Breakthrough COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: An analysis of symptomatic cases and monoclonal antibody therapy

A prospective humoral immune monitoring study of kidney transplant recipients receiving three doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), like other solid organ transplant recipients display a suboptimal response to mRNA vaccines, with only about half achieving seroconversion after two doses. However, the effectiveness of a booster dose, particularly in generating neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), remains poorly understood, as most studies have mainly focused on non-neutralizing antibodies. Here, we have longitudinally assessed the humoral response to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in 40 KTRs over a year, examining changes in both anti-spike IgG and NAbs following a booster dose administered about 5 months post-second dose. We found a significant humoral response increase 5 months post-booster, a stark contrast to the attenuated response observed after the second dose. Of note, nearly a quarter of participants did not achieve protective plasma levels even after the booster dose. We also found that the higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) correlated with a more robust humoral response postvaccination. Altogether, these findings underscore the effectiveness of the booster dose in enhancing durable humoral immunity in KTRs, as evidenced by the protective level of NAbs found in 65% of the patients 5 months post- booster, especially those with higher eGFR rates.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: The impact of vaccination on outcomes early in the pandemic

BACKGROUND

With the rapid evolution of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the development of effective and safe vaccines was of utmost importance to protect vulnerable individuals, including cancer patients. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of cancer patients with or without vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not demonstrated clear benefit. We aimed to determine the protective effects of COVID-19 vaccination by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated cancer patients after the initial phase of vaccine roll-out and to identify risk factors associated with hospitalization, severe COVID-19, and 30-day COVID-19 attributable mortality.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction on nasal swabs between January 1, 2021 and July 30, 2021. Outcomes of interest included hospitalization, severe COVID-19, and 30-day COVID-19 attributable mortality. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with clinical outcomes, using vaccination status as a variable of interest in all models.

RESULTS

Key risk factors, such as age ≥ 60 years; comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, heart failure, and lung diseases; and specific cancer types (leukemia and lymphoma) were independently associated with hospital admission for COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and 30-day COVID-19 attributable mortality in cancer patients regardless of their vaccination status. Vaccinated patients were protected against severe COVID-19 but with no impact on hospitalization or mortality due to COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights a significant benefit of COVID-19 vaccination for cancer patients-specifically its protection against severe COVID-19.

Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the GRADE framework

Introduction

Despite representing only 3% of the US population, immunocompromised (IC) individuals account for nearly half of the COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations. IC individuals generate a lower immune response after vaccination in general, and the US CDC recommended a third dose of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines as part of their primary series. Influenza vaccine trials have shown that increasing dosage could improve effectiveness in IC populations. The objective of this systematic literature review and pairwise meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) vs BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC populations using the GRADE framework.

Methods

The systematic literature search was conducted in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database. Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis if they reported comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in IC individuals ≥18 years of age; outcomes of interest were symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and mortality due to COVID-19. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. Outcomes were also analyzed in subgroups of patients with cancer, autoimmune disease, and solid organ transplant. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.

Results

Overall, 17 studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]; P=0.0151; I2 = 67.7%), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.93]; P=0.0009; I2 = 0%), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%), and COVID-19-associated mortality (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.90]; P=0.0119; I2 = 0%) in IC populations. Results were consistent across subgroups. Because of sample size limitations, relative effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC populations cannot be studied in randomized trials. Based on nonrandomized studies, evidence certainty among comparisons was type 3 (low) and 4 (very low), reflecting potential biases in observational studies.

Conclusion

This GRADE meta-analysis based on a large number of consistent observational studies showed that the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine is associated with improved clinical effectiveness in IC populations compared with BNT162b2.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

Real-world experience of tixagevimab-cilgavimab pre-exposure prophylaxis in orthotopic heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab-cilgavimab (tix-cil) may be associated with cardiovascular adverse events. Also, in vitro studies have reported a reduced activity of tix-cil against emerging SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. Our study aimed to report the real-world outcomes of tix-cil prophylaxis in orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) recipients METHODS: We retrospectively studied all OHT recipients who received one dose of tix-cil (150-150 mg or 300-300 mg) at Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, between February 5, 2022 and September 8, 2022. We collected data on cardiovascular adverse events and breakthrough COVID-19 following tix-cil administration.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-three OHT recipients were included. The majority were male (65.6%), and the median age was 61 years (IQR 48, 69). During the median follow-up of 164 days (IQR 123, 190), one patient presented an episode of asymptomatic hypertensive urgency that was managed with outpatient antihypertensive treatment optimization. Twenty-four patients (14.7%) experienced breakthrough COVID-19 at the median of 63.5 days (IQR 28.3, 101.3) after tix-cil administration. The majority (70.8%) completed the primary vaccine series and received at least one booster dose (70.8%). Only one patient with breakthrough COVID-19 required hospitalization. All patients survived.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of OHT recipients, no patients developed severe cardiovascular events related to tix-cil. The high incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 could be due to the reduced activity of tix-cil against current circulating SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants. These results emphasize the need for a multimodal prevention strategy against SARS-CoV-2 in these high-risk patients.

SARS-CoV-2 spike codon mutations and risk of hospitalization after antispike monoclonal antibody therapy in solid organ transplant recipients

Neutralizing antispike monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies were highly efficacious in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization. While severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants may harbor spike protein mutations conferring reduced in vitro susceptibility to these antibodies, the effect of these mutations on clinical outcomes is not well characterized. We conducted a case-control study of solid organ transplant recipients who received an antispike mAb for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and had an available sample from initial COVID-19 diagnosis for genotypic sequencing. Patients whose SARS-CoV-2 isolate had at least one spike codon mutation conferring at least fivefold decreased in vitro susceptibility were classified as resistant. Overall, 9 of 41 patients (22%) had at least one spike codon mutation that confers reduced susceptibility to the antispike mAb used for treatment. Specifically, 9 of 12 patients who received sotrovimab had S371L mutation that was predicted to confer a 9.7-fold reduced susceptibility. However, among 22 patients who required hospitalization, 5 had virus with resistance mutation. In contrast, among 19 control patients who did not require hospitalization, 4 also had virus-containing resistance mutations (p > 0.99). In conclusion, spike codon mutations were common, though mutations that conferred a 9.7-fold reduced susceptibility did not predict subsequent hospitalization after treatment with antispike mAb.

COVID-19 Management Strategies in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). If left untreated, it results in high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and death. Early diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential to ensure the early administration of therapeutics. Treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 with remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, or an anti-spike neutralizing monoclonal antibody may prevent progression to severe and critical COVID-19. Among patients with severe and critical COVID-19, treatment with intravenous remdesivir and immunomodulation is recommended. This review article discusses strategies in the management of solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19.

Humoral and cellular immune correlates of protection against COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients

As solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and respond poorly to primary SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, they have been prioritized for booster vaccination. However, an immunological correlate of protection has not been identified in this vulnerable population. We conducted a prospective monocentric cohort study of 65 kidney transplant recipients who received 3 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Associations among breakthrough infection (BTI), vaccine responses, and patient characteristics were explored in 54 patients. Symptomatic COVID-19 was diagnosed in 32% of kidney transplant recipients during a period of 6 months after booster vaccination. During this period, SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron were the dominant variants in the general population. Univariate Analyses identified the avidity of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain binding IgG, neutralizing antibodies, and SARS-CoV-2 S2-specific interferon gamma responses as correlates of protection against BTI. No demographic or clinical parameter correlated with the risk of BTI. In multivariate analysis, the risk of BTI was best predicted by neutralizing antibody and S2-specific interferon gamma responses. In conclusion, T cell responses may help compensate for the suboptimal antibody response to booster vaccination in kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Treatment with sotrovimab for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of high-risk kidney transplant recipients

Background

Sotrovimab is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) that seems to remain active against recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. The evidence on its use in kidney transplant (KT) recipients, however, is limited.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 82 KT patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection {coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]} treated with sotrovimab.

Results

Median age was 63 years. Diabetes was present in 43.9% of patients, and obesity in 32.9% of patients; 48.8% of patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate under 30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Additional anti-COVID-19 therapies were administered to 56 patients, especially intravenous steroids (65.9%). Sotrovimab was administered early (<5 days from the onset of the symptoms) in 46 patients (56%). Early-treated patients showed less likely progression to severe COVID-19 than those treated later, represented as a lower need for ventilator support (2.2% vs 36.1%; P < .001) or intensive care admission (2.2% vs 25%; P = .002) and COVID-19-related mortality (2.2% vs 16.7%; P = .020). In the multivariable analysis, controlling for baseline risk factors to severe COVID-19 in KT recipients, early use of sotrovimab remained as a protective factor for a composite outcome, including need for ventilator support, intensive care, and COVID-19-related mortality. No anaphylactic reactions, acute rejection episodes, impaired kidney function events, or non-kidney side effects related to sotrovimab were observed.

Conclusions

Sotrovimab had an excellent safety profile, even in high-comorbidity patients and advanced chronic kidney disease stages. Earlier administration could prevent progression to severe disease, while clinical outcomes were poor in patients treated later. Larger controlled studies enrolling KT recipients are warranted to elucidate the true efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapies.

Evaluation of Immunogenicity to Three Doses of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine in Lung Transplant Patients

The aim of the study was to explore the humoral and T-cell response in lung transplant (LuT) patients. Two-time points were considered, before (T0) and after (Tpost) the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, comparing LuT with healthy donors (HD). LuT patients showed a lower serologic response against SARS-CoV-2 compared with HD at both time-points (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0011, respectively). A lower percentage of IFNγ+orIL2+orTNFα+CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells LuT patients was observed in LuT patients compared with HD at T0 (CD4+: p = 0.0001; CD8+: p = 0.0005) and Tpost (CD4+: p = 0.0028; CD8+: p = 0.0114), as well as in the percentage of IFNγ+IL2+TNFα+CD4+ T-cells (T0: p = 0.0247; Tpost: p = 0.0367). Finally, at Tpost, a lower percentage of IFNγ+IL2+TNFα+ CD8+ T-cells in LuT patients compared with HD was found (p = 0.0147). LuT patients were stratified according to the lowest cut-off value for the detection of a humoral response (4.81 BAU/mL) at T0, into responder (R) and non-responder (NR) groups. In the R group, no differences in the percentage of IFNγ+or IL2+orTNFα+ and IFNγ+IL2+TNFα+CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells compared with HD at both time-points were observed. Otherwise, in the NR group, lower percentages of IFNγ+IL2+TNFα+CD4+ T-cells compared with the R group (T0: p = 0.0159; Tpost: p = 0.0159), as well as compared with the HD, at both time-points, were observed (T0: p = 0.0064; Tpost: p = 0.0064). These data seem to confirm that some LuT patients can mount cellular responses even in the absence of a positive humoral response (>33.8 BAU/mL), although this cellular response is dysfunctional and partially detrimental.

Antispike monoclonal antibodies for prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 in solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately causes severe outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Antispike monoclonal antibodies have been authorized for therapy and prophylaxis for COVID-19. Here, we review the current state of antispike monoclonal antibodies and their role for SOTRs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab have reduced the rates of hospitalization and severe disease in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Multiple retrospective studies have also demonstrated monoclonal antibodies are effective in SOTR populations. However, the evolution of resistant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concerns has resulted in revocation of the authorization of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab as treatment and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sotrovimab and bebtelovimab are currently authorized for treatment of the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron), but not as pre or PEP. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, a long-acting antibody combination preparation, is authorized for preexposure prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised populations, including SOTRs, who are less likely to mount an effective immune response following vaccination series and booster.

SUMMARY

Antispike monoclonal antibodies are useful for the prevention and treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in SOTRs. However, their clinical use should be determined by the evolving epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community.

Outcomes of Bebtelovimab and Sotrovimab Treatment of Solid Organ Transplant Recipients with Mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the Omicron Epoch

Background

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at high‐risk for severe infection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies are currently utilized under emergency use authorization to prevent hospitalization in high‐risk individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), including SOTRs. However, clinical data for bebtelovimab, the sole currently available anti‐spike monoclonal antibody for COVID‐19, is limited.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult SOTRs diagnosed with mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19 from January 2022 through May 2022 who received either bebtelovimab or sotrovimab. The primary outcome was COVID‐19‐related hospitalization within 30 days of COVID‐19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.

Results

Among 361 SOTRs, 92 (25.5%) received bebtelovimab and 269 (74.5%) received sotrovimab. The most common organ transplant was a kidney (42.4%). SOTRs who received bebtelovimab had a higher proportion who had received a booster SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine dose and had received their last vaccination dose more recently. Eleven (3.0%) SOTRs were hospitalized, and rates of hospitalization were similar between monoclonal antibody groups (3.3% versus 3.0%; p > .99). Three patients required admission to an intensive care unit, all of who received sotrovimab. Four (1.1%) patients died within 30 days of COVID‐19 diagnosis, two from each group.

Conclusions

SOTRs with mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19 who received bebtelovimab had similar rates of COVID‐19‐related hospitalization as those who received sotrovimab. While differences in vaccination rates and viral subvariants could act as confounders, bebtelovimab appears to be of similar effectiveness as sotrovimab.

Characterization of Early-Onset Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Immunocompromised Patients Who Received Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab Prophylaxis

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is authorized for preexposure prophylaxis against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunocompromised hosts. Herein, we report the clinical characteristics of 8 patients who developed COVID-19 soon after receiving tixagevimab-cilgavimab. This study emphasizes the need to maintain additional measures to prevent COVID-19 during periods of high severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Delta and Omicron Variants of SARS-CoV-2: A Single-Center Case Series

Rationale & Objective

Study Design

Setting & Participants

Results

Limitations

Conclusions