Efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis

Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 subvariant predominance: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes associated with sotrovimab use during Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 predominance.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals, preprint articles and conference abstracts from January 1, 2022 to February 27, 2023.

RESULTS

The 14 studies identified were heterogeneous in terms of study design, population, endpoints and definitions. They included > 1.7 million high-risk patients with COVID-19, of whom approximately 41,000 received sotrovimab (range n = 20-5979 during BA.2 and n = 76-1383 during BA.5 predominance). Four studies compared the effectiveness of sotrovimab with untreated or no monoclonal antibody treatment controls, two compared sotrovimab with other treatments, and three single-arm studies compared outcomes during BA.2 and/or BA.5 versus BA.1. Five studies descriptively reported rates of clinical outcomes in patients treated with sotrovimab. Rates of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality (0.95-4.0% during BA.2; 0.5-2.0% during BA.5) and all-cause mortality (1.7-2.0% during BA.2; 3.4% during combined BA.2 and BA.5 periods) among sotrovimab-treated patients were consistently low. During BA.2, a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization or mortality was reported across studies with sotrovimab versus untreated cohorts. Compared with other treatments, sotrovimab was associated with a lower (molnupiravir) or similar (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality during BA.2 and BA.5. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic literature review suggests continued effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing severe clinical outcomes during BA.2 and BA.5 predominance, both against active/untreated comparators and compared with BA.1 predominance.

Phytoconstituents as modulator of inflammatory pathways for COVID-19: A comprehensive review and recommendations

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes disruptions in inflammatory pathways, which fundamentally contribute to COVID-19 pathophysiology. The present review critically evaluates the gaps in scientific literature and presents the current status regarding the inflammatory signaling pathways in COVID-19. We propose that phytoconstituents can be used to treat COVID-19 associated inflammation, several already formulated in traditional medications. For this purpose, extensive literature analysis was conducted in the PubMed database to collect relevant in vitro, in vivo, and human patient studies where inflammation pathways were shown to be upregulated in COVID-19. Parallelly, scientific literature was screened for phytoconstituents with known cellular mechanisms implicated for inflammation or COVID-19 associated inflammation. Studies with insufficient evidence on cellular pathways for autophagy and mitophagy were considered out of scope and excluded from the study. The final analysis was visualized in figures and evaluated for accuracy. Our findings demonstrate the frequent participation of NF-κB, a transcription factor, in inflammatory signaling pathways linked to COVID-19. Moreover, the MAPK signaling pathway is also implicated in producing inflammatory molecules. Furthermore, it was also analyzed that the phytoconstituents with flavonoid and phenolic backbones could inhibit either the TLR4 receptor or its consecutive signaling molecules, thereby, decreasing NF-κB activity and suppressing cytokine production. Although, allopathy has treated the early phase of COVID-19, anti-inflammatory phytoconstituents and existing ayurvedic formulations may act on the COVID-19 associated inflammatory pathways and provide an additional treatment strategy. Therefore, we recommend the usage of flavonoids and phenolic phytoconstituents for the treatment of inflammation associated with COVID-19 infection and similar viral ailments.

Real-world evidence of sotrovimab effectiveness for preventing severe outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement propensity-matched retrospective cohort study of a pan-provincial program in Alberta, Canada

OBJECTIVES

Post-marketing surveillance of sotrovimab's effect during implementation in the Canadian population is limited.

METHODS

The study used a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort design. Follow-up began between the periods of December 15, 2021 and April 30 2022. The study assessed any severe outcome defined as all-cause hospital admission or mortality within 30 days of a confirmed COVID-19-positive test. Covariate-adjusted odds ratios between sotrovimab treatment and the severe outcome was conducted using logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 22,289 individuals meeting the treatment criteria for sotrovimab. There were 1603 treated and 6299 untreated individuals included in the analysis. The outcome occurrence in the study was 5.49% (treated) and 4.21% (untreated), with a median time from diagnosis to treatment of 1.00 days (interquartile range 2.00 days). In the propensity-matched cohort, sotrovimab was not associated with lower odds of a severe outcome (odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.58), adjusting for confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for confounding variables, sotrovimab treatment was not associated with lower odds of a severe outcome within 30-days of COVID-19-positive date.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to explore relevant studies from January 2021 to November 2023. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.0).

RESULTS

Fifteen retrospective studies involving 13, 306 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 1.38), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.10), and intensive unit care admission (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 10.07). In terms of safety, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.29 to 9.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab have similar effectiveness in treating COVID-19 patients. However, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is low. High-quality research is needed to better compare these interventions in COVID-19.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).

RESULTS

Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).

CONCLUSION

The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and safety of antiviral plus anti-spike monoclonal antibody combination therapy vs. monotherapy for high-risk immunocompromised patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV2 infection during the Omicron era: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Antivirals and monoclonal antibodies lower the risk of progression in immunocompromised patients. However, combination therapy with both types of agents has not been studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a single-centre, prospective, cohort study. All immunocompromised patients who received treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 from 1 January 2022 to 30 October 2022 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 progression at 90 days, defined as hospital admission or death due to COVID-19 and/or seronegative persistent COVID-19.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients were included: 43 patients (14.1%) received sotrovimab plus a direct-acting antiviral, and 261 (85.9%) received monotherapy. Primary outcome occurred more frequently after monotherapy (4.6% vs. 0%, P=0.154). Among patients with anti-spike immunoglobulin G (anti-S IgG) titre <750 BAU/mL, COVID-19 progression was more common after monotherapy (23.9% vs. 0%, P=0.001), including more frequent COVID-related admission (15.2% vs. 0%, P=0.014) and seronegative persistent COVID-19 (10.9% vs. 0%, P=0.044). Combination therapy was associated with lower risk of progression (odds ratio [OR] 0.08, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.01-0.64). Anti-S IgG titre <750 BAU/mL and previous anti-CD20 were associated with higher risk of progression (OR 13.70, 95% CI 2.77-67.68; and OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.20-10.94, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In immunocompromised patients, combination therapy with sotrovimab plus an antiviral may be more effective than monotherapy for SARS-CoV2.

Real-World Effectiveness of Sotrovimab for the Early Treatment of COVID-19: Evidence from the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an unprecedented healthcare crisis, one that threatened to overwhelm health systems and prompted an urgent need for early treatment options for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomised clinical trials established the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) early in the pandemic; in vitro data subsequently led to use of the mAbs being discontinued, without clear evidence on how these data were linked to outcomes. In this study, we describe and compare real-world outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab versus untreated patients.

METHODS

Electronic health records from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) were used to identify US patients (aged ≥ 12 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 (positive test or ICD-10: U07.1) in an ambulatory setting (27 September 2021-30 April 2022) who met Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) high-risk criteria. Patients receiving the mAb sotrovimab within 10 days of diagnosis were assigned to the sotrovimab cohort, with the day of infusion as the index date. Untreated patients (no evidence of early mAb treatment, prophylactic mAb or oral antiviral treatment) were assigned to the untreated cohort, with an imputed index date based on the time distribution between diagnosis and sotrovimab infusion in the sotrovimab cohort. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation or death (both all-cause) within 29 days of index, reported as descriptive rate and adjusted [via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)] odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Of nearly 2.9 million patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during the analysis period, 4992 met the criteria for the sotrovimab cohort, and 541,325 were included in the untreated cohort. Before weighting, significant differences were noted between the cohorts; for example, patients in the sotrovimab cohort were older (60 years versus 54 years), were more likely to be white (85% versus 75%) and met more EUA criteria (mean 3.1 versus 2.2) versus the untreated cohort. The proportions of patients with 29-day hospitalisation or death were 3.5% (176/4992) and 4.5% (24,163/541,325) in the sotrovimab and untreated cohorts, respectively (unadjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.91; p = 0.001). In adjusted analysis, sotrovimab was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of hospitalisation or death compared with the untreated cohort (IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.92; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Sotrovimab demonstrated clinical effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes (hospitalisation, mortality) in the period 27 September 2021-30 April 2022, which included Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants and an early surge of Omicron BA.2 variant.

Strategies for prevention and treatment of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: Literature review

COVID-19 has proven to be particularly aggressive in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The lower immune response rate and the greater susceptibility to progress to severe forms of the disease have contributed to this phenomenon, which has persisted in the post-vaccination era of the pandemic. Paradoxically, CKD has been excluded from most clinical trials of the main therapeutic tools developed against SARS-CoV-2. However, experience in the use of these drugs has been accumulating in different stages of CKD, supporting their use with guarantees of efficacy and safety. The objective of this review is to gather all treatment indications for COVID-19 in the different phases of the disease, tailored to CKD in its various stages, including renal replacement therapy.

Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Omicron BA.2 subvariant predominance: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have impacted the in vitro activity of sotrovimab, with variable fold changes in neutralization potency for the Omicron BA.2 sublineage and onward. The correlation between reduced in vitro activity and clinical efficacy outcomes is unknown. A systematic literature review (SLR) evaluated the effectiveness of sotrovimab on severe clinical outcomes during Omicron BA.2 predominance.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed journals, preprint articles, and conference abstracts published from January 1-November 3, 2022.

RESULTS

Five studies were included, which displayed heterogeneity in study design and population. Two UK studies had large samples of patients during BA.2 predominance: one demonstrated clinical effectiveness vs molnupiravir during BA.1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88; p = 0.014) and BA.2 (aHR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.71; p = 0.001); the other reported no difference in the clinical outcomes of sotrovimab-treated patients when directly comparing sequencing-confirmed BA.1 and BA.2 cases (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74-1.86). One US study showed a lower risk of 30-day all-cause hospitalization/mortality for sotrovimab compared with no treatment during the BA.2 surge in March (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62) and April 2022 (aRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.08-3.54). Two studies from Italy and Qatar reported low progression rates but were either single-arm descriptive or not sufficiently powered to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of sotrovimab.

CONCLUSION

This SLR showed that the effectiveness of sotrovimab was maintained against Omicron BA.2 in both ecological and sequencing-confirmed studies, by demonstrating low/comparable clinical outcomes between BA.1 and BA.2 periods or comparing against an active/untreated comparator.

Clinical Effectiveness of Ritonavir-Boosted Nirmatrelvir-A Literature Review

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir is an oral treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 cases with a high risk for a severe course of the disease. For this paper, a comprehensive literature review was performed, leading to a summary of currently available data on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir's ability to reduce the risk of progressing to a severe disease state. Herein, the focus lies on publications that include comparisons between patients receiving Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and a control group. The findings can be summarized as follows: Data from the time when the Delta-variant was dominant show that Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 88.9% for unvaccinated, non-hospitalized high-risk individuals. Data from the time when the Omicron variant was dominant found decreased relative risk reductions for various vaccination statuses: between 26% and 65% for hospitalization. The presented papers that differentiate between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals agree that unvaccinated patients benefit more from treatment with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. However, when it comes to the dependency of potential on age and comorbidities, further studies are necessary. From the available data, one can conclude that Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir cannot substitute vaccinations; however, its low manufacturing cost and easy administration make it a valuable tool in fighting COVID-19, especially for countries with low vaccination rates.

Structure-based Virtual Screening from Natural Products as Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and ACE2 Receptor Binding and their Biological Evaluation In vitro

BACKGROUND

In the last years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused more than 760 million infections and 6.9 million deaths. Currently, remains a public health problem with limited pharmacological treatments. Among the virus drug targets, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein attracts the development of new anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to identify new compounds derived from natural products (BIOFACQUIM and Selleckchem databases) as potential inhibitors of the spike receptor binding domain (RBD)-ACE2 binding complex.

METHODS

Molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and ADME-Tox analysis were performed to screen and select the potential inhibitors. ELISA-based enzyme assay was done to confirm our predictive model.

RESULTS

Twenty compounds were identified as potential binders of RBD of the spike protein. In vitro assay showed compound B-8 caused 48% inhibition at 50 μM, and their binding pattern exhibited interactions via hydrogen bonds with the key amino acid residues present on the RBD.

CONCLUSION

Compound B-8 can be used as a scaffold to develop new and more efficient antiviral drugs.

Sotrovimab in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Despite widespread implementation of vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) can remain particularly vulnerable to this disease. The present study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in the treatment of SOTRs with COVID-19.

Methods

A search was performed of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to gather relevant evidence through July 25, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (ver. 3.0, Biostat) was employed for data analysis.

Results

Ten studies, involving a total of 1,569 patients, were included. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the patients administered sotrovimab and those treated with the standard of care. These differences were observed in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.67), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.57), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62), the need for supplemental oxygen therapy (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51), and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70). However, no significant difference was observed between sotrovimab and other treatments regarding the rates of hospitalization or ICU admission (P>0.05). Regarding safety, sotrovimab was associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared to the absence of sotrovimab (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86).

Conclusions

These results suggest that sotrovimab may improve efficacy outcomes among SOTRs with COVID-19. Nevertheless, additional high-quality trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use in patients with COVID-19 on hemodialysis: a case series

Patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and are at increased risk of developing severe infection. However, given the exclusion of such patients from clinical trials, there are limited data regarding the effectiveness of the antiviral drug nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) in patients on HD. We prescribed N/R to 4 patients on HD with COVID-19 after obtaining informed consent. Their clinical symptoms were improved at approximately 3 days after N/R administration. The viral load was reduced after approximately 10 days. The main adverse effects were nausea and vomiting. Rational dosage adjustment obtained good tolerance but did not influence the efficacy. These results suggest that N/R may be a promising agent for patients on HD with COVID-19.

COVID-19 treatment strategies with drugs centrally procured by the German Federal Ministry of Health in a representative tertiary care hospital: a temporal analysis

Introduction

To ensure the fastest and earliest possible treatment, the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) initiated central procurement and nationwide distribution of new drugs against COVID-19. A single centre was used for a retrospective temporal analysis of this procedure.

Methods

A descriptive analysis of hospitalization and treatment of COVID-19 patients with drugs centrally procured by the BMG at St. Georg Hospital, Leipzig, Germany, for the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2023 was employed considering the approval status, evolving guidelines and recommendations of medical societies.

Results

In total, 3,412 patients ≥18 years (54.9% men) with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted. The mean age was 64 years during the reporting period and 66.1/70.6 years during the first and second COVID-19 waves, respectively. 964 patients (28.2%) received COVID-19 therapy with drugs procured centrally by the BMG. Remdesivir was the most commonly used (63%). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies represented 23% of the therapies. Peroral antivirals (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir) were used in 14% of COVID-19 patients, with molnupiravir being insignificant (five prescriptions).

Conclusions

Specific therapeutic approaches were mainly based on antiviral therapy in the early phase of COVID-19 to prevent severe disease progression in vulnerable patient groups. Most drugs had not been approved at the time of central procurement; therefore, prescriptions were given on a case-by-case basis after careful risk-benefit assessments. All available neutralizing monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 antibodies lost efficacy during the pandemic due to different circulating immune escape variants. Remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained effective therapies in the early phase of COVID-19.

Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Implications on Immune Escape, Vaccination, Therapeutic and Diagnostic Strategies

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a lower fatality rate than its SARS and MERS counterparts. However, the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has given rise to multiple variants with varying pathogenicity and transmissibility, such as the Delta and Omicron variants. Individuals with advanced age or underlying comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, are at a higher risk of increased disease severity. Hence, this has resulted in an urgent need for the development of better therapeutic and preventive approaches. This review describes the origin and evolution of human coronaviruses, particularly SARS-CoV-2 and its variants as well as sub-variants. Risk factors that contribute to disease severity and the implications of co-infections are also considered. In addition, various antiviral strategies against COVID-19, including novel and repurposed antiviral drugs targeting viral and host proteins, as well as immunotherapeutic strategies, are discussed. We critically evaluate strategies of current and emerging vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and their efficacy, including immune evasion by new variants and sub-variants. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 evolution on COVID-19 diagnostic testing is also examined. Collectively, global research and public health authorities, along with all sectors of society, need to better prepare against upcoming variants and future coronavirus outbreaks.

Efficacy and safety of regdanvimab in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-COV-2 monoclonal antibody approved by the European Medicines Agency in November 2021, for the treatment of confirmed COVID-19 disease.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, medRxiv and Google Scholar were searched for relevant evidence up to October 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Data were analysed using RevMan software.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 4793 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the regdanvimab and no-regdanvimab groups in terms of length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.80 to -0.43), clinical recovery (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.18), disease progression (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.33), the need for oxygen therapy (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.43) and duration of oxygen therapy (MD = -3.00, 95% CI: -4.44 to -1.56). However, no significant difference was detected between 2 groups regarding mortality rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.11 to 1.89), need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.89) and hospital admission rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.03). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.18).

CONCLUSION

Regdanvimab was not effective in reducing mortality and hospital admission rate in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, but it was effective in improving other efficacy outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

The Impact of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Reducing Hospitalizations Among High-Risk Patients with SARS-Cov-2 During the Omicron Predominant Era

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality in high-risk populations. Several therapeutics have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 related complications, hospitalizations, and death. In several studies, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was reported to reduce the risk of hospitalizations and death. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NR in preventing hospitalizations and death during the Omicron predominant period.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients from June 1, 2022, through September 26, 2022. There was a total of 25,939 documented COVID-19 cases. Using propensity matching, we matched 5,754 NR treated patients with untreated patients.

RESULTS

Post-matching, the median age of the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) treated group was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 43-70 years) and 42% were vaccinated. Post-matching composite outcome of the 30-day hospitalization and mortality in the NR treated group were 0.9% (95%: CI 0.7% to 1.2%) vs. 2.1% (95% CI: 1.8% to 2.5%) in the matched control group, with a difference of -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8), P-value <0.01. The difference rates (NR vs. control) in 30-day all-cause hospitalizations and mortality were -1.2% (95% CI: -1.6% to -0.7%, p-value <0.01) and-0.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 0.0%, P value= 0.29), respectively. We found similar finding across different age groups (≥65 vs. <65) and the vaccinated group.

CONCLUSION

We report a significant benefit with the use of NR in reducing hospitalizations among various high-risk COVID-19 groups during the Omicron BA.5 predominant period.

Rational Use of Monoclonal Antibodies as Therapeutic Treatment in an Oncologic Patient with Long COVID

We present the case of a 76-year-old male patient persistently infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the setting of a stage IIIC cutaneous melanoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Due to the persistent coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), all cancer treatments were discontinued. Because of the worsening of his clinical state and the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity for more than six months, the patient was treated with sotrovimab, which was ineffective due to resistance mutations acquired during that time. In order to resume cancer treatment and make the patient free from SARS-CoV-2, an in vitro screening of Evusheld monoclonal antibodies (tixagevumab-cilgavimab) against the viral strains isolated from the subject was performed. The promising results obtained during in vitro testing led to the authorization of the off-label use of Evusheld, which made the patient negative for SARS-CoV-2, thus, allowing him to resume his cancer treatment. This study highlights the Evusheld monoclonal antibodies' efficacy, not only in prevention but also in successful therapy against prolonged COVID-19. Therefore, testing neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in vitro against SARS-CoV-2 mutants directly isolated from patients could provide useful information for the treatment of people affected by long COVID.

Use of Monoclonal Antibodies in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe the safety and efficacy of sotrovimab in severe cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts.

METHODS

We used a retrospective multicenter cohort including immunocompromised hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab between October 2021 and December 2021.

RESULTS

We included 32 patients. The main immunocompromising conditions were solid organ transplantation (46.9%) and hematological malignancy (37.5%). Seven patients (21.9%) had respiratory progression: 12.5% died and 9.4% required mechanical ventilation. Patients treated within the first 14 days of their symptoms had a lower progression rate: 12.0% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.029. No adverse event was attributed to sotrovimab.

CONCLUSIONS

Sotrovimab was safe and may be effective in its use for immunocompromised patients with severe COVID-19. More studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data.