Meeting Summary: Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum, 2021

The 2021 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum highlighted the considerable advances and recent progress in research and development for vaccines and immunization, critically reviewed lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine programs, and looked ahead to opportunities for this decade. For COVID-19, decades of investments in basic and translational research, new technology platforms, and vaccines targeting prototype pathogens enabled a rapid, global response. Unprecedented global coordination and partnership have played an essential role in creating and delivering COVID-19 vaccines. More improvement is needed in product attributes such as deliverability, and in equitable access to vaccines. Developments in other priority areas included: the halting of two human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trials due to lack of efficacy in preventing infection; promising efficacy results in Phase 2 trials of two tuberculosis vaccines; pilot implementation of the most advanced malaria vaccine candidate in three countries; trials of human papillomavirus vaccines given in single-dose regimens; and emergency use listing of a novel, oral poliomyelitis type 2 vaccine. More systematic, proactive approaches are being developed for fostering vaccine uptake and demand, aligning on priorities for investment by the public and private sectors, and accelerating policy making. Participants emphasized that addressing endemic disease is intertwined with emergency preparedness and pandemic response, so that advances in one area create opportunities in the other. In this decade, advances made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic should accelerate availability of vaccines for other diseases, contribute to preparedness for future pandemics, and help to achieve impact and equity under Immunization Agenda 2030.

COVID-19 therapeutics and outcomes among solid organ transplant recipients during the Omicron BA.1 era

Treatment outcomes associated with the use of novel COVID-19 therapeutics in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) are not well described in the literature. The objective of this analysis was to characterize 30-day hospitalization and other key secondary endpoints experienced by outpatient SOTR with mild-moderate COVID-19 treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR), sotrovimab, or no SARS-CoV-2 specific treatment. This IRB-approved, retrospective study included 154 SOTR with a documented positive SARS-CoV-2 infection between December 16, 2021 and January 19, 2022 (a predominant Omicron BA.1 period in New York City). Patients who received NR (N = 28) or sotrovimab (N = 51) experienced a lower rate of 30-day hospitalization or death as compared to those who received no specific treatment (N = 75) (p = .009). A total of three deaths occurred, all among patients who initially received no specific treatment prior to hospitalization. These results suggest a role for SARS-CoV-2 specific agents in the treatment of SOTR with COVID-19, and that there does not appear to be any difference in effectiveness when comparing NR versus sotrovimab.

Curbing the Delta Surge: Clinical Outcomes After Treatment With Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab, Casirivimab-Imdevimab, or Sotrovimab for Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the clinical outcomes of bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.617.2 Delta surge.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 between August 1, 2021, and December 1, 2021. Rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 10,775 high-risk patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the Delta surge, 287 patients (2.7%) developed severe disease that led to hospitalization, oxygen supplementation, or death within 30 days after treatment. The rates of severe disease were low among patients treated with bamlanivimab-etesevimab (1.2%), casirivimab-imdevimab (2.9%), and sotrovimab (1.6%; P<.01). The higher rate of severe outcomes among patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab may be related to a significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rate in that cohort. Intensive care unit admission was comparable among patients treated bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab (1.0%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This real-world study of a large cohort of high-risk patients shows low rates of severe disease, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality after treatment with bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab for mild to moderate COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 Delta surge.

Rates of Severe Outcomes After Bamlanivimab-Etesevimab and Casirivimab-Imdevimab Treatment of High-Risk Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019

Bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk persons. There has been no study comparing their clinical efficacy. In this retrospective study of 681 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during a period dominated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 wild-type and alpha variants, 25 patients (3.7%) had progression to a severe outcome requiring hospitalization and oxygen supplementation within 30 days after monoclonal antibody infusion. Severe outcome was significantly higher among the 181 patients who were treated with casirivimab-imdevimab when compared with the 500 patients who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (21 [6.6%] vs 13 [2.6%]; P=.01). Patients treated with casirivimab-imdevimab had higher odds of severe outcomes compared with those who received bamlanivimab-etesevimab (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.17 to 6.06). The demographic and clinical characteristics, and the time to monoclonal antibody infusion, of the 2 treatment cohorts were not significantly different. The reason behind this significant difference in the clinical outcomes is unclear, but our observations emphasize potential efficacy differences among antispike monoclonal antibodies against COVID-19. Further clinical studies using larger cohorts of patients are needed to confirm or refute these observations.

Messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 - a review

The mRNA therapeutics have been studied since the 1970s and the currently available mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are the culmination of decades of scientific research. The mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 have played a key role in our global response to the COVID-19 pandemic as they have demonstrated significant advantages over conventional vaccines and have proven to be highly effective against COVID-19 associated hospitalization and severe illness in large clinical trials and studies using real-world data.

Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies in Preventing Severe COVID-19 With Emergence of the Delta Variant

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted.

A Framework for Outpatient Infusion of Antispike Monoclonal Antibodies to High-Risk Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease-19: The Mayo Clinic Model

The administration of spike monoclonal antibody treatment to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is very challenging. This article summarizes essential components and processes in establishing an effective spike monoclonal antibody infusion program. Rapid identification of a dedicated physical infrastructure was essential to circumvent the logistical challenges of caring for infectious patients while maintaining compliance with regulations and ensuring the safety of our personnel and other patients. Our partnerships and collaborations among multiple different specialties and disciplines enabled contributions from personnel with specific expertise in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, infection prevention and control, electronic health record (EHR) informatics, compliance, legal, medical ethics, engineering, administration, and other critical areas. Clear communication and a culture in which all roles are welcomed at the planning and operational tables are critical to the rapid development and refinement needed to adapt and thrive in providing this time-sensitive beneficial therapy. Our partnerships with leaders and providers outside our institutions, including those who care for underserved populations, have promoted equity in the access of monoclonal antibodies in our regions. Strong support from institutional leadership facilitated expedited action when needed, from a physical, personnel, and system infrastructure standpoint. Our ongoing real-time assessment and monitoring of our clinical program allowed us to improve and optimize our processes to ensure that the needs of our patients with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting are met.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Scoping Review

A growing number of studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming available, but a synthesis of available data focusing on the critically ill population has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review to synthesize clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes among critically ill patients with COVID-19. Between January 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, we identified high-quality clinical studies describing critically ill patients with a sample size of greater than 20 patients by performing daily searches of the World Health Organization and LitCovid databases on COVID-19. Two reviewers independently reviewed all abstracts (2785 unique articles), full text (218 articles), and abstracted data (92 studies). The 92 studies included 61 from Asia, 16 from Europe, 10 from North and South America, and 5 multinational studies. Notable similarities among critically ill populations across all regions included a higher proportion of older males infected and with severe illness, high frequency of comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease), abnormal chest imaging findings, and death secondary to respiratory failure. Differences in regions included newly identified complications (eg, pulmonary embolism) and epidemiological risk factors (eg, obesity), less chest computed tomography performed, and increased use of invasive mechanical ventilation (70% to 100% vs 15% to 47% of intensive care unit patients) in Europe and the United States compared with Asia. Future research directions should include proof-of-mechanism studies to better understand organ injuries and large-scale collaborative clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antivirals, antibiotics, interleukin 6 receptor blockers, and interferon. The current established predictive models require further verification in other regions outside China.

Developing an Ethics Framework for Allocating Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic

On May 1, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow use of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir is an investigational drug studied in clinical trials for COVID-19 and is available to children and pregnant women through compassionate-use access but is not yet FDA approved. In early May, the US Department of Health and Human Services began to distribute remdesivir, donated by Gilead Sciences, Inc., to hospitals and state health departments for emergency use; multiple shipments have since been distributed. This process has raised questions of how remdesivir should be allocated. The Minnesota Department of Health has collaborated with the Minnesota COVID Ethics Collaborative and multiple clinical experts to issue an Ethical Framework for May 2020 Allocation of Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The framework builds on extensive ethical guidance developed for public health emergencies in Minnesota before the COVID-19 crisis. The Minnesota remdesivir allocation framework specifies an ethical approach to distributing the drug to facilities across the state and then among COVID-19 patients within each facility. This article describes the process of developing the framework and adjustments in the framework over time with emergence of new data, analyzes key issues addressed, and suggests next steps. Sharing this framework and the development process can encourage transparency and may be useful to other states formulating and refining their approach to remdesivir EUA allocation.