Analysis of MarketScan Data for Immunosuppressive Conditions and Hospitalizations for Acute Respiratory Illness, United States

Too Many Deaths, Too Many Left Behind: A People's External Review of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19 Pandemic Response

The U.S. population has suffered worse health consequences owing to COVID-19 than comparable wealthy nations. COVID-19 had caused more than 1.1 million deaths in the U.S. as of May 2023 and contributed to a 3-year decline in life expectancy. A coalition of public health workers and community activists launched an external review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's pandemic management from January 2021 to May 2023. The authors used a modified Delphi process to identify core pandemic management areas, which formed the basis for a survey and literature review. Their analysis yields 3 overarching shortcomings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's pandemic management: (1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leadership downplays the serious impacts and aerosol transmission risks of COVID-19, (2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leadership has aligned public guidance with commercial and political interests over scientific evidence, and (3) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance focuses on individual choice rather than emphasizing prevention and equity. Instead, the agency must partner with communities most impacted by the pandemic and encourage people to protect one another using layered protections to decrease COVID-19 transmission. Because emerging variants can already evade existing vaccines and treatments and Long COVID can be disabling and lacks definitive treatment, multifaceted, sustainable approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic are essential to protect people, the economy, and future generations.

Management of Diverticulitis: A Review

Importance

Care of patients with diverticulitis is undergoing a paradigm shift. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence for left-sided uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis. The latest pathophysiology, advances in diagnosis, and prevention strategies are also reviewed.

Observations

Treatment is moving to the outpatient setting, physicians are forgoing antibiotics for uncomplicated disease, and the decision for elective surgery for diverticulitis has become preference sensitive. Furthermore, the most current data guiding surgical management of diverticulitis include the adoption of new minimally invasive and robot-assisted techniques.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review provides an updated summary of the best practices in the management of diverticulitis to guide colorectal and general surgeons in their treatment of patients with this common disease.

Comparing frequency of booster vaccination to prevent severe COVID-19 by risk group in the United States

There is a public health need to understand how different frequencies of COVID-19 booster vaccines may mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19, while accounting for waning of protection and differential risk by age and immune status. By analyzing United States COVID-19 surveillance and seroprevalence data in a microsimulation model, here we show that more frequent COVID-19 booster vaccination (every 6-12 months) in older age groups and the immunocompromised population would effectively reduce the burden of severe COVID-19, while frequent boosters in the younger population may only provide modest benefit against severe disease. In persons 75+ years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce absolute annual risk of severe COVID-19 by 199 (uncertainty interval: 183-232) cases per 100,000 persons, compared to a one-time booster vaccination. In contrast, for persons 18-49 years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce this risk by 14 (10-19) cases per 100,000 persons. Those with prior infection had lower benefit of more frequent boosting, and immunocompromised persons had larger benefit. Scenarios with emerging variants with immune evasion increased the benefit of more frequent variant-targeted boosters. This study underscores the benefit of considering key risk factors to inform frequency of COVID-19 booster vaccines in public health guidance and ensuring at least annual boosters in high-risk populations.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

A First-in-Human Randomized Study to Assess the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Neutralization Profile of Two Investigational Long-Acting Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 remains a significant risk for the immunocompromised given their lower responsiveness to vaccination or infection. Therefore, passive immunity through long-acting monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offers a needed approach for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Our study evaluated safety, anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity, nasal penetration, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of two half-life-extended investigational mAbs, AER001 and AER002, providing the first demonstration of upper airway penetration of mAbs with the LS-modification.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase I study enrolled healthy adults (n = 80) who received two long-acting COVID mAbs (AER001 and AER002), AER002 alone, or placebo. The dose ranged from 100 mg (mg) to 1200 mg per mAb component. The primary objective was to describe the safety and tolerability following intravenous (IV) administration. Secondary objectives were to describe PK, anti-drug antibodies (ADA), neutralization activity levels, and safety evaluation through 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The majority (97.6%) of the reported adverse events (AE) post administration were of grade 1 severity. There were no serious adverse events (SAE) or ADAs. AER001 and AER002 successfully achieved an extended half-life of 105 days and 97.5 days, respectively. Participants receiving AER001 and AER002 (300 mg each) or AER002 (300 mg) alone showed 15- and 26-fold higher neutralization levels against D614G and omicron BA.1 than the placebo group 24 h post-administration. Single 300 or 1200 mg IV dose of AER001 and AER002 resulted in nasal mucosa transudation of approximately 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

AER001 and AER002 showed an acceptable safety profile and extended half-life. High serum neutralization activity was observed against D614G and Omicron BA.1 compared to the placebo group. These data support that LS-modified mAbs can achieve durability, safety, potency, and upper airway tissue penetration and will guide the development of the next generation of mAbs for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number 2022-001709-35 (COV-2022-001).

Broadly potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody shares 93% of epitope with ACE2 and provides full protection in monkeys

OBJECTIVES

Due to the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 to variants with reduced sensitivity to vaccine-induced humoral immunity and the near complete loss of protective efficacy of licensed therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, we isolated a potent, broad-spectrum neutralizing antibody that could potentially provide prophylactic protection to immunocompromised patient populations.

METHODS

Spike-specific B-cell clones isolated from a vaccinated post-infected donor were profiled for those producing potent neutralizing antibodies against a panel of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The P4J15 antibody was further characterized to define the structural binding epitope, viral resistance, and in vivo efficacy.

RESULTS

The P4J15 mAb shows <20 ng/ml neutralizing activity against all variants including the latest XBB.2.3 and EG.5.1 sub-lineages. Structural studies of P4J15 in complex with Omicron XBB.1 Spike show that the P4J15 epitope shares ∼93% of its buried surface area with the ACE2 contact region, consistent with an ACE2 mimetic antibody. In vitro selection of SARS-CoV-2 mutants escaping P4J15 neutralization showed reduced infectivity, poor ACE2 binding, and mutations are rare in public sequence databases. Using a SARS-CoV-2 XBB.1.5 monkey challenge model, P4J15-LS confers complete prophylactic protection with an exceptionally long in vivo half-life of 43 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The P4J15 mAb has potential as a broad-spectrum anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug for prophylactic protection of at-risk patient populations.

Impact of COVID-19 on immunocompromised populations during the Omicron era: insights from the observational population-based INFORM study

Background

Immunocompromised individuals are not optimally protected by COVID-19 vaccines and potentially require additional preventive interventions to mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to characterise and describe the risk of severe COVID-19 across immunocompromised groups as the pandemic began to transition to an endemic phase.

Methods

COVID-19-related hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths (01/01/2022-31/12/2022) were compared among different groups of immunocompromised individuals vs the general population, using a retrospective cohort design and electronic health data from a random 25% sample of the English population aged ≥12 years (Registration number: ISRCTN53375662).

Findings

Overall, immunocompromised individuals accounted for 3.9% of the study population, but 22% (4585/20,910) of COVID-19 hospitalisations, 28% (125/440) of COVID-19 ICU admissions, and 24% (1145/4810) of COVID-19 deaths in 2022. Restricting to those vaccinated with ≥3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine (∼84% of immunocompromised and 51% of the general population), all immunocompromised groups remained at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) for hospitalisation ranging from 1.3 to 13.1. At highest risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation were individuals with: solid organ transplant (aIRR 13.1, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 11.2-15.3), moderate to severe primary immunodeficiency (aIRR 9.7, 95% CI 6.3-14.9), stem cell transplant (aIRR 11.0, 95% CI 6.8-17.6), and recent treatment for haematological malignancy (aIRR 10.6, 95% CI 9.5-11.9). Results were similar for COVID-19 ICU admissions and deaths.

Interpretation

Immunocompromised individuals continue to be impacted disproportionately by COVID-19 and have an urgent need for additional preventive measures beyond current vaccination programmes. These data can help determine the immunocompromised groups for which targeted prevention strategies may have the highest impact.

Funding

This study was funded by AstraZeneca UK.

Trends of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe national annual rates of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of commercially insured individuals in the Merative MarketScan Database from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019.

METHODS

Patients at least 13 years old prescribed nPEP per recommended Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines were identified using pharmacy claims. Rates of use were described overall and stratified by sex, age group, and region. These rates were qualitatively compared to the diagnosis rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) observed in the data. Joinpoint analysis identified inflection points of nPEP use.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand, three hundred and ninety-seven nPEP users were identified, with a mean age of 33.7 years. Most were males (64.6%) and lived in the south (33.2%) and northeast (32.4%). The rate of nPEP use increased 515%, from 1.42 nPEP users per 100 000 enrollees in 2010 to 8.71 nPEP users per 10 000 enrollees in 2019. The comparative nPEP use rates among subgroups largely mirrored their HIV diagnosis rates, that is, subgroups with a higher HIV rate had higher nPEP use. In the Joinpoint analysis significant growth was observed from 2012 to 2015 [estimated annual percentage change (EAPC): 45.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 29.4 - 64.3] followed by a more moderate increase from 2015 to 2019 (EAPC 16.0%; 95% CI: 12.6-19.6).

CONCLUSIONS

nPEP use increased from 2010 to 2019, but not equally across all risk groups. Further policy interventions should be developed to reduce barriers and ensure adequate access to this important HIV prevention tool.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing emergency department or urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults: An observational study of real-world data across 10 US states from August-December 2021

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults.

METHODS

Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation.

RESULTS

We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.

Outcomes of immunocompromised children hospitalized for influenza, 2010-2021, the Canadian Immunization Monitoring program active (IMPACT)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate immunocompromising conditions and subgroups of immunocompromise as risk factors for severe outcomes among children admitted for influenza.

METHODS

We performed active surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations among children ≤16 years old at the 12 Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active hospitals, during 2010-2021. Logistic regression analyses were used to compare outcomes between immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised children, and for different subgroups of immunocompromise. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission; secondary outcomes were mechanical ventilation and death.

RESULTS

Among 8982 children, 892 (9.9%) were immunocompromised; these patients were older (median 5.6 [IQR 3.1 - 10.0] vs 2.4 [1 -6] years, p<0.001) than non-immunocompromised children, had similar frequency of comorbidities excluding immunocompromise and/or malignancy (38% [340/892) vs 40% [3272/8090], p=0.2), but fewer respiratory symptoms, such as respiratory distress (20% [177/892] vs 42% [3424/8090], p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, immunocompromise (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.25) and its subcategories immunodeficiency (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.23), immunosuppression (aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12-0.23), chemotherapy (aOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.13) and solid organ transplantation (aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.37) were associated with decreased probability of ICU admission in children admitted for influenza. Immunocompromise was also associated with decreased probability for mechanical ventilation (aOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.16-0.38) or death (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03-0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Immunocompromised children are overrepresented among hospitalizations for influenza, but have decreased probability of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality following admission. Admission bias precludes generalizability beyond the hospital setting.

Patterns of use of recombinant zoster vaccine among commercially-insured immunocompetent and immunocompromised adults 50-64 years old in the United States

PURPOSE

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends recombinant zoster vaccination (RZV) for adults ≥ 50 years to prevent herpes zoster (HZ) and its sequelae. Initially, no distinct recommendation was made for immunocompromised adults, who experience higher HZ rates and more severe outcomes. We characterized receipt of first RZV dose (initiation) and both doses (completion) over time, and the impact of immune function on RZV uptake among adults aged 50-64 years in the United States.

METHODS

We identified RZV claims from the IBM MarketScan database between 1/1/2018 and 12/31/2019. We characterized immunocompromised enrollees as having malignancy, HIV, solid organ transplant, primary immunosuppression, or medication-induced immunosuppression using inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims in the 6 months prior to study start. We evaluated patterns of vaccine uptake by demographic and healthcare access characteristics and immune status.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of RZV initiation during the study period was 10.0%. Incidence increased with age and number of medical office visits, and was higher among women, urban residents, high-deductible insurance beneficiaries, and those who were immunocompromised compared to immunocompetent. Among immunocompromised adults, RZV initiation was highest among those with HIV and primary immunodeficiencies. Of those who initiated RZV, 89.5% received both doses. RZV completion was highest among those who received the first dose at a pharmacy. Most enrollees (88.6%) who completed RZV vaccination did so within the recommended dosing schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

RZV uptake was low in the two years since the CDC recommendation, and differed by demographic, healthcare access, and clinical characteristics. Initiation rates were higher among immunocompromised adults compared to immunocompetent adults, despite no CDC recommendation for vaccination in these groups during the study period. The CDC has since recommended RZV for immunocompromised individuals, and our findings may inform efforts to increase RZV uptake in individuals at higher risk of severe disease.

James G, Zeltner M, Platt T. Impact of a subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab clinic in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19: A single-center, propensity-matched cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the success of a clinic for subcutaneous administration of casirivmab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV; Regeneron) for treatment of patients with symptomatic mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in terms of preventing disease progression and healthcare utilization.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center, propensity-matched cohort study examined healthcare utilization outcomes for patients who received subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab at a pharmacist-led clinic of an academic health system. Eligible patients were treated between August 1, 2021, and January 5, 2022, and were at high risk for COVID-19 disease progression. Treatment patients were propensity matched with high-risk control patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in the same timeframe who did not receive casirivimab and imdevimab. Patients were followed for 30 days for collection of data on inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality. Risk of a 30-day healthcare utilization event was assessed and tested for statistical significance utilizing McNemar's test.

RESULTS

A total of 585 patients who received treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab were matched with 585 patients who did not receive casirivimab and imdevimab therapy. Patients who received casirivimab and imdevimab had significantly lower risk of a 30-day all-cause inpatient admission event than untreated patients (relative risk reduction, 62.4%; P < 0.0001). Treated patients also had a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause emergency department visit than untreated subjects (relative risk reduction, 36.5%; P = 0.0021). There were 6 mortality events in the untreated group and no mortality events in the treatment group.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of a subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab clinic in preventing progression of symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.

mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

METHODS

We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls.

RESULTS

Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.

Management of Histoplasmosis by Infectious Disease Physicians

Background

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for the management of histoplasmosis were last revised 15 years ago. Since those guidelines were compiled, new antifungal treatment options have been developed. Furthermore, the ongoing development of immunomodulatory therapies has increased the population at increased risk to develop histoplasmosis.

Methods

An electronic survey about the management practices of histoplasmosis was distributed to the adult infectious disease (ID) physician members of the IDSA's Emerging Infections Network.

Results

The survey response rate was 37% (551/1477). Only 46% (253/551) of respondents reported seeing patients with histoplasmosis. Regions considered endemic had 82% (158/193) of physicians report seeing patients with histoplasmosis compared to 27% (95/358) of physicians in regions not classically considered endemic (P < 0.001). Most ID physicians follow IDSA treatment guidelines recommending itraconazole for acute pulmonary (189/253 [75%]), mild-moderate disseminated (189/253 [75%]), and as step-down therapy for severe disseminated histoplasmosis with (232/253 [92%]) and without (145/253 [57%]) central nervous system involvement. There were no consensus recommendations observed for survey questions regarding immunocompromised patients.

Conclusions

Though there are increased reports of histoplasmosis diagnoses outside regions classically considered endemic, a majority of ID physicians reported not seeing patients with histoplasmosis. Most respondents reported adherence to IDSA guidelines recommending itraconazole in each clinical situation. New histoplasmosis guidelines need to reflect the growing need for updated general guidance, particularly for immunocompromised populations.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acquired Immunosuppression

There are limited data on the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acquired immunosuppression who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. All PCI procedures between October 2015 and December 2018 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by immunosuppression status. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to examine (1) the association between immunosuppression status and in-hospital outcomes, expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and (2) predictors of mortality among patients with severe acquired immunosuppression. In this contemporary analysis of nearly 1.5 million PCI procedures, approximately 4% of patients who underwent PCI had acquired immunosuppression. Of these, chronic steroid use accounted for approximately half of the cohort who underwent PCI who had acquired immunosuppression, with the remainder divided between hematologic cancer, solid organ active malignancy, and metastatic cancer, with the latter group having the highest rates of composite of in-hospital mortality or stroke (9.3%) (mortality 7.5% and acute ischemic stroke 2.4%). In conclusion, immunosuppression was independently associated with increased adjusted odds of adverse clinical outcomes, specifically mortality or stroke (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.15, p <0.001) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, p <0.001), with outcomes dependent on the cause of immunosuppression.

Effectiveness of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccines for Preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in the United States

BACKGROUND

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.

METHODS

In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8).

CONCLUSION

During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

The Role of the Oral Immune System in Oropharyngeal Candidiasis-Facilitated Invasion and Dissemination of Staphylococcus aureus

Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus account for most invasive fungal and bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs), respectively. However, the initial point of invasion responsible for S. aureus BSIs is often unclear. Recently, C. albicans has been proposed to mediate S. aureus invasion of immunocompromised hosts during co-colonization of oral mucosal surfaces. The status of the oral immune system crucially contributes to this process in two distinct ways: firstly, by allowing invasive C. albicans growth during dysfunction of extra-epithelial immunity, and secondly following invasion by some remaining function of intra-epithelial immunity. Immunocompromised individuals at risk of developing invasive oral C. albicans infections could, therefore, also be at risk of contracting concordant S. aureus BSIs. Considering the crucial contribution of both oral immune function and dysfunction, the aim of this review is to provide an overview of relevant aspects of intra and extra-epithelial oral immunity and discuss predominant immune deficiencies expected to facilitate C. albicans induced S. aureus BSIs.

A naturopathic treatment approach for mild and moderate COVID-19: A retrospective chart review

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant morbidity and mortality. Although COVID-19 vaccination is available, therapeutic options are still needed. The goal of the present manuscript is to report on a treatment strategy used in a naturopathic medical practice for mild and moderate COVID-19.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 30 consecutive patients diagnosed with mild and moderate COVID-19 who were provided multi-nutrient, herbal, and probiotic treatment in a rural, out-patient, naturopathic primary care setting.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcome was treatment safety; secondary outcomes included changes in symptoms, progression to severe COVID-19, incidence of long COVID, and recovery time.

RESULTS

No side effects or adverse events were reported from treatment and all patients experienced resolution of symptoms presumed to be associated with COVID-19 infection. One patient who had been ill for 28 days prior to presentation was hospitalized. Five patients had an illness duration of more than one month. Time to treatment was correlated with duration of illness post-treatment (r = 0.63, p < 0.001) and more symptoms at presentation was correlated with a longer duration of illness (r = 0.52, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective chart review, a multi-nutrient, herbal, and probiotic therapeutic approach for mild and moderate COVID-19 appeared to be well-tolerated. Delay in seeking treatment after symptom onset, as well as more symptoms at presentation, were correlated with a longer duration of illness. This treatment strategy may have clinical benefit, warranting prospective clinical trials with confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Effectiveness of 2-Dose Vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations Among Immunocompromised Adults - Nine States, January-September 2021

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses,† VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date§ (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes.

The effectiveness and safety of low dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of pneumocystis pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is an opportunistic fungal infection causing significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. The conventional treatment of PJP is sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SMX-TMP) dosed at 15-20 mg/kg/day of the trimethoprim component. Several studies have suggested similar mortality outcomes and an improved adverse effect profile using a lower dose (<15 mg/kg/day) SMX-TMP regimen. Our objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lower dose SMX-TMP for PJP pneumonia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 15, 2020, for studies in English evaluating low-dose SMX-TMP (<15 mg/kg/day) compared to conventional dosing for the treatment of PJP. Outcomes evaluated in our meta-analysis include survival and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

After excluding studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria, four studies were analyzed for adverse reactions and three for mortality. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality between low-dose and conventional-dose SMX-TMP groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.70). There was a significant decrease in the rate of adverse reactions for the low-dose group compared with the conventional-dose group (RR: 0.70, 95% CI, 0.53-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows a significant decrease in adverse reactions and similar mortality rates with lower-dose SMX-TMP compared to conventional dosing. A low-dose SMX-TMP regimen in the treatment of PJP should be considered a viable option as it could potentially decrease treatment discontinuation rates and reduce patient harm.

Screening for Parasitic Infection and Tuberculosis in Immunosuppressed and Pre-Immunosuppressed Patients: An Observational Study

Reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) or latent parasitic infection (LPI) during drug-induced immunosuppression can have serious consequences. The Division of tropical and humanitarian medicine of the Geneva University Hospitals runs a specific consultation for parasitic screening of immunosuppressed or pre-immunosuppressed patients. We sought to determine the seroprevalence of LTBI and LPI in such patients and explore its relationship with country of origin or previous travel in a retrospective, single-centre observational study from 2016 to 2019. Demographic data, travel history, ongoing treatments and results of the parasitological (Strongyloides stercoralis, Trypanosoma cruzi, Echinococcus multilocularis, Entamoeba histolytica and Leishmania spp.) and TB screening were collected to calculate LPI or LTBI prevalence. Risk factors for LTBI and strongyloidiasis were analysed using Poisson regression with robust variance. Among 406 eligible patients, 24/353 (6.8%) had LTBI, 8/368 (2.2%) were positive for Strongyloides stercoralis infection, 1/32 (3.1%) was positive for Entamoeba histolytica and 1/299 (0.3%) was positive for Leishmaniasis. No cases of Trypanosoma cruzi (0/274) or Echinococcus multilocularis (0/56) infection were detected. Previous travel to or originating from high-prevalence countries was a risk factor for LTBI (PR = 3.4, CI 95%: 1.4–8.2 and 4.0, CI 95%: 1.8–8.9, respectively). The prevalence of serological Strongyloidiasis in immunosuppressed patients is lower in comparison to those without immunosuppression (PR = 0.1, CI 95%: 0.01–0.8). In conclusion, screening before immunosuppression needs to be individualized, and LTBI and LPI need to be ruled out in patients who originate from or have travelled to high-prevalence countries. The sensitivity of strongyloidiasis serology is reduced following immunosuppression, so an algorithm combining different tests or presumptive treatment should be considered.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing Covid-19 Hospitalizations in the United States

Background

As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.

Methods

In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Results

Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%).

Conclusion

During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Routine use of immunosuppressants is associated with mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

Background:

Whilst there is literature on the impact of SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, less is known about the link between routine immunosuppressant use and outcome in COVID-19. Consequently, guidelines on their use vary depending on specific patient populations.

Methods:

The study population was drawn from the COPE Study (COVID-19 in Older People), a multicentre observational cohort study, across the UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27 February and 28 April 2020 by trained data-collectors and included all unselected consecutive admissions with COVID-19. Load (name/number of medications) and dosage of immunosuppressant were collected along with other covariate data. Primary outcome was time-to-mortality from the date of admission (or) date of diagnosis, if diagnosis was five or more days after admission. Secondary outcomes were Day-14 mortality and time-to-discharge. Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group.

Results:

In total 1184 patients were eligible for inclusion. The median (IQR) age was 74 (62–83), 676 (57%) were male, and 299 (25.3%) died in hospital (total person follow-up 15,540 days). Most patients exhibited at least one comorbidity, and 113 (~10%) were on immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01–2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose–response relationship.

Conclusion:

Despite possible indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication. However, it should be noted that the inability to control for the underlying condition requiring immunosuppressants is a major limitation, and hence caution should be exercised in interpretation of the results.

Plain Language Summary

Regular Use of Immune Suppressing Drugs is Associated with Increased Risk of Death in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19

Background: We do not have much information on how the COVID-19 virus affects patients who use immunosuppressants, drugs which inhibit or reduce the activity of the immune system. There are various conflicting views on whether immune-suppressing drugs are beneficial or detrimental in patients with the disease. Methods: This study collected data from 10 hospitals in the UK and one in Italy between February and April 2020 in order to identify any association between the regular use of immunosuppressant medicines and survival in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Results: 1184 patients were included in the study, and 10% of them were using immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased risk of death, and the risk appeared to increase if the dose of the medicine was higher. Conclusion: We therefore recommend that patients who take immunosuppressant medicines routinely should carefully adhere to social distancing measures, and seek medical attention early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Systematic review of immunosuppressant guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims:

Individuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.

Results:

Twenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from ‘very low’ to ‘moderate’. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk–benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.

Discussion:

Clinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine for Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Hospitalizations in Immunocompromised Adults

BACKGROUND

Yearly influenza immunization is recommended for immunocompromised (IC) individuals, although immune responses are lower than that for the non-immunocompromised and the data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the IC is scarce. We evaluated VE against influenza-associated hospitalization among IC adults.

METHODS

We analyzed data from adults ≥ 18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) during the 2017-2018 influenza season at 10 hospitals in the United States. IC adults were identified using pre-specified case-definitions, utilizing electronic medical record data. VE was evaluated with a test-negative case-control design using multivariable logistic regression with PCR-confirmed influenza as the outcome and vaccination status as the exposure, adjusting for age, enrolling site, illness onset date, race, days from onset to specimen collection, self-reported health, and self-reported hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Of 3,524 adults hospitalized with ARI, 1,210 (34.3%) had an immunocompromising condition. IC adults were more likely to be vaccinated than non-IC (69.5% vs 65.2%), and less likely to have influenza (22% vs 27.8%). The mean age did not differ among IC and non-IC (61.4 vs 60.8 years old). The overall VE against influenza hospitalization, including immunocompetent adults, was 33% (95% CI, 21% to 44%). VE among IC vs non-IC adults was lower at 5% (-29% to 31%) vs. 41% (27% to 52%) (p<0.05 for interaction term).

CONCLUSIONS

VE in one influenza season was very low among IC individuals. Future efforts should include evaluation of VE among the different immunocompromising conditions and whether enhanced vaccines improve the suboptimal effectiveness among the immunocompromised.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections among immunocompromised patients fully vaccinated with BNT162b2

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections among immunocompromised (IC) individuals.

METHODS

Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 were selected from the US HealthVerity database (10 December 2020 to 8  July 2021). COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections were examined in fully vaccinated (≥14 days after 2nd dose) IC individuals (IC cohort), 12 mutually exclusive IC condition groups, and a non-IC cohort. IC conditions were identified using an algorithm based on diagnosis codes and immunosuppressive (IS) medication usage.

RESULTS

Of 1,277,747 individuals ≥16 years of age who received 2 BNT162b2 doses, 225,796 (17.7%) were identified as IC (median age: 58 years; 56.3% female). The most prevalent IC conditions were solid malignancy (32.0%), kidney disease (19.5%), and rheumatologic/inflammatory conditions (16.7%). Among the fully vaccinated IC and non-IC cohorts, a total of 978 breakthrough infections were observed during the study period; 124 (12.7%) resulted in hospitalization and 2 (0.2%) were inpatient deaths. IC individuals accounted for 38.2% (N = 374) of all breakthrough infections, 59.7% (N = 74) of all hospitalizations, and 100% (N = 2) of inpatient deaths. The proportion with breakthrough infections was 3 times higher in the IC cohort compared to the non-IC cohort (N = 374 [0.18%] vs. N = 604 [0.06%]; unadjusted incidence rates were 0.89 and 0.34 per 100 person-years, respectively. Organ transplant recipients had the highest incidence rate; those with >1 IC condition, antimetabolite usage, primary immunodeficiencies, and hematologic malignancies also had higher incidence rates compared to the overall IC cohort. Incidence rates in older (≥65 years old) IC individuals were generally higher versus younger IC individuals (<65).

LIMITATIONS

This retrospective analysis relied on coding accuracy and had limited capture of COVID-19 vaccine receipt.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections are rare but are more common and severe in IC individuals. The findings from this large study support the FDA authorization and CDC recommendations to offer a 3rd vaccine dose to increase protection among IC individuals.