and 42 and these data are depicted in Figures 1-3. There were no significant differences in these levels, including combined itra/hydroxyl-itra levels, among the two study arms. AUC for itra and hydroxyl-itra were similar for both arms. AEs as assessed at each study evaluation were also quite similar among the two study arms. Overall, any AE occurred in 74% vs 85% of SUBA and c-itra recipients, respectively (NS). Drug-related AEs occurred in 35% vs 41% of SUBA and itra recipients, respectively (NS). Most common drug-related AEs included cardiovascular (edema and hypertension), nausea and loss of appetite. Combined Itraconazole and Hydroxy-itraconazole Concentration Over Time Conclusion Compared to c-itra, SUBA demonstrates almost identical serum levels despite being dosed at roughly 60% standard dosing for c-itra (130 mg po bid vs 200 mg po bid). SUBA is slightly better tolerated than c-itra, although the specific AEs are similar. Disclosures Peter G. Pappas, MD, Astellas (Research Grant or Support)Cidara (Research Grant or Support)F2G (Consultant)Matinas (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Mayne Pharma (Research Grant or Support)Scynexis (Research Grant or Support) Andrej Spec, MD, MSCI, Mayne Pharma (Grant/Research Support) Marisa Miceli, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) George R. R. Thompson III, III, MD, Amplyx (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Appili (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Avir (Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)F2G (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Mayne (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Advisor or Review Panel member)

1211. Incidence of All-Cause Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, 2002-2018; a Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) study

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) causes substantial morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of data on the comprehensive burden of CAP across the life span in Canada. We estimated the incidence of all-cause CAP in all age groups in Ontario and British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods We identified hospitalized and outpatient CAP episodes from the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) and physician billing claims databases (Ontario Health Insurance Plan in Ontario and Medical Services Plan in BC) in both provinces. The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to identify CAP episodes from emergency department visits in Ontario. CAP recorded with a primary or secondary diagnosis was identified using International Classification of Diseases 9 (480–486, 510, 513) and 10 (J10.0, J11.0, J12–J18, J86.9, J85.1) codes. We estimated the age and sex adjusted annual incidence of CAP overall, and by age groups (0–4, 5–17, 18–39, 40–64, 65–74, 75–84 and ≥85 years) according to routine childhood pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) immunization periods from 2005–2018 in Ontario and from 2002–2018 in BC. Poisson regression models were fitted with population denominators from Statistics Canada to estimate the incidence rates. Results Ontario had 3,607,186 CAP episodes from 2005–2015 with a mean annual incidence of 2,801 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2,748, 2,854) per 100,000 population; incidence declined from 3,077/100,000 in 2005 to 2,604/100,000 in 2010 before increasing to 2,843/100,000 in 2018. BC had 1,146,172 CAP episodes from 2002–2008, with a mean annual incidence of 2,146 (95% CI: 2105, 2189); the incidence increased from 2,005 /100,000 in 2002 to 2,199/100,000 in 2018. A high incidence of CAP was observed in children aged 0–4 years and older adults, particularly in adults aged ≥85 years in both provinces across all PCV program periods (Figure 1). Figure 1: Age group-specific incidence of all-cause community-acquired pneumonia according to childhood pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) program periods in Ontario (PCV7 [1 Jan 2005–30 Sep 2009]), PCV10 [1 Oct 2009–31 Oct 2010] and PCV13 [1 Nov 2010–31 Dec 2018]) and British Columbia (PCV7 [1 Sep 2003–31 May 2010] and PCV13 [1 Jun 2010–31 Dec 2018]), Canada Conclusion CAP continues to be a public health burden in Canada despite publicly funded pneumococcal vaccination programs. Ontario seems to have higher CAP burden than British Columbia that warrants further investigation. The youngest cohort of children and older adults contribute significantly to the CAP burden. Disclosures Manish Sadarangani, BM BCh, DPhil, GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Sanofi Pasteur (Grant/Research Support)Seqirus (Grant/Research Support)Symvivo (Grant/Research Support)VBI Vaccines (Research Grant or Support) Allison McGeer, MSc,MD,FRCPC,FSHEA, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) James D. Kellner, MD, FRCPC, FIDSA, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Moderna (Grant/Research Support) Shaun Morris, MD, MPH, DTM&H, FRCPC, FAAP, GSK (Speaker’s Bureau)Pfizer (Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Shaza A. Fadel, PhD MPH, Merck (Other Financial or Material Support, Salary is paid by the University of Toronto via a donation by Merck to the Centre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases to support educational and operational activities.) Fawziah Marra, BSc(Pharm), PharmD, Pfizer Canada (Research Grant or Support)

1340. The Burden of Influenza and Rhinovirus Among Hospitalized Adults Post the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background Acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) are a significant cause of morbidity in adults. Influenza is associated with about 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths in the US in the 2018-2019 season. The burden of rhinovirus among adults hospitalized with ARI is less well known. We compared the burden of influenza and rhinovirus from 2 consecutive winter respiratory viral seasons in hospitalized adults and healthy controls pre-COVID-19 and one season mid-COVID-19 to determine the impact of rhinovirus as a pathogen. Methods From Oct 2018 to Apr 2021, prospective surveillance of adults ≥50 years old admitted with ARI or COPD/CHF exacerbations at any age was conducted at two Atlanta hospitals. Adults were eligible if they lived within an eight-county region around Atlanta and if their symptom duration was < 14 days. In the seasons from Oct 2018 to Mar 2020, asymptomatic adults ≥50 years old were enrolled as controls. Standard of care test results were included and those enrolled contributed nasopharyngeal swabs that were tested for respiratory pathogens using BioFire® FilmArray® Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP). Results During the first two seasons, 1566 hospitalized adults were enrolled. Rhinovirus was detected in 7.5% (118) and influenza was detected in 7.7% (121). Rhinovirus was also detected in 2.2% of 466 healthy adult controls while influenza was detected in 0%. During Season 3, the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, influenza declined to 0% of ARI hospitalizations. Rhinovirus also declined (p=0.01) but still accounted for 5.1% of all ARIs screened (Figure 1). Rhinovirus was detected at a greater rate in Season 3 than in asymptomatic controls in the first 2 seasons (p=0.008). In the first two seasons, Influenza was detected in 8.6% (24/276) of those admitted to the ICU. Rhinovirus was detected in 6.1% (17/276) of those admitted to the ICU but declined to 3.1% (8/258) in Season 3. Figure 1. Percent Positive Cases of Influenza and Rhinovirus between Season 1&2 (hospitalized and healthy controls) vs Season 3 (hospitalized) Conclusion Dramatic declines occurred in influenza in adults hospitalized with ARI, CHF, or COPD in Atlanta during the COVID-19 pandemic and with enhanced public health measures. Although rhinovirus declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, it continued to be identified at a rate higher than in historical controls. Additional data are needed to understand the role of rhinovirus in adult ARI, CHF, and COPD exacerbations. Disclosures David L. Swerdlow, MD, Pfizer Vaccines (Employee) Robin Hubler, MS, Pfizer Inc. (Employee) Christina A. Rostad, MD, BioFire Inc, GSK, MedImmune, Micron, Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, PaxVax, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Pasteur. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Meissa Vaccines (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-inventor of patented RSV vaccine technology unrelated to this manuscript, which has been licensed to Meissa Vaccines, Inc.) Larry Anderson, MD, ADVI (Consultant)Bavarian Nordic (Consultant)Novavax (Consultant)Phizer (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sciogen (Research Grant or Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, pfizer, sanofi, lily, quidel, merck (Grant/Research Support) Nadine Rouphael, MD, Lilly (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory study PI, Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory, Research Grant; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, I conduct as co-PI the RSV PFIZER study at Emory; Quidel (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Emory Study PI, Grant/Research Support; Sanofi Pasteur (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Chair phase 3 COVID vaccine, Grant/Research Support Evan J. Anderson, MD, GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Kentucky Bioprocessing, Inc (Advisor or Review Panel member)MedImmune (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Medscape (Consultant)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Micron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)PaxVax (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

LB1. Remdesivir for the Treatment of High-Risk Non-Hospitalized Individuals With COVID-19: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background Remdesivir (RDV) is a potent nucleotide prodrug inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. This Phase 3 (GS-US-540–9012) double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 days of RDV to standard of care in non-hospitalized, high-risk participants with confirmed COVID-19. Table 1. COVID-19 related hospitalization or death, COVID-19 related medically attended visits or death, and Treatment Emergent Adverse Events Methods Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) RDV (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg on days 2 to 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was composite COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 and compared using Cox proportional hazards model with baseline stratification factors as covariates. The primary safety endpoint was proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events. Study enrollment was terminated early for administrative reasons in light of the evolving pandemic. Results 562 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (279, RDV; 283, placebo). Baseline demographics and characteristics were balanced across arms. Overall, 52% were male, 44% were Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and 30% were ≥ 60 years old. The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (62%), obesity (56%; median BMI, 30.7), and hypertension (48%). Median baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA nasopharyngeal viral load was 6.2 log10 copies/mL. Treatment with RDV significantly reduced COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 – 0.59; p = 0.008; Table 1) compared to placebo. Participants receiving RDV also had significantly lower risk for COVID-19-related medically attended visits or all-cause death by day 28 compared to placebo (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 – 0.56; p = 0.002; Table 1). No deaths occurred in either arm by day 28. There was no difference between arms in time-weighted average change in nasopharyngeal viral loads from baseline up to day 7. The proportion of patients with AEs was similar between arms (Table 1); the most common AEs in the RDV arm were nausea (11%), headache (6%), and diarrhea (4%). Conclusion A 3-day course of IV RDV was safe, well tolerated and highly effective at preventing COVID-19 related hospitalization or death in high-risk non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Disclosures Joshua A. Hill, MD, Allogene (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Allovir (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support; Amplyx (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Covance/CSL (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; CRISPR (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support; Karius: Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Medscape (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Octapharma (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; OptumHealth (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Takeda (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator Roger Paredes, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Carlos Vaca, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Jorge Mera, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Consultant, Study Investigator (payment to employer not self)) Gilberto Perez, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Godson Oguchi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Pablo Ryan, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Jan Gerstoft, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Other Financial or Material Support, Study Investigator (payment to employer)) Michael Brown, FRCP PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Investigator for numerous remdesivir trials (employer received compensation)) Morgan Katz, MD, MHS, Roche (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member; Skinclique (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Gregory Camus, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Danielle P. Porter, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, DPhil, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Employee during the conduct of this trial) Shuguang Chen, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Kavita Juneja, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Frank Duff, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Eli Lilly (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Gift in kind to Baylor Scott and White Research Institute for NCT03383419)GSK (Advisor or Review Panel member)Johnson and Johnson (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kinevant (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Roche/Genentech (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

LB2. Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Neutralizing Antibodies (mAb) BRII-196 and BRII-198 in Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Background SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread and the development of safe and effective therapeutics for the prevention of severe disease remains a priority. BRII-196 and BRII-198 are non-competing anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs with YTE triple amino acid substitution in Fc to extend half-life and reduce receptor binding, that are being studied for treatment of COVID-19 in the ACTIV-2 Trial, sponsored by NIAID and led by ACTG. Methods ACTIV-2 evaluates safety/efficacy of investigational agents for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with mild-moderate COVID-19 under a randomized, blinded, controlled adaptive platform. BRII-196/BRII-198 (1000 mg each) as a single dose given as sequential infusions, or placebo to those at high risk of clinical progression (i.e., age ≥ 60 years or presence of other medical conditions) within 10 days of symptom onset and positive test for SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was hospitalization and/or death through day 28. We report Phase 3 BRII-196/BRII-198 trial results per DSMB recommendation following an interim analysis. Results Between January and July 2021, 837 participants (418 active, 419 placebo) from sites in the US (66%), Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina and the Philippines were randomized and received study product at time of emerging variants. Median age 49 years (Q1, Q3: 39, 58), 51% female, 17% Black/African-American and 49% Hispanic/Latino, with median 6 days from symptom onset. At interim analysis 71% and 97% had a day 28 and 7 visit, respectively. For all available data at interim review, BRII-196/BRII-198 compared to placebo had fewer hospitalizations (12 vs. 45) and deaths (1 vs. 9). At day 28 of follow-up, there was an estimated 78% reduction in hospitalization and/or death (2.4 vs. 11.1%), relative risk 0.22 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.86), P=0.00001 (nominal one-sided). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were observed less frequently among BRII-196/BRII-198 participants than placebo (3.8% vs. 13.4%) with no severe infusion reactions or drug related serious AEs. Conclusion BRII-196/BRII-198 was safe, well-tolerated, and demonstrated significant reduction compared to placebo in the risk of hospitalization and/or death among adults with mild-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease. Disclosures Kara W. Chew, MD, MS, Amgen (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Merck Sharp & Dohme (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support David Alain Wohl, MD, Gilead Sciences (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member, Consultant, Research Grant or Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Janssen (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support; ViiV (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support Joseph J. Eron, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) David A. Margolis, MD MPH, Brii Biosciences (Employee) Courtney Fletcher, Pharm.D., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH (Grant/Research Support) Davey Smith, M.D., Linear Therapies, Matrix Biomed, Bayer (Consultant, Shareholder) Eric Daar, Gilead (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)