Efficacy and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab as SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Lung Transplant Recipients during the Omicron Wave: A Real-World Monocentric Experience

Lung transplant recipients (LTRs) respond poorly to vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TIX/CIL) reduces the incidence of infection and the evolution to severe COVID-19. In vitro data show decreased activity against Omicron variants. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of TIX/CIL in LTRs during the Omicron wave. A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at ISMETT in Palermo (Italy). In June 2022, SARS-CoV-2 PrEP with TIX/CIL 150/150 mg was offered to LTRs. LTRs who received TIX/CIL were compared to LTRs who did not. Logistic regression analysis (adjusted for prior COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, age, years from transplant, and rejection) was performed. The objective of this study was to compare the following among the two populations: prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, length of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and COVID-19 disease severity. Among 110 eligible LTRs, 79 (72%) received TIX/CIL and 31 (28%) did not. SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 6% (n = 5) of patients who received TIX/CIL and 29% (n = 9) of patients who did not (p < 0.001). In both groups, infections were mild/asymptomatic, and no one was hospitalized or died. At multivariate analysis, TIX/CIL was associated with a lower risk of infection (aOR 0.22; 95%CI 0.06-0.78; p = 0.02). TIX/CIL was safe and effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 in LTRs during the Omicron wave.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis against COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population.

Methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06).

Conclusions

The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

Effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations and mortality in inmunocompromised patients

INTRODUCTION

Inmunocompromised people have higher SARS-CoV-2 morbi-mortality and they are subsidiary to receive pre-exposure prophylaxis. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations and mortality in immunocompromised patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

119 immunocompromised people>18 years old eligible of receiving Evusheld were followed for 6 months. People with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or incomplete vaccination regimen were exluded. A total of 19 people who received Evusheld were matched by propensity score, using a 1:1 ratio, with another 19 people who did not receive Evusheld. Sociodemographic, related to SARS-CoV-2 risk factors and related to immunosuppression variables were included. The dependent variables were infection, hospitalization, and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2. Statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS Statistics 19.0, STATA 11.0, and the R statistical package.

RESULTS

In total, 4 people in the Evusheld group and 11 in the control group had SARS-CoV-2 infection, showing an incidence rate of 3.87 and 13.62 per 100 person-months, respectively. The HR (Hazard Ratio) was 0.29 (95% CI=0.09-0.90) for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 0.37 (0.07-1.92) for SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization and, 0.23 (0.03-2.09) for SARS-CoV-2 mortality in the Evusheld group compared to control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that Evusheld reduces the SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Retrospective, Observational Analysis on the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron in Hospitalized Immunocompromised Patients in a German Hospital Network-The VISAGE Study

AIMS

Endemic SARS-CoV-2 infections still burden the healthcare system and represent a considerable threat to vulnerable patient cohorts, in particular immunocompromised (IC) patients. This study aimed to analyze the in-hospital outcome of IC patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study, analyzed administrative data from inpatient cases (n = 146,324) in 84 German Helios hospitals between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 with regard to in-hospital outcome and health care burden in IC patients during the first 12 months of Omicron dominance. As the primary objective, in-hospital outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) were analyzed by comparing patients with (n = 2037) and without IC diagnoses (n = 14,772). Secondary analyses were conducted on IC patients with (n = 2037) and without COVID-19-related SARI (n = 129,515). A severe in-hospital outcome as a composite endpoint was defined per the WHO definition if one of the following criteria were met: intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, mechanical ventilation (MV), or in-hospital death.

RESULTS

In total, 12% of COVID-related SARI cases were IC patients, accounting for 15% of ICU admissions, 15% of MV use, and 16% of deaths, resulting in a higher prevalence of severe in-hospital courses in IC patients developing COVID-19-related SARI compared to non-IC patients (Odds Ratio, OR = 1.4, p < 0.001), based on higher in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.4, p < 0.001), increased need for ICU treatment (OR = 1.3, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.2, p < 0.001). Among IC patients, COVID-19-related SARI profoundly increased the risk for severe courses (OR = 4.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the vulnerability of IC patients to severe COVID-19. The persistently high prevalence of severe outcomes in these patients in the Omicron era emphasizes the necessity for continuous in-hospital risk assessment and monitoring of IC patients.

Spike Protein Genetic Evolution in Patients at High Risk of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treated by Monoclonal Antibodies

BACKGROUND

High-risk patients, often immunocompromised and not responding to vaccine, continue to experience severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were shown to be effective to prevent severe COVID-19 for these patients. Nevertheless, concerns about the emergence of resistance mutations were raised.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentric prospective cohort study, including 264 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 and treated early with casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab, or tixagevimab/cilgavimab. We sequenced the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome during follow-up and searched for emerging spike mutations.

RESULTS

Immunocompromised patients have a 6-fold increased risk of developing mutations, which are associated with a prolonged duration of viral clearance but no clinical worsening. Emerging P337S/R/L/H, E340D/K/A/Q/V/G, and K356T/R substitutions in patients treated with sotrovimab are associated with higher viral RNA loads for up to 14 days post-treatment initiation. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is associated with a 5-fold increased risk of developing mutations. R346K/I/T/S and K444R/N/M substitutions associated with tixagevimab/cilgavimab have been identified in multiple SARS-CoV-2 lineages, including BQ.1 and XBB.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of emerging mutations arising in response to mAbs is significant, emphasizing the crucial need to investigate these mutations thoroughly and assess their impact on patients and the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2.

Effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) in antiCD20‑treated patients with multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

BACKGROUND

AntiCD20 therapy, such as rituximab, ocrelizumab, or ofatumumab, effectively treats patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (pwNMOSD) but negatively affects the humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccination. One strategy to protect these patients is using tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T/C) as pre-exposure prophylaxis. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of T/C on the incidence of COVID-19 in pwMS and pwNMOSD.

METHODS

Data in this observational cohort study were collected in two Czech MS centres through ReMuS registry between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022. Adult pwMS and pwNMOSD who were (1) treated with antiCD20 therapy at least six months before T/C administration, or at least from February 1, 2022 in the control group; (2) were already on antiCD20 therapy at the time of vaccination or COVID-19 infection; and (3) were on antiCD20 therapy at least 100 days after T/C, or at least 90 days after August 1, 2022 in the control group, were included. Analysis was performed using frequency-based (propensity score matching) and Bayesian statistical methods (informative and non-informative priors).

RESULTS

Using propensity score matching 1:1, 47 patients who received T/C (mean age 45.7 years, median disease duration 12.5 years) were matched with those who did not receive T/C (n = 341; mean age 46.6 years, median disease duration 11.4 years) based on age, MS/NMOSD duration, and number of vaccine doses. None of the T/C patients and three in the control matched group, developed COVID-19 between 10 and 100 days after receiving T/C, August 1, 2022, respectively. The frequency of COVID-19 was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.242). Due to the low number of patients, a Bayesian analysis was also added. Using a non-informative Bayesian prior, the median relative risk of COVID-19 after T/C was 7.6 % (95 % CrI 0.02-115.9 %). The posterior probability of risk difference lower than zero was 96.4 %. Using an informative prior (based on the registration study of Evusheld), the median relative risk of COVID-19 after T/C was 20.2 % (95 % CI 8.4-43.8 %). The posterior probability of the risk difference lower than zero was 100 %.

CONCLUSION

This work highlights the possible good efficacy of T/C in antiCD20-treated pwMS and pwNMSOD. Based on Bayesian analysis with an informative prior, the T/C group's risk of COVID-19 infection was approximately 20.2 % of the control group's risk. However, given the low frequency of COVID-19, the results of this pilot analysis must be interpreted with caution.

Humoral and T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in multiple sclerosis patients: Correlations with DMTs and clinical variables

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can affect vaccine responses in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). We assessed the humoral and T-cell responses following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in MS patients receiving various DMTs. We prospectively enrolled 243 participants, including 113 healthy control subjects and 130 MS patients. Blood samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were collected at three time points: T0, before the first vaccine dose; T1, before the second dose; and T2, one month after the second dose. In a subgroup of 51 patients and 20 controls, samples were collected at T0 and T2 to assess the T-cell immune response to the Spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 using ELISPOT-IFNγ. The IgG levels in patients treated with fingolimod and ocrelizumab (159.1 AU/ml and 467.1 AU/ml, respectively) were significantly lower than those in healthy controls and patients on other DMTs (P ​< ​0.0001). The mean Ig titers were higher in patients with an absolute lymphocyte count ≥1000 ​cells/mm3 compared to those with a count between 500 and 1000 and with a count <500 (mean ​± ​SD:7205.6 ​± ​7339.2, 2413.1 ​± ​4515.4 and 165.9 ​± ​152.2, respectively; p ​= ​0.008). We found correlations between antibody levels and age (r ​= ​0.233, p ​= ​0.008). A positive Spike-specific T-cell response was detectable in 100 ​% of vaccinated healthy controls and patients treated with teriflunomide, dimethyl-fumarate, and natalizumab, in 90.5 ​% of fingolimod patients, and in 63.8 ​% of ocrelizumab patients. There is a correlation between IgG-specific titer after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and clinical variables (age, lymphocyte count). Notably, a T-cell-specific response to SARS-CoV-2 developed in patients treated with fingolimod and ocrelizumab, even with lower rates of humoral response.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for the prevention of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (tix/cil) received emergency use authorization in December 2021 for pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in moderately to severely immunocompromised patients. Our study aimed to describe the incidence of COVID-19 infection and assess the immunologic risks associated with tix/cil in kidney, pancreas, liver, and heart transplant recipients. Retrospective chart review was completed to provide descriptive analysis. Outcomes data included COVID-19 infection, severity of COVID-19 infection, graft function, and rejection. Safety outcomes included cardiovascular (CV) and hypersensitivity events post tix/cil administration. A total of 410 transplant patients were included in the analysis: 20 heart, 92 liver, 243 kidney, 25 simultaneous pancreas/kidney, 23 simultaneous liver/kidney, and seven simultaneous heart/kidney. Twenty-seven (6.5%) patients tested positive for COVID-19 via PCR or antigen test post tix/cil. No apparent difference was observed in patients testing positive for COVID-19 by type of organ transplant (p = .122). Twenty-five of the 27 patients testing positive for COVID-19 reported symptomatic infection, only nine of whom were hospitalized. No patients were mechanically ventilated and no deaths due to COVID-19 occurred. No significant changes in graft function were observed. Clinically significant rejection was diagnosed and treated in four patients. COVID-19 breakthrough infection rates remained low in immunocompromised solid organ transplant recipients who received tix/cil. No significant immunologic risks were observed.

The influence of prior use of inhaled corticosteroids on COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The influence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COVID-19 outcomes remains uncertain. To address this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzing 30 studies, to investigate the impact of ICS on patients with COVID-19. Our study focused on various outcomes, including mortality risk, hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV) utilization, and length of hospital stay. Additionally, we conducted a subgroup analysis to assess the effect of ICS on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Our findings suggest that the prior use of ICS did not lead to significant differences in mortality risk, ICU admission, hospitalization, or MV utilization between individuals who had used ICS previously and those who had not. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients with COPD, prior ICS use was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to non-users (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). Overall, while the use of ICS did not significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes in general, it may have beneficial effects specifically for patients with COPD. Nevertheless, more research is needed to establish a definitive conclusion on the role of ICS in COVID-19 treatment. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021279429.

The efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some populations, including immunocompromised patients, could not tolerate COVID-19 vaccination or had low responses. Evusheld is a combined neutralizing monoclonal antibody containing tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The World Health Organization (WHO) has approved this combination as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment for immunocompromised patients. With the new variant, the (WHO) recommended an increase in dose from 300 to 600 mg with a booster dose after 6 months. The target of this review was to compare the efficacy of the two doses, 300 mg and 600 mg of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) as prophylaxis for higher-risk individuals to reveal if there is a significant difference in efficacy between those two doses of the drug.

METHODS

In this study, electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and Cochran) were investigated for articles up to 31/12/2022 in English using a well-established search strategy. We included studies conducted in immunocompromised patients (aged ≥ 12 years) (WHO) received Evusheld as prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19. After excluding studies inconsistent with the selection criteria, 24 were involved, 22 of which were included in the meta-analysis. We analyzed the data by using RevMan 5.4 program software.

RESULTS

In the double-arm subgroup analysis, Evusheld 600 mg, administered as prophylaxis, showed no significant difference in the COVID-19 infection rate, mortality rate, or needed hospitalization rate compared with the dose of 300 mg (p = 0.13, p = 0.29, and p = 0.25, respectively). In the single-arm subgroup analysis, Evusheld 600 mg, administered as prophylaxis, showed a significant decrease in the COVID-19 infection rate and the hospitalization rate compared with the dose of 300 mg (p = 0.0001, p = 0.007, respectively). As a treatment, Evusheld showed a significant decrease in the mortality rate over the placebo group (p = 0.01) in COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

This result indicated that Evusheld was an effective prophylactic and therapeutic drug for COVID-19 infection, especially for immunocompromised patients, but there was no considerable variation between the high and low doses. Further prospective and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with increased population sizes are necessary to show the valuable benefit of the high dose of Evusheld in COVID-19 prevention and treatment and to compare the difference between the two doses within adverse events.

Serological response and immune-related adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

With the popularity of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine and the development of vaccination strategies, the impact of COVID-19 vaccine on cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is still unclear. In the systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with ICIs, we assessed the serological response of cancer patients receiving COVID-19 vaccine, and explored the risk of immune related adverse events (irAEs). We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library as of 10 June 2023, and included cancer patients who received ICIs and COVID-19 vaccine. The systematic review and meta-analysis include cohort study, cross-sectional study and case report. The outcome included the serological response, Spike-specific T-cell response, irAEs and rare adverse events. When possible, the data were analysed by random effect analysis, and the statistical heterogeneity was assessed by Q-test and I2 statistics. We explored the sources of heterogeneity through L'Abbe plots, Galbraith radial plots, and sensitivity analysis. The publication bias was evaluated by Egger's, Begg's linear regression test and funnel plot, and the impact of publication bias was further analysed by trim and fill method. 27 studies were eligible (19 cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study and 7 case reports), involving 8331 patients (with 4724 receiving ICIs). Most studies used mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). Compared with cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, cancer patients receiving ICIs were significantly more likely to have seroconversion (RR = 1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.10, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in seroconversion rates when comparing cancer patients receiving ICIs with controls without cancer (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.01, P = 0.09) or with cancer patients receiving targeted therapy (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.39, P = 0.75). The incidence of irAEs in patients receiving ICIs before and after COVID-19 vaccination was (21.96%, 95%CI 16.66%-28.94%) and (14.88%, 95%CI 8.65%-25.57%), respectively. The most common irAEs were endocrine abnormalities, skin disorders, etc. The certainty of evidence was low in cancer patients with ICIs, compared with those receiving chemotherapy, and very low versus controls without cancer. Cancer patients treated with ICIs seem to be able to receive COVID-19 vaccine safely without increasing the incidence of irAEs.

Real-World Efficacy of COVID-19 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis with Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab in People with Multiple Sclerosis

Vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus were authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and have proven effective for the prevention of morbidity and death from COVID-19. Certain immunosuppressant medications prevent the development of protective immunity following COVID-19 vaccination. In December 2021, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a monoclonal-antibody combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, under the brand name Evusheld, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19 for individuals with moderate-to-severe immune compromise. While a 77% reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 was observed in the PROVENT study, the trial was conducted prior to emergence of the B.1.1.529 Omicron variant. We suspected reduced efficacy of PrEP against Omicron subvariants. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the prevalence of symptomatic COVID-19 infections between 1 January 2022 and 1 July 2022 in eligible patients treated with PrEP versus untreated using a questionnaire administered with the REDCap survey tool. Responses from 235 participants were included in the final analysis, with 176 untreated respondents and 59 in the PrEP cohort. Symptomatic COVID-19 infections were reported in 50 (28.4%) untreated participants and only 9 (15.3%) of those who received PrEP (p = 0.0557; OR 0.4536; 95% CI 0.2046 to 0.9599). Only two participants were hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, both in the untreated cohort. The reduction in COVID-19 infections did not achieve statistical significance, indicating diminished efficacy against Omicron variants.

Electroencephalographic findings post-COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of case reports and case series

A number of different neurological complications have been reported following vaccination against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Electroencephalogram (EEG) is one of the modalities used to evaluate the neurological complications of diseases. The aim of the present study was to identify the EEG changes in participants vaccinated against COVID-19. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were searched up to 1 September 2022, with terms related to COVID-19 vaccines, EEG, neurological signs/symptoms, or neurological disorders. All case reports and case series were included if the participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and a post vaccination EEG report was also reported. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for case reports and case series to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies. Thirty-one studies were included, which were comprised of 24 case reports and seven case series and a total of 36 participants. Generalised slowing and non-convulsive focal status epilepticus were the most common EEG findings post-COVID-19 vaccination. The most frequent symptoms were headache, fatigue, generalised weakness, and vomiting. In addition, the most common signs were encephalopathy, post-ictal phases, and confusion. Encephalitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and post-vaccinal encephalopathy were the most commonly diagnosed adverse events. Furthermore, most of the imaging studies appeared normal. The EEG reports mainly showed background slowing and epileptiform discharges, encephalitis, encephalopathies, and demyelinating disorders. Future studies with larger samples and more vaccine types may help to further unravel the potential neurological effects of COVID-19 vaccinations on recipients.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Retrospective Analysis of a Real-Life Use of Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab plus SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals for Treatment of COVID-19

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is effective for the treatment of early COVID-19 in outpatients with risk factors for progression to severe illness, as well as for primary prevention and post-exposure prophylaxis. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the hospital stay (expressed in days), prognosis, and negativity rate for COVID-19 in patients after treatment with tixagevimab-cilgavimab. We enrolled 42 patients who were nasal swab-positive for SARS-CoV-2 (antigenic and molecular)-both vaccinated and not vaccinated for COVID-19-hospitalized at the first division of the Cotugno Hospital in Naples who had received a single intramuscular dose of tixagevimab-cilgavimab (300 mg/300 mg). All patient candidates for tixagevimab-cilgavimab had immunocompromised immune systems either due to chronic degenerative disorders (Group A: 27 patients) or oncohematological diseases (Group B: 15 patients). Patients enrolled in group A came under our observation after 10 days of clinical symptoms and 5 days after testing positivite for COVID-19, unlike the other patients enrolled in the study. The mean stay in hospital for the patients in Group A was 21 ± 5 days vs. 25 ± 5 days in Group B. Twenty patients tested negative after a median hospitalization stay of 16 days (IQR: 18-15.25); of them, five (25%) patients belonged to group B. Therefore, patients with active hematological malignancy had a lower negativization rate when treated 10 days after the onset of clinical symptoms and five days after their first COVID-19 positive nasal swab.

A network meta-analysis of risk factors of infection among close contacts of COVID-19

Objective

We aimed to use network meta-analysis to compare the impact of infection risk factors of close contacts with COVID-19, identify the most influential factors and rank their subgroups. It can provide a theoretical basis for the rapid and accurate tracking and management of close contacts.

Methods

We searched nine databases from December 1, 2019 to August 2, 2023, which only took Chinese and English studies into consideration. Odd ratios (ORs) were calculated from traditional meta-estimated secondary attack rates (SARs) for different risk factors, and risk ranking of these risk factors was calculated by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

25 studies with 152647 participants identified. Among all risk factors, the SUCRA of type of contact was 69.6 % and ranked first. Among six types of contact, compared with transportation contact, medical contact, social contact and other, daily contact increased risk of infection by 12.11 (OR: 12.11, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 6.51-22.55), 7.76 (OR: 7.76, 95 % CI: 4.09-14.73), 4.65 (OR: 4.65, 95 % CI: 2.66-8.51) and 8.23 OR: 8.23, 95 % CI: 4.23-16.01) times, respectively. Overall, SUCRA ranks from highest to lowest as daily contact (94.7 %), contact with pollution subjects (78.4 %), social contact (60.8 %), medical contact (31.8 %), other (27.9 %), transportation contact (6.4 %).

Conclusion

The type of contact had the greatest impact on COVID-19 close contacts infection among the risk factors we included. Daily contact carried the greatest risk of infection among six types of contact, followed by contact with pollution subjects, social contact, other, medical contact and transportation contact. The results can provide scientific basis for rapid assess the risk of infection among close contacts based on fewer risk factors and pay attention to high-risk close contacts during management, thereby reducing tracking and management costs.

Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab Administration for Hemodialysis Patients at Community-Based Dialysis Centers in Singapore as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

INTRODUCTION

 Hemodialysis patients are deemed to be immunosuppressed and may not be able to mount an adequate response to vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Due to the higher morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable group, pre-exposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies was introduced as an additional measure for protection in selected community-based hemodialysis patients in Singapore. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab, available as Evusheld, were used for this purpose.

METHODS

 A government-sponsored clinical administration program with the provision of 200 doses of Evusheld at no cost to the patients was implemented. Patient selection criteria to further risk-stratify this vulnerable hemodialysis patient cohort was developed and 200 patients were finally selected. Evusheld administration was done over a period of two months, as two consecutive injections were given at two separate intramuscular sites, which constituted one administration. Data were collected as part of a retrospective clinical audit, as part of a routine quality monitoring process for this patient care program. Real-world evidence was generated to assess the impact on mortality, hospitalization rate, reason for hospitalization, and any associated morbidity.

RESULTS

 No adverse events from the Evusheld administration were noted. All recipients had received COVID-19 vaccinations prior to Tixa-Cilga, with a range of one to five doses. A total of 198 (99%) completed two doses and 189 (95%) completed three doses, out of which, 14 (7%) patients contracted COVID-19 infection over three months. The overall hospitalization rate was 2% (four out of 200 patients). Severe illness that required intensive care unit stay was therefore seen in only 2 (1%) out of 200 patients. None of the infected patients died.

DISCUSSION

 A significant reduction in severity of illness, hospitalization rate, and mortality was found with pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab and cilgavimab, in this real-world experience from Singapore. Evusheld administration reduced the hospitalization rate from 42.5% to 2%, which is a reduction of 95.3% (p<0.0001). Symptoms in infected patients were mild, with only 1% being admitted to the intensive care unit. The mortality rate from COVID-19 infection was reduced from 2.5% to 0% with Evusheld.  Conclusion: Mass administration of prophylactic treatments for vulnerable populations can be challenging in community-based settings and the successful implementation of such a program has been described. The findings can have health policy implications for the protection of such immunocompromised patients in the future. The combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, available as Evusheld in Singapore, was safe to use in hemodialysis patients, with no adverse events noted. There was a significant reduction in hospitalization rates and intensive care unit admissions with a zero-mortality rate due to COVID-19 infection, after pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hematological malignancies

The approved combination of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab has been shown to decrease the rate of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at increased risk of inadequate response to vaccination. However, Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab was tested in a few studies that included patients with hematological malignancies, even if this population has shown an increased risk of unfavorable outcomes following infection (with high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality) and poor significant immunization following vaccines. We performed a real-life prospective cohort study to evaluate the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection following pre-exposure prophylaxis with Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab in anti-spike seronegative patients compared to a cohort of seropositive patients who were observed or received a fourth vaccine dose. We recruited 103 patients with a mean age of 67 years: 35 (34%) received Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab and were followed from March 17, 2022, until November 15, 2022. After a median follow-up of 4.24 months, the 3-month cumulative incidence of infection was 20% versus 12% in the Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab and observation/vaccine groups respectively (HR 1.57; 95% CI: 0.65-3.56; p = 0.34). In this study, we report our experience with Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab and a tailored approach to SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention in patients with hematological malignancies during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron surge.

Effects of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection and maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy against these outcomes has been undertaken. Thus, we aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes. PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were systematically searched for articles published up to 1 November 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate pooled effects size and 95% confidence interval (CI). We evaluated 30 studies involving 862,272 individuals (308,428 vaccinated and 553,844 unvaccinated). Overall pooled analyses in pregnant women during pregnancy showed reduced risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 60% (41%-73%), COVID-19 hospitalisation during pregnancy by 53% (31%-69%), and COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 82% (12%-99%). Neonates of vaccinated women were 1.78 folds more likely to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 2, 4 and 6 months of life during the Omicron period. The risk of stillbirth was reduced by 45% (17%-63%) in association with vaccination (vs. no vaccination) in pregnancy. A decrease of 15% (3%-25%), 33% (14%-48%), and 33% (17%-46%) in the odds of preterm births before 37, 32 and 28 weeks' gestation were associated with vaccination (vs. no vaccination) in pregnancy, respectively. The risk of neonatal ICU admission was significantly lower by 20% following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy (16%-24%). There was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse outcomes including miscarriage, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, cardiac problems, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, unassisted vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, gestational age at delivery, placental abruption, Apgar score at 5 min below 7, low birthweight (<2500 g), very low birthweight (<1500 g), small for gestational age, and neonatal foetal abnormalities. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and highly effective in preventing maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, without increasing the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and is associated with a reduction in stillbirth, preterm births, and neonatal ICU admission. Importantly, maternal vaccination did not reduce the risk of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 6 months of life during the Omicron period.