Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe covid-19 outcomes in patients in the community: observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals or no treatment in England: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe characteristics and acute clinical outcomes for patients with COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or untreated patients at highest risk per National Health Service (NHS) criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective study of non-hospitalized patients between 1 December 2021 and 31 May 2022, using data from the Discover-NOW dataset (North-West London). Included patients were aged ≥12 years and treated with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or untreated but expected to be eligible for early treatment per NHS highest-risk criteria. COVID-19-related and all-cause hospitalizations were reported for 28 days from COVID-19 diagnosis (index). Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with advanced renal disease, those aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, and by period of Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 (post-hoc exploratory) predominance.

RESULTS

Overall, 1503 treated and 4044 eligible high-risk untreated patients were included. A high proportion of patients on sotrovimab had advanced renal disease (29.3%), ≥3 high-risk comorbidities (47.6%) and were aged ≥65 years (36.9%). Five of 696 (0.7%) patients on sotrovimab, <5/337 (0.3-1.2%) on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 10/470 (2.1%) on molnupiravir and 114/4044 (2.8%) untreated patients were hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar results were observed across all subgroups. The proportion of patients dying within 28 days of the index period was similarly low across all cohorts (<2%).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving sotrovimab appeared to show evidence of multiple high-risk comorbidities. Low hospitalization rates were observed for all treated cohorts across subgroups and periods of predominant variants of concern. These results require confirmation with comparative effectiveness analyses adjusting for differences in underlying patient characteristics.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals, or no treatment: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments against new circulating variants remains unclear. We sought to describe characteristics and clinical outcomes of highest risk patients with COVID-19 receiving early COVID-19 treatments in Scotland.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 1, 2021-October 25, 2022, using Scottish administrative health data. We included adult patients who met ≥ 1 of the National Health Service highest risk criteria for early COVID-19 treatment and received outpatient treatment with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or no early COVID-19 treatment. Index date was defined as the earliest of COVID-19 diagnosis or early COVID-19 treatment. Baseline characteristics and acute clinical outcomes in the 28 days following index were reported. Values of ≤ 5 were suppressed.

RESULTS

In total, 2548 patients were included (492: sotrovimab, 276: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 71: molnupiravir, and 1709: eligible highest risk untreated). Patients aged ≥ 75 years accounted for 6.9% (n = 34/492), 21.0% (n = 58/276), 16.9% (n = 12/71) and 13.2% (n = 225/1709) of the cohorts, respectively. Advanced renal disease was reported in 6.7% (n = 33/492) of sotrovimab-treated and 4.7% (n = 81/1709) of untreated patients, and ≤ 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated and molnupiravir-treated patients. All-cause hospitalizations were experienced by 5.3% (n = 25/476) of sotrovimab-treated patients, 6.9% (n = 12/175) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients, ≤ 5 (suppressed number) molnupiravir-treated patients and 13.3% (n = 216/1622) of untreated patients. There were no deaths in the treated cohorts; mortality was 4.3% (n = 70/1622) among untreated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sotrovimab was often used by patients who were aged < 75 years. Among patients receiving early COVID-19 treatment, proportions of 28-day all-cause hospitalization and death were low.

Real-world severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with use of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies in Scotland

We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n = 137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n = 40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir. Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients.

An Overview of the Strategies to Boost SARS-CoV-2-Specific Immunity in People with Inborn Errors of Immunity

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has heightened concerns about immunological protection, especially for individuals with inborn errors of immunity (IEI). While COVID-19 vaccines elicit strong immune responses in healthy individuals, their effectiveness in IEI patients remains unclear, particularly against new viral variants and vaccine formulations. This uncertainty has led to anxiety, prolonged self-isolation, and repeated vaccinations with uncertain benefits among IEI patients. Despite some level of immune response from vaccination, the definition of protective immunity in IEI individuals is still unknown. Given their susceptibility to severe COVID-19, strategies such as immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) and monoclonal antibodies have been employed to provide passive immunity, and protection against both current and emerging variants. This review examines the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and antibody-based therapies in IEI patients, their capacity to recognize viral variants, and the necessary advances required for the ongoing protection of people with IEIs.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presumed to be treated with sotrovimab in NHS hospitals in England

BACKGROUND

The impact of the constantly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on the effectiveness of early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments is unclear. Here, we report characteristics and acute clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with a monoclonal antibody (mAb; presumed to be sotrovimab) across six distinct periods covering the emergence and predominance of Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5) in England.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics database from January 1-July 31, 2022. Included patients received a mAb delivered by a National Health Service (NHS) hospital as a day-case, for which the primary diagnosis was COVID-19. Patients were presumed to have received sotrovimab based on NHS data showing that 99.98% of COVID-19-mAb-treated individuals received sotrovimab during the study period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations were reported overall and across six distinct periods of Omicron subvariant prevalence. Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with severe renal disease and active cancer.

RESULTS

Among a total of 10,096 patients, 1.0% (n = 96) had a COVID-19-attributable hospitalization, 4.6% (n = 465) had a hospital visit due to any cause, and 0.3% (n = 27) died due to any cause during the acute period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalization rates were consistent among subgroups, and no significant differences were observed across periods of Omicron subvariant predominance.

CONCLUSIONS

Levels of COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations and deaths were low in mAb-treated patients and among subgroups. Similar hospitalization rates were observed whilst Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 were predominant, despite reported reductions in in vitro neutralization activity of sotrovimab against BA.2 and BA.5.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab versus no treatment in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 patients in north west London: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effectiveness of sotrovimab vs no early COVID-19 treatment in highest-risk COVID-19 patients during Omicron predominance.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using the Discover dataset in North West London. Included patients were non-hospitalised, aged ≥12 years and met ≥1 National Health Service highest-risk criterion for sotrovimab treatment. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare HRs of 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalisation/death between highest-risk sotrovimab-treated and untreated patients. Age, renal disease and Omicron subvariant subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We included 599 sotrovimab-treated patients and 5191 untreated patients. Compared with untreated patients, the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation/death (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24, 1.06; p=0.07) and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18, 1.00; p=0.051) were both lower in the sotrovimab-treated group; however, statistical significance was not reached. In the ≥65 years and renal disease subgroups, sotrovimab was associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, by 89% (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02, 0.82; p=0.03) and 82% (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05, 0.62; p=0.007), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation in sotrovimab-treated patients aged ≥65 years and with renal disease was significantly lower compared with untreated patients. Overall, risk of hospitalisation was also lower for sotrovimab-treated patients, but statistical significance was not reached.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of sotrovimab on omicron BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of sars-cov-2 vs. other early therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature data

Background

The aim of this meta-analysis was to ascertain whether sotrovimab was effective in reducing COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality also in Omicron BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants compared to other antivirals effective in index period.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of early treatment with sotrovimab compared to other early treatment effective in index period, antivirals or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), in patients with COVID-19 during BA.2, BA.4, BA.5 waves, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Mortality and hospitalization were defined as outcomes.

Results

Four studies were included, allowing a meta-analysis of 8,041 patients. Meta-analysis showed no statistical difference between groups in hospitalization and mortality. Precisely, the RR of mortality showed no difference in the sotrovimab group compared to treatment with other drugs (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10-1.49, p<0.166). As regards the rate of hospitalization, no significant difference resulted between the patients treated with sotrovimab and those with other drugs (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41-6.66, p=0.477).

Interpretation

In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed no significant difference between sotrovimab or other antivirals in reducing COVID-19 evolution in patients with a high risk of progression, considering both hospitalization and mortality.

Efficacy of combined COVID-19 convalescent plasma with oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor treatment versus neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy in COVID-19 outpatients: a multi-center, non-inferiority, open-label randomized controlled trial (PlasMab)

IMPORTANCE

This pivotal study reveals that high neutralizing titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) combined with favipiravir (FPV) is non-inferior to sotrovimab in preventing hospitalization and severe outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and high-risk comorbidities. It underscores the potential of CPT-FPV as a viable alternative to neutralizing monoclonal antibodies like sotrovimab, especially amid emerging variants with spike protein mutations. The study's unique approach, comparing a monoclonal antibody with CPT, demonstrates the efficacy of early intervention using high neutralizing antibody titer CPT, even in populations with a significant proportion of elderly patients. These findings are crucial, considering the alternative treatment challenges, especially in resource-limited countries, posed by the rapidly mutating SARS-CoV-2 virus and the need for adaptable therapeutic strategies.

Effectiveness of Sotrovimab in Preventing COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations or Deaths Among US Veterans During Omicron BA.1

Background

The real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization or mortality among high-risk patients diagnosed with COVID-19, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant, needs further research.

Method

Using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, we adopted a target trial emulation design in our study. Veterans aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 4, 2022, were included. Patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 2816) as part of routine clinical care were compared with all eligible but untreated patients (n = 11,250). Cox proportional hazards modeling estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between receipt of sotrovimab and outcomes.

Results

Most (90%) sotrovimab recipients were ≥50 years old, and 64% had ≥2 mRNA vaccine doses or ≥1 dose of Ad26.COV2. During the period that BA.1 was dominant, compared with patients not treated, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 70% lower risk of hospitalization or mortality within 30 days (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.40). During BA.2 dominance, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 71% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-0.98) lower risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, emergency room visits, or urgent care visits (defined as severe COVID-19) compared with patients not treated.

Conclusions

Using national real-world data from high-risk and predominantly vaccinated veterans, administration of sotrovimab, compared with contemporary standard treatment regimens, was associated with reduced risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality during the Omicron BA.1 period.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases

Background

Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK.

Methods

With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR).

Results

Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05).

Conclusions

In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

Can Nitazoxanide and/or other anti-viral medications be a solution to long COVID? Case report with a brief literature review

Key Clinical Message

Findings here imply lingering of virus, SARS-CoV-2, in the body for months. Thus, Nitazoxanide and/or other anti-viral medications might be potential options to combat long COVID. This could transform treatment for long COVID patients globally.

Abstract

Long COVID or post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) continues to affect many people even after a relatively mild acute illness. Underlying causes of PASC are poorly understood. There is no particular treatment or management program developed yet. Thus, the possibility of well-known, safe anti-viral medications use against PASC is proposed here.

Comparison between available early antiviral treatments in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a real-life study

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical impact of three available antivirals for early COVID-19 treatment in a large real-life cohort.

METHODS

Between January and October 2022 all outpatients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 referring to IRCCS S. Orsola hospital treated with an early antiviral therapy were enrolled. A comparison between patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NTV/r), molnupiravir (MPV) and remdesivir (RDV) was conducted in term of indications and outcome. To account for differences between treatment groups a propensity score analysis was performed. After estimating the weights, we fitted a survey-weighted Cox regression model with inverse-probability weighting with hospital admission/death versus clinical recovery as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall 1342 patients were enrolled, 775 (57.8%), 360 (26.8%) and 207 (15.4%) in MPV, NTV/r and RDV group, respectively. Median age was 73 (59-82) years, male sex was 53.4%. Primary indication was immunosuppression (438, 32.6%), the median time from symptom onset to drug administration was 3 [2-4] days. Overall, clinical recovery was reached in 96.9% of patients, with hospital admission rate of 2.6%. No significant differences were found in clinical recovery nor hospitalization. Cox regression showed a decreased probability of hospital admission/ death among prior vaccinated patients compared with unvaccinated (HR 0.31 [95%CI 0.14-0.70], p = 0.005]). No difference in hospitalization rates in early treatment compared to late treatment were found.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences among MPV, NTV/r and RDV in terms of clinical recovery or hospitalization were found. Patients not vaccinated had a significant increased risk of hospitalization.

Development and Validation of a High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) Method for Quantification of Major Molnupiravir Metabolite (β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine) in Human Plasma

Molnupiravir is an antiviral drug against viral RNA polymerase activity approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19, which is metabolized to β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) in human blood plasma. A novel method was developed and validated for quantifying NHC in human plasma within the analytical range of 10-10,000 ng/mL using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) to support pharmacokinetics studies. For sample preparation, the method of protein precipitation by acetonitrile was used, with promethazine as an internal standard. Chromatographic separation was carried out on a Shim-pack GWS C18 (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) column in a gradient elution mode. A 0.1% formic acid solution in water with 0.08% ammonia solution (eluent A, v/v) and 0.1% formic acid solution in methanol with 0.08% ammonia solution mixed with acetonitrile in a 4:1 ratio (eluent B, v/v) were used as a mobile phase. Electrospray ionization (ESI) was used as an ionization source. The developed method was validated in accordance with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) rules, based on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for the following parameters and used within the analytical part of the clinical study of molnupiravir drugs: selectivity, suitability of standard sample, matrix effect, calibration curve, accuracy, precision, recovery, lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), carryover, and stability.

Reduction in the risk of progression of solid organ transplant recipients infected by SARS-CoV-2 treated with monoclonal antibodies

Recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) are at higher risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 virus especially due to chronic immunosuppression therapy and frequent multiple comorbid conditions. COVID-19 is a potentially life-threatening disease in SOT recipients, with an increased likelihood of progressing to severe disease, with the need of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilatory support. This article presents an updated review of different aspects related to the outcome of COVID-19 in SOT recipients. In nvaccinated SOT recipients, COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate, in-patient care and ICU admission, and impaired graft function or rejection in severe disease. In vaccinated SOT recipients even after full vaccination, there is a reduction of the risk of mortality, but the course of COVID-19 may continue to be severe, influenced by the time from transplant, the net state of immunosuppression and having suffered graft rejection or dysfunction. SOT recipients develop lower immunity from mRNA vaccines with suboptimal response. Treatment with mAbs provides favorable outcomes in non-hospitalized SOT recipients at high risk for severe disease, with lower rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, ICU care, progression to severe disease, and death. However, broad vaccination and therapeutic options are required, particularly in light of the tendency of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to adapt and evade both natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Intramuscular vs Intravenous SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab for Treatment of COVID-19 (COMET-TAIL): A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Background

Convenient administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in community settings is desirable. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus dual-action monoclonal antibody formulated for intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) administration for early treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19.

Method

This multicenter phase 3 study based on a randomized open-label design tested the noninferiority of IM to IV administration according to an absolute noninferiority margin of 3.5%. From June to August 2021, patients aged ≥12 years with COVID-19, who were neither hospitalized nor receiving supplemental oxygen but were at high risk for progression, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sotrovimab as a single 500-mg IV infusion or a 500- or 250-mg IM injection. The primary composite endpoint was progression to (1) all-cause hospitalization for >24 hours for acute management of illness or (2) all-cause death through day 29.

Results

Sotrovimab 500 mg IM was noninferior to 500 mg IV: 10 (2.7%) of 376 participants vs 5 (1.3%) of 378 met the primary endpoint, respectively (absolute adjusted risk difference, 1.06%; 95% CI, -1.15% to 3.26%). The 95% CI upper limit was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.5%. The 250-mg IM group was discontinued early because of the greater proportion of hospitalizations vs the 500-mg groups. Serious adverse events occurred in <1% to 2% of participants across groups. Four participants experienced serious disease-related events and died (500 mg IM, 2/393, <1%; 250 mg IM, 2/195, 1%).

Conclusions

Sotrovimab 500-mg IM injection was well tolerated and noninferior to IV administration. IM administration could expand outpatient treatment access for COVID-19.

Clinical Trials Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04913675.

Safety, Virology, Pharmacokinetics, and Clinical Experience of High-Dose Intravenous Sotrovimab for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19: An Open-Label Clinical Trial

Background

Five hundred milligrams of intravenous (IV) sotrovimab has been shown to be well tolerated and efficacious against pre-Omicron strains in treating patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at high risk for disease progression.

Methods

This was an open-label, single-arm substudy of phase 3 COMET-TAIL (NCT04913675) assessing the safety and tolerability of a 2000 mg IV dose of sotrovimab. Symptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19 at high risk for progression were enrolled from June 30 through July 11, 2022, when Omicron BA.5, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 were the predominant circulating variants in the United States. The primary end point was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest, and COVID-19 disease-related events (DREs) through day 8. Safety, pharmacokinetics, viral load, and hospitalization >24 hours for acute management of illness or death through day 29 were assessed.

Results

All participants (n = 81) were Hispanic, 58% were female, and 51% were aged ≥55 years. Through day 8, no AEs, including infusion-related reactions or hypersensitivity, were reported; 2 participants reported DREs (mild cough, n = 2). One SAE (acute myocardial infarction), which was considered unrelated to sotrovimab or COVID-19 by the investigator, occurred on day 27 and was the only hospitalization reported. Maximum serum concentration (geometric mean) was 745.9 µg/mL. Viral load decreased from baseline through day 29; only 2 (3%) participants had a persistently high viral load (≥4.1 log10 copies/mL) at day 8.

Conclusions

Two thousand milligrams of IV sotrovimab was well tolerated, with no safety signals observed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04913675.

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.

Clinical Efficacy of the Neutralizing Antibody Therapy Sotrovimab in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 Subvariant Infections

Sotrovimab, an antibody active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that neutralizes antibodies, reduced the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in studies conducted before the emergence of the Omicron variant. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariant infections using a propensity score matching method. The propensity score-matched cohort study population was derived from patients who received sotrovimab. We derived a comparator group from an age- and sex-matched population who were recuperating in a medical facility after COVID-19 infection or from elderly person entrance facilities during the same period who were eligible for but did not receive sotrovimab treatment. In total, 642 patients in the BA.1 subvariant group and 202 in the BA.2 subvariant group and matched individuals were analyzed. The outcome was the requirement for oxygen therapy. In the treatment group, 26 patients with the BA.1 subvariant and 8 patients with the BA.2 subvariant received oxygen therapy. The administration of oxygen therapy was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the control group (BA.1 subvariant group, 4.0% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.0008; BA.2 subvariant group, 4.0% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.0296). All these patients were admitted to our hospitals and received additional therapy and then recovered. No deaths were observed in either group. Our results demonstrate that the sotrovimab antibody treatment may be associated with a reduction in the requirement for oxygen therapy among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants.

Efficacy of Sotrovimab (SOT), Molnupiravir (MOL), and Nirmatrelvir/Ritponavir (N/R) and Tolerability of Molnupiravir in Outpatients at High Risk for Severe COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this study was to assess the potential clinical impact of an outpatient administration of available antivirals including SOT, N/R, and MOL to COVID-19 patients at high risk for disease progression.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis on 2606 outpatient individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19 at risk for disease progression, hospitalization, or death. After receiving either SOT (420/2606), MOL (1788/2606), or N/R (398/2606), patients were followed-up with regarding primary (hospitalization rate) and secondary (treatment and side effects) outcomes by phone.

RESULT

A total of 2606 patients were treated at the outpatient clinic (SOT: 420; N/R: 398; MOL: 1788). 3.2% of the SOT patients (1 ICU admission), 0.8% of the MOL patients (2 ICU admissions), and none of the N/R patients were hospitalized. 14.3% of the N/R patients reported strong to severe side effects, exceeding SOT (2.6%) and MOL (5%) patients. A reduction in COVID symptoms after the treatment was experienced by 43% of patients in both the SOT and MOL groups and by 67% of patients in the N/R group, respectively. Women had a higher chance of symptom improvement with MOL (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.5).

CONCLUSION

All antiviral treatment options effectively prevented hospitalization in high-risk COVID-19 patients and were well tolerated. Side effects were pronounced in patients with N/R.

Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab for High-Risk COVID-19 Patients Infected by the Omicron Variant: Hospitalization, Mortality, and Time until Negative Swab Test in Real Life

Background. Several drugs which are easy to administer in outpatient settings have been authorized and endorsed for high-risk COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate disease to prevent hospital admission and death, complementing COVID-19 vaccines. However, the evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 antivirals during the Omicron wave is scanty or conflicting. Methods. This retrospective controlled study investigated the efficacy of Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid®) or Sotrovimab against standard of care (controls) on three different endpoints among 386 high-risk COVID-19 outpatients: hospital admission at 30 days; death at 30 days; and time between COVID-19 diagnosis and first negative swab test result. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to investigate the determinants of hospitalization due to COVID-19-associated pneumonia, whereas time to first negative swab test result was investigated by means of multinomial logistic analysis as well as Cox regression analysis. Results. Only 11 patients (overall rate of 2.8%) developed severe COVID-19-associated pneumonia requiring admission to hospital: 8 controls (7.2%); 2 patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (2.0%); and 1 on Sotrovimab (1.8%). No patient on Molnupiravir was institutionalized. Compared to controls, hospitalization was less likely for patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03; 0.89) or Molnupiravir (omitted estimate); drug efficacy was 84% for Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir against 100% for Molnupiravir. Only two patients died of COVID-19 (rate of 0.5%), both were controls, one (a woman aged 96 years) was unvaccinated and the other (a woman aged 72 years) had adequate vaccination status. At Cox regression analysis, the negativization rate was significantly higher in patients treated with both antivirals-Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.25; 2.26) or Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.08; 1.94). However, COVID-19 vaccination with three (aHR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.51; 2.73) or four (aHR = 2.48; 95% CI: 1.32; 4.68) doses had a slightly stronger effect size on viral clearance. In contrast, the negativization rate reduced significantly in patients who were immune-depressed (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52; 0.93) or those with a Charlson index ≥5 (aHR = 0.63; 0.41; 0.95) or those who had started the respective treatment course 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38; 0.82). Likewise, at internal analysis (excluding patients on standard of care), patients on Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21; 2.50) or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.32; 2.93) were more likely to turn negative earlier than those on Sotrovimab (reference category). Nonetheless, three (aHR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.33; 2.74) or four (aHR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.06; 4.59) doses of COVID-19 vaccine were again associated with a faster negativization rate. Again, the negativization rate was significantly lower if treatment started 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32; 0.92). Conclusions. Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, and Sotrovimab were all effective in preventing hospital admission and/or mortality attributable to COVID-19. However, hospitalizations also decreased with higher number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Although they are effective against severe disease and mortality, the prescription of COVID-19 antivirals should be carefully scrutinized by double opinion, not only to contain health care costs but also to reduce the risk of generating resistant SARS-CoV-2 strains. Only 64.7% of patients were in fact immunized with 3+ doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the present study. High-risk patients should prioritize COVID-19 vaccination, which is a more cost-effective approach than antivirals against severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Likewise, although both antivirals, especially Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, were more likely than standard of care and Sotrovimab to reduce viral shedding time (VST) in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 patients, vaccination had an independent and stronger effect on viral clearance. However, the effect of antivirals or COVID-19 vaccination on VST should be considered a secondary benefit. Indeed, recommending Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in order to control VST in high-risk COVID-19 patients is rather questionable since other cheap, large spectrum and harmless nasal disinfectants such as hypertonic saline solutions are available on the market with proven efficacy in containing VST.

Therapeutic and vaccine-induced cross-reactive antibodies with effector function against emerging Omicron variants

Currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants acquired convergent mutations at receptor-binding domain (RBD) hot spots. Their impact on viral infection, transmission, and efficacy of vaccines and therapeutics remains poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that recently emerged BQ.1.1. and XBB.1 variants bind ACE2 with high affinity and promote membrane fusion more efficiently than earlier Omicron variants. Structures of the BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 RBDs bound to human ACE2 and S309 Fab (sotrovimab parent) explain the altered ACE2 recognition and preserved antibody binding through conformational selection. We show that sotrovimab binds avidly to all Omicron variants, promotes Fc-dependent effector functions and protects mice challenged with BQ.1.1, the variant displaying the greatest loss of neutralization. Moreover, in several donors vaccine-elicited plasma antibodies cross-react with and trigger effector functions against Omicron variants despite reduced neutralizing activity. Cross-reactive RBD-directed human memory B cells remained dominant even after two exposures to Omicron spikes, underscoring persistent immune imprinting. Our findings suggest that this previously overlooked class of cross-reactive antibodies, exemplified by S309, may contribute to protection against disease caused by emerging variants through elicitation of effector functions.

HIV and COVID-19 Co-Infection: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global medical emergency with a significant socio-economic impact. People with HIV (PWH), due to the underlying immunosuppression and the particularities of HIV stigma, are considered a vulnerable population at high risk. In this review, we report what is currently known in the available literature with regards to the clinical implications of the overlap of the two epidemics. PWH share the same risk factors for severe COVID-19 as the general population (age, comorbidities), but virological and immunological status also plays an important role. Clinical presentation does not differ significantly, but there are some opportunistic infections that can mimic or co-exist with COVID-19. PWH should be prime candidates for preventative COVID-19 treatments when they are available, but in the setting of resistant strains, this might be not easy. When considering small-molecule medications, physicians need to always remember to address potential interactions with ART, and when considering immunosuppressants, they need to be aware of potential risks for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 shares similarities with HIV in how the public perceives patients-with fear of the unknown and prejudice. There are opportunities for HIV treatment hidden in COVID-19 research with the leaps gained in both monoclonal antibody and vaccine development.

Real-World Effectiveness of Sotrovimab for the Early Treatment of COVID-19 During SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Waves in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Sotrovimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody (mAb) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had US Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from 26 May 2021 to 5 April 2022. Real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab in reducing the risk of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and/or mortality was evaluated for the period when the prevalence of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants changed between Delta and Omicron in the USA.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of de-identified patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 September 2021 to 30 April 2022 in the FAIR Health National Private Insurance Claims database. Patients meeting high-risk criteria were divided into two cohorts: sotrovimab and not treated with a mAb ("no mAb"). All-cause hospitalizations and facility-reported mortality ≤ 30 days of diagnosis ("30-day hospitalization or mortality") were identified. Multivariable and propensity score-matched Poisson and logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR) and odds of 30-day hospitalization or mortality in each cohort.

RESULTS

Compared with the no mAb cohort (n = 1,514,868), the sotrovimab cohort (n = 15,633) was older and had a higher proportion of patients with high-risk conditions. In the no mAb cohort, 84,307 (5.57%) patients were hospitalized and 8167 (0.54%) deaths were identified, while in the sotrovimab cohort, 418 (2.67%) patients were hospitalized and 13 (0.08%) deaths were identified. After adjusting for potential confounders, the sotrovimab cohort had a 55% lower risk of 30-day hospitalization or mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.41-0.49) and an 85% lower risk of 30-day mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.29). Monthly, from September 2021 to April 2022, the RR reduction for 30-day hospitalization or mortality in the sotrovimab cohort was maintained, ranging from 46% to 71% compared with the no mAb cohort; the RR estimate in April 2022 was uncertain, with wide confidence intervals due to the small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Sotrovimab was associated with reduced risk of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and mortality versus no mAb treatment. Clinical effectiveness persisted during Delta and early Omicron variant waves and among all high-risk subgroups assessed.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron Variant in Solid Organ and Islet Transplant Recipients in England: A National Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.529 Omicron variant in immunosuppressed solid organ and islet transplant (SOT) recipients is unclear.

METHODS

National registries in England were linked to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive tests, noninjury hospitalization within 14 d, and deaths within 28 d between December 7, 2020, and March 31, 2022 in adult SOT recipients. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for infection, and hospitalization or death, were adjusted for recipient demographics and calendar month for the Omicron-dominant period (December 20, 2021, to March 31, 2022). Mortality risk following SARS-CoV-2 infection was adjusted for recipient demographics and dominant variant using a Cox proportional-hazards model for the entire time period.

RESULTS

During the Omicron-dominant period, infection IRRs (95% confidence intervals) were higher in those receiving 2, 3, and 4 vaccine doses than in unvaccinated patients (1.25 [1.08-1.45], 1.46 [1.28-1.67], and 1.79 [1.54-2.06], respectively). However, hospitalization or death IRRs during this period were lower in those receiving 3 or 4 vaccine doses than in unvaccinated patients (0.62 [0.45-0.86] and 0.39 [0.26-0.58], respectively). Risk-adjusted analyses for deaths after SARS-CoV-2 infection between December 7, 2020, and March 31, 2022, found hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.67 (0.46-0.98), 0.46 (0.30-0.69), and 0.18 (0.09-0.35) for those with 2, 3, and 4 vaccine doses, respectively, when compared with the unvaccinated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In immunosuppressed SOT recipients, vaccination is associated with incremental, dose-dependent protection against hospitalization or death after SARS-CoV-2 infection, including against the Omicron variant.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY

Objective

To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England.

Design

Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England.

Setting

Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.

Participants

Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes.

Interventions

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.

Results

93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%).

Conclusions

Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

[Update of the recommendations on the management of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in kidney transplant patients.]

SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on transplant activity in our country. Mortality and the risk of complications associated with COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients (KT) were expected to be higher due to their immunosuppressed condition and the frequent associated comorbidities. Since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 we have rapidly improved our knowledge about the epidemiology, clinical features and management of COVID-19 post-transplant, resulting in a better prognosis for our patients. KT units have been able to adapt their programs to this new reality, normalizing both donation and transplantation activity in our country.This manuscript presents a proposal to update the general recommendations for the prevention and treatment of infection in this highly vulnerable population such as KT.