Monoclonal Antibody and Oral Antiviral Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in US Nursing Homes

Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults

INTRODUCTION

Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.

METHODS

We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

Four Years And More Than 200,000 Deaths Later: Lessons Learned From The COVID-19 Pandemic In US Nursing Homes

Nursing home residents and staff were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing attention to long-standing challenges of poor infection control, understaffing, and substandard quality of care in many facilities. Evolving practices and policies during the pandemic often focused on these challenges, with little effect. Despite the emergence of best practices to mitigate transmission of the virus, even the highest-quality facilities experienced outbreaks, indicating a larger systemic problem, rather than a quality problem at the facility level. Here we present a narrative review and discussion of the evolution of policies and practices and their effectiveness, drawing on evidence from the United States that was published during 2020-23. The lessons learned from this experience point to the need for more fundamental and nuanced changes to avoid similar outcomes from a future pandemic: greater integration of long-term care into public health planning, and ultimately a shift in the physical structure of nursing homes. More incremental measures such as vaccination mandates, higher staffing, and balancing infection control with resident quality of life will avoid some adverse outcomes, but without more systemic change, nursing home residents and staff will remain at substantial risk for repetition of the poor outcomes from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Outcomes After Admission of Patients With COVID-19 to Skilled Nursing Facilities

Importance

During the COVID-19 pandemic, stabilized COVID-19-positive patients were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to alleviate hospital crowding. These discharges generated controversy due to fears of seeding outbreaks, but there is little empirical evidence to inform policy.

Objective

To assess the association between the admission to SNFs of COVID-19-positive patients and subsequent COVID-19 cases and death rates among residents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study analyzed survey data from the National Healthcare Safety Network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cohort included SNFs in the US from June 2020 to March 2021. Exposed facilities (ie, with initial admission of COVID-19-positive patients) were matched to control facilities (ie, without initial admission of COVID-19-positive patients) in the same county and with similar preadmission case counts. Data were analyzed from June 2023 to February 2024.

Exposure

The week of the first observable admission of COVID-19-positive patients (defined as those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and continued to require transmission-based precautions) during the study period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Weekly counts of new cases of COVID-19, COVID-19-related deaths, and all-cause deaths per 100 residents in the week prior to the initial admission. A stacked difference-in-differences approach was used to compare outcomes for 10 weeks before and 15 weeks after the first admission. Additional analyses examined whether outcomes differed in facilities with staff or personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages.

Results

A matched group of 264 exposed facilities and 518 control facilities was identified. Over the 15-week follow-up period, exposed SNFs had a cumulative increase of 6.94 (95% CI, 2.91-10.98) additional COVID-19 cases per 100 residents compared with control SNFs, a 31.3% increase compared with the sample mean (SD) of 22.2 (26.4). Exposed facilities experienced 2.31 (95% CI, 1.39-3.24) additional cumulative COVID-19-related deaths per 100 residents compared with control facilities, representing a 72.4% increase compared with the sample mean (SD) of 3.19 (5.5). Exposed facilities experiencing potential staff shortage and PPE shortage had larger increases in COVID-19 cases per 100 residents (additional 10.97 [95% CI, 2.76-19.19] cases and additional 14.81 [95% CI, 2.38-27.25] cases, respectively) compared with those without such shortages.

Conclusion

This cohort study suggests that admission of COVID-19-positive patients into SNFs early in the pandemic was associated with preventable COVID-19 cases and mortality among residents, particularly in facilities with potential staff and PPE shortages. The findings speak to the importance of equipping SNFs to adhere to infection-control best practices as they continue to face COVID-19 strains and other respiratory diseases.

Identifying Veterans Who Benefit From Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir: A Target Trial Emulation

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is recommended for persons at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but remains underutilized. Information on which eligible groups are likely to benefit from treatment is needed.

METHODS

We conducted a target trial emulation study in the Veterans Health Administration comparing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treated versus matched untreated veterans at risk for severe COVID-19 who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from April 2022 through March 2023. We measured incidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days. Outcomes were measured for the entire cohort, as well as among subgroups defined by 30-day risk of death or hospitalization, estimated using an ensemble risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Participants were 87% male with median age 66 years and 16% unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 24 205) had a lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (1.80% vs 2.30%; risk difference [RD], -0.50% points [95% confidence interval {CI}: -.69 to -.35]) and death (0.11% vs 0.30%; RD, -0.20 [95% CI: -.24 to -.13]). The greatest reductions in combined hospitalization or death were observed in the highest risk quartile (RD -2.85 [95% CI: -3.94 to -1.76]), immunocompromised persons (RD -1.91 [95% CI: -3.09 to -.74]), and persons aged ≥75 years (RD -1.16 [95% CI: -1.73 to -.59]). No reductions were observed in the 2 lowest risk quartiles or persons younger than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death in older veterans, those at highest predicted risk for severe outcomes, and immunocompromised groups. Benefit was not observed in younger veterans or groups at lower predicted risk for hospitalization and death.

Screening Strategies to Reduce COVID-19 Mortality in Nursing Homes

Importance

Nursing home residents continue to bear a disproportionate share of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, accounting for 9% of all US COVID-19 deaths in 2023, despite comprising only 0.4% of the population.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in reducing COVID-19 mortality in nursing homes.

Design and Setting

An agent-based model was developed to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the nursing home setting. Parameters were determined using SARS-CoV-2 virus data and COVID-19 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that were published between 2020 and 2023, as well as data on nursing homes published between 2010 and 2023. The model used in this study simulated interactions and SARS-CoV-2 transmission between residents, staff, and visitors in a nursing home setting. The population used in the simulation model was based on the size of the average US nursing home and recommended staffing levels, with 90 residents, 90 visitors (1 per resident), and 83 nursing staff members.

Exposure

Screening frequency (none, weekly, and twice weekly) was varied over 30 days against varying levels of COVID-19 community incidence, booster uptake, and antiviral use.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infections, detected cases per 1000 tests, and incremental cost of screening per life-year gained.

Results

Nursing home interactions were modeled between 90 residents, 90 visitors, and 83 nursing staff over 30 days, completing 4000 to 8000 simulations per parameter combination. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of weekly and twice-weekly screening were less than $150 000 per resident life-year with moderate (50 cases per 100 000) and high (100 cases per 100 000) COVID-19 community incidence across low-booster uptake and high-booster uptake levels. When COVID-19 antiviral use reached 100%, screening incremental cost-effectiveness ratios increased to more than $150 000 per life-year when booster uptake was low and community incidence was high.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that screening may be effective for reducing COVID-19 mortality in nursing homes when COVID-19 community incidence is high and/or booster uptake is low. Nursing home administrators can use these findings to guide planning in the context of widely varying levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and intervention measures across the US.

Underuse of SARS-CoV-2-Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies in Skilled Nursing Facilities

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about deployment of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mab) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), a high-risk population for COVID-19-related complications. We assessed the utilization of mabs in SNFs and identified facility characteristics associated with effective use.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study assessing the correlation of SNF characteristics with increasing mab use.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

United States SNFs participating in Project ECHO (Extensions for Community Health Outcomes).

METHODS

The primary outcome was percentage of total mabs per COVID-19 cases in SNFs. Facilities were divided into 3 groups based on the percentage of the administration of mabs per number of cases: 0%, >0% to 20%, >20%. Ordinal logistic regression was applied to assess whether facility characteristics-study group, state, location, type, size, rating at baseline, weekly average of residents vaccinated, weekly average of staff vaccinated, and total weeks short staffed-correlated with the primary outcome. A multivariable model was used to evaluate the independent effect of predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 130 facilities were included. Between the weeks ending on May 30, 2021, and on May 29, 2022, mean mab use when accounting for the number of COVID-19 cases was 12.96% (±26.71%) and >50% of facilities administered 0 doses of mabs. Facility location was associated with mab use (P value .030), with micropolitan facilities having the highest percentage of facilities administering mabs (30.4% in >0% to 20%, and 39.1% in >20%, respectively). There was a nonsignificant trend toward increased mab use in facilities reporting fewer staffing shortages. When the multivariable ordinal logistic regression model was applied, location in a micropolitan vs metropolitan area was associated with higher odds [3.29 (1.30, 8.32), P value .012] of increasing percentage total mabs per cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

COVID-19 mabs were underutilized in a high-risk population for COVID-19 hospitalization and death. Understanding the barriers to effective distribution is critical in shaping pandemic preparedness efforts for the future.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Utilization for the Treatment of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in the National Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist regarding real-world utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. We identified predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients nationally.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were eligible to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between January and December of 2022, to identify factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use (i.e., demographics, medical history, prior medication and healthcare exposures, frailty, and other clinical characteristics) using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 309,755 outpatients with COVID-19 who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, of whom 12.2% received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir uptake increased from 1.1% to 23.2% over the study period. Factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receipt included receiving a COVID-19 booster vs. none (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-2.26]), age ≥ 50 vs. 18-49 years (aORs > 1.5 for all age groups ≥ 50 years), having HIV (aOR 1.36 [1.22-1.51]), being non-frail vs. severely frail (aOR 1.22 [1.13-1.33]), and having rheumatoid arthritis (aOR 1.12 [1.04-1.21). Those with concomitant use of potentially interacting antiarrhythmics (aOR 0.35 [0.28-0.45]), anticoagulants/antiplatelets (aOR 0.42 [0.40-0.45]), and/or psychiatric/sedatives (aOR 0.84 [0.81-0.87]) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increases over time, overall utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was low. Predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir utilization were consistent with known risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19, including older age and underlying medical conditions. Unvaccinated and undervaccinated patients and those receiving potentially interacting medications for cardiovascular or mental health conditions (antiarrhythmic, alpha-1 antagonist, anticoagulant/antiplatelet, sedative/hypnotic/psychiatric) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Further education of prescribers and patients about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment guidelines is needed to improve overall uptake and utilization in certain high-risk subpopulations.

COVID-19 Therapeutics for Nonhospitalized Patients-Updates and Future Directions

In this Viewpoint, the authors summarize the therapeutic landscape for COVID-19, discuss who is most likely to benefit from treatment, provide an update on managing illness in immunocompromised individuals, and highlight how to improve COVID-19 treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Agents and Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with SLE: A Case-Control Study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related disease (COVID-19) has spread pandemically with high rates of morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 has also posed unprecedented challenges in terms of rapid development of pharmacological countermeasures to prevent or contrast SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents and monoclonal antibodies have been specifically designed to attenuate COVID-19 morbidity and prevent mortality in vulnerable subjects, such as patients with immune-mediated diseases, but evidence for the safe and effective use of these drugs in this latter population group is scarce. Therefore, we designed a retrospective, multicentre, observational, case-control study to analyse the impact of these treatments in COVID-19 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a paradigmatic, multi-organ autoimmune disease. We identified 21 subjects treated with antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies who were matched with 42 untreated patients by age, sex, SLE extension and duration. Treated patients had higher baseline SLE disease activity index 2000 scores [SLEDAI-2K median (interquartile range) = 4 (1-5) vs. 0 (0-2); p = 0.009], higher prednisone doses [5 (0-10) mg vs. 0 (0-3) mg; p = 0.002], and more severe COVID-19 symptoms by a five-point World Health Organisation-endorsed analogue scale [1 (0-1) vs. 0 (0-1); p < 0.010] compared to untreated patients. There was no difference between groups in terms of COVID-19 outcomes and sequelae, nor in terms of post-COVID-19 SLE exacerbations. Three subjects reported mild adverse events (two with monoclonal antibodies, one with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir). These data suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antivirals and monoclonal antibodies might be safely and effectively used in patients with SLE, especially with active disease and more severe COVID-19 symptoms at presentation.