Tixagevimab-cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Early trajectories of virological and immunological biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19: an international, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Serial measurement of virological and immunological biomarkers in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can give valuable insight into the pathogenic roles of viral replication and immune dysregulation. We aimed to characterise biomarker trajectories and their associations with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this international, prospective cohort study, patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 platform trial within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines programme between Aug 5, 2020 and Sept 30, 2021 were included. Participants were included from 108 sites in Denmark, Greece, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, the UK, and the USA, and randomised to placebo or one of four neutralising monoclonal antibodies: bamlanivimab (Aug 5 to Oct 13, 2020), sotrovimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), amubarvimab-romlusevimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), and tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021). This trial included an analysis of 2149 participants with plasma nucleocapsid antigen, anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-6, and D-dimer measured at baseline and day 1, day 3, and day 5 of enrolment. Day-90 follow-up status was available for 1790 participants. Biomarker trajectories were evaluated for associations with baseline characteristics, a 7-day pulmonary ordinal outcome, 90-day mortality, and 90-day rate of sustained recovery.

FINDINGS

The study included 2149 participants. Participant median age was 57 years (IQR 46-68), 1246 (58·0%) of 2149 participants were male and 903 (42·0%) were female; 1792 (83·4%) had at least one comorbidity, and 1764 (82·1%) were unvaccinated. Mortality to day 90 was 172 (8·0%) of 2149 and 189 (8·8%) participants had sustained recovery. A pattern of less favourable trajectories of low anti-nucleocapsid antibody, high plasma nucleocapsid antigen, and high inflammatory markers over the first 5 days was observed for high-risk baseline clinical characteristics or factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, participants with chronic kidney disease demonstrated plasma nucleocapsid antigen 424% higher (95% CI 319-559), CRP 174% higher (150-202), IL-6 173% higher (144-208), D-dimer 149% higher (134-165), and anti-nucleocapsid antibody 39% lower (60-18) to day 5 than those without chronic kidney disease. Participants in the highest quartile for plasma nucleocapsid antigen, CRP, and IL-6 at baseline and day 5 had worse clinical outcomes, including 90-day all-cause mortality (plasma nucleocapsid antigen hazard ratio (HR) 4·50 (95% CI 3·29-6·15), CRP HR 3·37 (2·30-4·94), and IL-6 HR 5·67 (4·12-7·80). This risk persisted for plasma nucleocapsid antigen and CRP after adjustment for baseline biomarker values and other baseline factors.

INTERPRETATION

Patients admitted to hospital with less favourable 5-day biomarker trajectories had worse prognosis, suggesting that persistent viral burden might drive inflammation in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, identifying patients that might benefit from escalation of antiviral or anti-inflammatory treatment.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Managing Infection Complications in the Setting of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cell (CAR-T) Therapy

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy has changed the paradigm of management of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and Multiple Myeloma. Infection complications have emerged as a concern that can arise in the setting of therapy and lead to morbidity and mortality. In this review, we classified infection complications into three categories, pre-infusion phase from the time pre- lymphodepletion (LD) up to day zero, early phase from day of infusion to day 30 post-infusion, and late phase after day 30 onwards. Infections arising in the pre-infusion phase are closely related to previous chemotherapy and bridging therapy. Infections arising in the early phase are more likely related to LD chemo and the expected brief period of grade 3-4 neutropenia. Infections arising in the late phase are particularly worrisome because they are associated with adverse risk features including prolonged neutropenia, dysregulation of humoral and adaptive immunity with lymphopenia, hypogammaglobinemia, and B cell aplasia. Bacterial, respiratory and other viral infections, protozoal and fungal infections can occur during this time . We recommend enhanced supportive care including prompt recognition and treatment of neutropenia with growth factor support, surveillance testing for specific viruses in the appropriate instance, management of hypogammaglobulinemia with repletion as appropriate and extended antimicrobial prophylaxis in those at higher risk (e.g. high dose steroid use and prolonged cytopenia). Finally, we recommend re-immunizing patients post CAR-T based on CDC and transplant guidelines.

An update on the anti-spike monoclonal antibody pipeline for SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies represent one of the most tolerable prophylaxis and therapies for COVID-19 in frail and immunocompromised patients. Unfortunately, viral evolution in Omicron has led all of them to failure.

OBJECTIVES

We review here the current pipeline of anti-spike mAb's, discussing in detail the most promising candidates.

SOURCES

We scanned PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' press releases for clinical studies on anti-spike monoclonal antibodies.

CONTENT

We present state-of-art data clinical progress for AstraZeneca's AZD3152, Invivyd's VYD222, Regeneron's REGN-17092 and Aerium Therapeutics' AER-800.

IMPLICATIONS

The anti-spike monoclonal antibody clinical pipeline is currently limited to few agents (most being single antibodies) with unknown efficacy against the dominant JN.1 sublineage. The field of antibody-based therapies requires boosting by both manufacturers and institutions.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

Clinical Trial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Roadmap of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

BACKGROUND

There is a recognized lack of diversity among patients enrolled in cardiovascular interventional and surgical trials. Diverse patient representation in clinical trials is necessary to enhance generalizability of findings, which may lead to better outcomes across broader populations. The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) recently developed a plan of action to increase diversity among participating investigators and trial participants and is the focus of this review.

METHODS

A review of literature and enrollment data from CTSN trials was conducted.

RESULTS

CTSN completed more than a dozen major clinical trials (2008-2022), enrolling >4000 patients, of whom 30% were women, 11% were non-White, and 5.6% were Hispanic. CTSN also completed trials of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019, wherein enrollment was more diverse, with 42% women, and 58% were Asian, Black, Hispanic, or from another underrepresented racial group. The discrepancy in diversity of enrollment between cardiac surgery trials and coronavirus disease trials highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of (1) the prevalence of underlying disease requiring cardiac interventions across broad populations, (2) differences in access to care and referral for cardiac surgery, and (3) barriers to enrollment in cardiac surgery trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Committed to diversity, CTSN's multifaceted action plan includes developing site-specific enrollment targets, collecting social determinants of health data, understanding reasons for nonparticipation, recruiting sites that serve diverse populations, emphasizing greater diversity among clinical trial teams, and implicit bias training. The CTSN will prospectively assess how these interventions influence enrollment as we work to ensure trial participants are more representative of the communities we serve.

Effect of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Early Trajectories of Virologic and Immunologic Biomarkers in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) failed to show clear benefit for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Dynamics of virologic and immunologic biomarkers remain poorly understood.

METHODS

Participants enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 trials were randomized to nmAb versus placebo. Longitudinal differences between treatment and placebo groups in levels of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag), anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and D-dimer at enrollment, day 1, 3, and 5 were estimated using linear mixed models. A 7-point pulmonary ordinal scale assessed at day 5 was compared using proportional odds models.

RESULTS

Analysis included 2149 participants enrolled between August 2020 and September 2021. Treatment resulted in 20% lower levels of plasma N-Ag compared with placebo (95% confidence interval, 12%-27%; P < .001), and a steeper rate of decline through the first 5 days (P < .001). The treatment difference did not vary between subgroups, and no difference was observed in trajectories of other biomarkers or the day 5 pulmonary ordinal scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that nmAb has an antiviral effect assessed by plasma N-Ag among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with no blunting of the endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response. No effect on systemic inflammation or day 5 clinical status was observed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04501978.

Development and validation of a prediction score for failure to casirivimab/imdevimab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia

Introduction

Casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS/IMV) are two non-competing, high-affinity human IgG1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, that showed a survival benefit in seronegative hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to estimate the day-28 risk of mechanical ventilation (MV) and death in individuals hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and receiving CAS/IMV. Additionally, it aimed to identify variables measured at the time of hospital admission that could predict these outcomes and derive a prediction algorithm.

Methods

This is a retrospective, observational cohort study conducted in 12 hospitals in Italy. Adult patients who were consecutively hospitalized from November 2021 to February 2022 receiving CAS/IMV were included. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of MV or death by day 28 from treatment initiation, and β-coefficients from the model were used to develop a risk score that was derived by means of leave-one-out internal cross-validation (CV), external CV, and calibration. Secondary outcome was mortality.

Results

A total of 480 hospitalized patients in the training set and 157 patients in the test set were included. By day 28, 36 participants (8%) underwent MV and 28 died (6%) for a total of 58 participants (12%) experiencing the composite primary endpoint. In multivariable analysis, four factors [age, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and platelets] were independently associated with the risk of MV/death and were used to generate the proposed risk score. The accuracy of the score in the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.80 and 0.77 in internal validation and test for the composite endpoint and 0.87 and 0.86 for death, respectively. The model also appeared to be well calibrated with the raw data.

Conclusion

The mortality risk reported in our study was lower than that previously reported. Although CAS/IMV is no longer used, our score might help in identifying which patients are not likely to benefit from monoclonal antibodies and may require alternative interventions.

Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: 15-Month Final Analysis of the TACKLE Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the phase 3 TACKLE study, outpatient treatment with AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) was well tolerated and significantly reduced progression to severe disease or death through day 29 in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the primary analysis. Here, we report data from the final analysis of the TACKLE study, performed after approximately 15 months' follow-up.

METHODS

Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 and dosed within 7 days of symptom onset with 600 mg intramuscular AZD7442 (n = 456; 300 mg tixagevimab/300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo (n = 454).

RESULTS

Severe COVID-19 or death through day 29 occurred in 4.4% and 8.8% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 50.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4, 71.3; p = 0.0096]; among participants dosed within 5 days of symptom onset, the RRR was 66.9% (95% CI 31.1, 84.1; p = 0.002). Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 occurred in 5.0% of participants receiving AZD7442 versus 9.7% receiving placebo, an RRR of 49.2% (95% CI 14.7, 69.8; p = 0.009). Adverse events occurred in 55.5% and 55.9% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious adverse events occurred in 10.2% and 14.4% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and deaths occurred in 1.8% of participants in both groups. Serum concentration-time profiles recorded over 457 days were similar for AZD7442, tixagevimab, and cilgavimab, and were consistent with the extended half-life reported for AZD7442 (approx. 90 days).

CONCLUSIONS

AZD7442 reduced the risk of progression to severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, was well tolerated through 15 months, and exhibited predictable pharmacokinetics in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. These data support the long-term safety of using long-acting monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04723394 .

Viral and Host Factors Are Associated With Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Persistent mortality in adults hospitalized due to acute COVID-19 justifies pursuit of disease mechanisms and potential therapies. The aim was to evaluate which virus and host response factors were associated with mortality risk among participants in Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3) trials.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of 2625 adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection randomized to 1 of 5 antiviral products or matched placebo in 114 centers on 4 continents. Uniform, site-level collection of participant baseline clinical variables was performed. Research laboratories assayed baseline upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and plasma for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (viral Ag), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Associations between factors and time to mortality by 90 days were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Viral Ag ≥4500 ng/L (vs <200 ng/L; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.07; 1.29-3.34), viral RNA (<35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.42; 1.09-5.34], ≥35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.84; 1.29-6.28], vs below detection), respiratory support (<4 L O2 [aHR, 1.84; 1.06-3.22]; ≥4 L O2 [aHR, 4.41; 2.63-7.39], or noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula [aHR, 11.30; 6.46-19.75] vs no oxygen), renal impairment (aHR, 1.77; 1.29-2.42), and IL-6 >5.8 ng/L (aHR, 2.54 [1.74-3.70] vs ≤5.8 ng/L) were significantly associated with mortality risk in final adjusted analyses. Viral Ag, viral RNA, and IL-6 were not measured in real-time.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline virus-specific, clinical, and biological variables are strongly associated with mortality risk within 90 days, revealing potential pathogen and host-response therapeutic targets for acute COVID-19 disease.

[Tixagevimab-cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylactic treatment against SARS-CoV-2 in kidney transplantation patients]

INTRODUCTION

It has been reported that after vaccination with RNAm or viral vectors from SARS-CoV-2 a significant number of solid organ transplant recipients do not develop an effective immune response. In this scenario, the use of tixagevimab-cilgavimab was approved by the European Medicines Agency for COVID-19 prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients in March 2022. We present our experience with a group of kidney transplant recipients who received prophylactic treatment with tixagevimab-cilgavimab.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective study from a cohort of kidney transplant recipients who had been previously vaccinated with 4 doses and did not achieve a satisfactory immune response to vaccination, presenting antibody titers lower than 260 BAU/mL when measured by ELISA. A total of 55 patients who received a single dose of 150mg of tixagevimab and 150mg of cilgavimab between May and September of 2022 were included in this study.

RESULTS

No immediate or severe adverse reactions, including worsening of kidney function, were observed after administering the drug or during follow up. All patients who had received the drug 3 months prior presented positive antibody titers (>260 BAU/mL). Seven patients were diagnosed with COVID, and one of those patients had to be admitted to the hospital and died 5 days later from infectious complications and a suspected diagnosis of bacterial coinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, all kidney transplant recipients reached antibody titers higher than 260 BAU/mL 3 months after receiving prophylactic treatment with tixagevimab-cilgavimab with no severe or irreversible adverse reactions.

Global landscape of COVID-19 research: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials

The emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 has resulted in a significant global health crisis. Consequently, extensive research was published to understand and mitigate the disease. In particular, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been considered the benchmark for assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions. Hence, the present study strives to present a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape pertaining to RCTs and COVID-19. A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Scopus database. The search parameters included articles published from 2020 to 2022 using keywords specifically related to COVID-19 and RCTs. The data were analyzed using various bibliometric indicators. The volume of publications, contributions of countries and institutions, funding agencies, active journals, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, and future research direction analysis were specifically analyzed. A total of 223,480 research articles concerning COVID-19 were published, with 3,727 of them related to RCTs and COVID-19. The ten most productive countries collectively produced 75.8% of the documents, with the United States leading the way by contributing 31.77%, followed by the UK with 14.03% (n = 523), China with 12.96% (n = 483) and Canada with 7.16% (n = 267). Trials (n = 173, 4.64%), BMJ Open (n = 81, 2.17%), PLOS One (n = 73, 1.96%) and JAMA Network Open (n = 53, 1.42%) were the most active journals in publishing articles related to COVID-19 RCTs. The co-occurrence analysis identified four clusters of research areas: the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, mental health strategies to cope with the impact of the pandemic, the use of monoclonal antibodies to treat patients with COVID-19, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19 research. This paper offers a detailed examination of the global research environment pertaining to RCTs and their use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The comprehensive body of research findings was found to have been generated by the collaborative efforts of multiple countries, institutions, and funding organizations. The predominant research areas encompassed COVID-19 vaccines, strategies for mental health, monoclonal antibodies, and systematic reviews. This information has the potential to aid researchers, policymakers, and funders in discerning areas of weakness and establishing areas of priority.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) viral specific antibody levels that translate into recipient post-transfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression is not defined.

METHODS

This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low post-transfusion antibody levels was established by two methods: 1) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-S-RBD IgG responses in donors or 2) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was diluted by a factor of 21.3 into post-transfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Viral specific antibody delivered approximated 1.2 mg. The high antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a significant association with Fisher's exact test between early and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma) with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor virus neutralization-based cutoff: (0/85; 0% versus 15/276; 5.6%) p=0.03 or ROC based cutoff: (0/94; 0% versus 15/267; 5.4%) p=0.01.

CONCLUSION

In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units corresponding to the upper 30% of all study donors reduced outpatient hospitalizations. These high antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.Trial registration: NCT04373460.

FUNDING

Defense Health Agency and others.

Somatic hypermutation introduces bystander mutations that prepare SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for emerging variants

Somatic hypermutation (SHM) drives affinity maturation and continues over months in SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). However, several potent SARS-CoV-2 antibodies carry no or only a few mutations, leaving the question of how ongoing SHM affects neutralization unclear. Here, we reverted variable region mutations of 92 antibodies and tested their impact on SARS-CoV-2 binding and neutralization. Reverting higher numbers of mutations correlated with decreasing antibody functionality. However, for some antibodies, including antibodies of the public clonotype VH1-58, neutralization of Wu01 remained unaffected. Although mutations were dispensable for Wu01-induced VH1-58 antibodies to neutralize Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants, they were critical for Omicron BA.1/BA.2 neutralization. We exploited this knowledge to convert the clinical antibody tixagevimab into a BA.1/BA.2 neutralizer. These findings broaden our understanding of SHM as a mechanism that not only improves antibody responses during affinity maturation but also contributes to antibody diversification, thus increasing the chances of neutralizing viral escape variants.

Drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 drug therapies and antidepressants

INTRODUCTION

Antidepressants are widely used for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety and mood disorders. Since the eruption of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic and the later development of targeted treatments against COVID-19, inevitably many patients receive antidepressants as well as targeted treatments against COVID-19 against COVID-19. Co-administration of antidepressants with COVID-19 therapeutics has the potential of drug-drug interactions, of varying severity and clinical significance.

AREAS COVERED

This is a curated narrative review of the current state of the art regarding drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 therapeutics and medications licensed for the pharmacotherapy of depression. A systematic search of electronic databases, using as keywords the international nonproprietaty names of currently approved COVID-19 therapeutics and antidepressants was performed, and additionally online interaction checker tools were consulted. Derived data were synthesized for each COVID-19 therapeutic and presented with up-to-date guidance.

EXPERT OPINION

Several COVID-19 therapeutics have potential for drug-drug interactions with antidepressants. Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir have the higher risk, whereas several monoclonal antibodies appear safer. The most serious drug-drug interactions (serotonin syndrome and QTc prolongation) require close monitoring; however, DDI toward reducing the efficacy of antidepressants may be difficult to recognize. As COVID-19 treatment protocols take precedence, psychiatrists should exert flexibility in antidepressant use and proactively monitor treatment progress.

Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.

FINDINGS

We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.

INTERPRETATION

Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.

FUNDING

The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.

Interleukin-62/lymphocyte as a proposed predictive index for COVID-19 patients treated with monoclonal antibodies

In a convenience sample of 93 patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) against SARS-CoV-2, the interleukin-62/lymphocyte count ratio (IL-62/LC) was able to predict clinical worsening both in early stages of COVID-19 and in oxygen-requiring patients. Moreover, we analysed 18 most at-risk patients with asymptomatic or mild disease treated with both moAbs and antiviral treatment and found that only 2 had clinical progression, while patients with a similar risk were reported to have an unfavourable outcome in most cases from recent data. In only one of our 18 patients, clinical progression was attributable to COVID-19, and in the other cases, clinical progression was observed despite IL-62/LC being above the risk cut-off. In conclusion, IL-62/LC may be a valuable method to identify patients requiring more aggressive treatments both in earlier and later stages of the disease; however, most at-risk patients can be protected from clinical worsening by combining moAbs and antivirals, even if levels of the IL-62/LC biomarker are lower than the risk cut-off.

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

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

Real-world clinical effectiveness of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab and Regdanvimab monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 treatment in Omicron variant-dominant period

Several virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become new tools in the treatment of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but their effectiveness against the rapidly mutating virus is questionable. The present study investigated the effectiveness of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab and Regdanvimab for mild and moderate COVID-19 treatment in real-world clinical practice during the Omicron variant-dominant period. Patients with known risk factors for disease progression and increasing disease severity were enrolled in the study within the first 7 days of symptom onset. Seventy-seven patients were divided into four groups: first 15 patients received 300 mg Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab intravenously (IV) and 23 patients got the same drug 300 mg intramuscularly (IM), the next 15 patients was on the same combination in dose of 600 mg IV, and 24 patients were on Regdanvimab at a dose of 40 mg/kg IV. By Day 4, 100% of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab IV patients showed negative polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2 Ribonucleic acid (RNA) regardless of the mAbs dose while in the Regdanvimab group 29% of the patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA. The testing for virus neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) to various Omicron sublineages (BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5) showed that an increase in nAb levels was detected in blood serum immediately after the drug administration only in Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab 300 mg and 600 mg IV groups. In the group of intravenous Regdanvimab, a significant increase in the level of nAbs to the Wuhan variant was detected immediately after the drug administration, while no increase in nAbs to different Omicron sublineages was observed.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05982704.

The KINETIC phase 2 randomized controlled trial of oral pamapimod-pioglitazone in non-critically ill COVID-19 inpatients

The combination of pamapimod and pioglitazone (KIN001) has a synergetic antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antifibrotic activity, which may prevent evolution toward COVID-19-associated severe respiratory failure. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2, multicenter trial, 128 non-critically ill hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were treated with KIN001 or a placebo for 28 days. The proportion of patients alive and free of oxygen or respiratory support at the end of the therapy was lower than anticipated but not different in the two groups (KIN001 n = 19, 29%, placebo n = 21, 33%). 85 participants had at least one adverse event, with no difference in the number and distribution of events between the two groups. The clinical trial was stopped for futility, mainly due to a lower-than-expected incidence of the primary endpoint. KIN001 was safe and well-tolerated but had no significant effect on clinical outcome.

A Review of Hematological Complications and Treatment in COVID-19

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, and its variants have spread rapidly across the globe in the past few years, resulting in millions of deaths worldwide. Hematological diseases and complications associated with COVID-19 severely impact the mortality and morbidity rates of patients; therefore, there is a need for oversight on what pharmaceutical therapies are prescribed to hematologically at-risk patients. Thrombocytopenia, hemoglobinemia, leukopenia, and leukocytosis are all seen at increased rates in patients infected with COVID-19 and become more prominent in patients with severe COVID-19. Further, COVID-19 therapeutics may be associated with hematological complications, and this became more important in immunocompromised patients with hematological conditions as they are at higher risk of hematological complications after treatment. Thus, it is important to understand and treat COVID-19 patients with underlying hematological conditions with caution. Hematological changes during COVID-19 infection and treatment are important because they may serve as biomarkers as well as to evaluate the treatment response, which will help in changing treatment strategies. In this literature review, we discuss the hematological complications associated with COVID-19, the mechanisms, treatment groups, and adverse effects of commonly used COVID-19 therapies, followed by the hematological adverse events that could arise due to therapeutic agents used in COVID-19.

Molnupiravir compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 in high-risk patients with haematological malignancy in Europe. A matched-paired analysis from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

INTRODUCTION

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are antivirals used to prevent progression to severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and decrease hospitalisation and mortality rates. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was authorised in Europe in December 2021, whereas molnupiravir is not yet licensed in Europe as of February 2022. Molnupiravir may be an alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir because it is associated with fewer drug-drug interactions and contraindications. A caveat for molnupiravir is the mode of action induces viral mutations. Mortality rate reduction with molnupiravir was less pronounced than that with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients without haematological malignancy. Little is known about the comparative efficacy of the two drugs in patients with haematological malignancy at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Thus, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared in a cohort of patients with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

Clinical data from patients treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir monotherapy for COVID-19 were retrieved from the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Patients treated with molnupiravir were matched by sex, age (±10 years), and severity of baseline haematological malignancy to controls treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients receiving molnupiravir for the clinical management of COVID-19 were matched to an equal number of controls receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In each of the groups, 68 (59%) patients were male; with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-74) for molnupiravir recipients and 64 years (IQR 54-73) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients; 56.9% (n=66) of the patients had controlled baseline haematological malignancy, 12.9% (n=15) had stable disease, and 30.2% (n=35) had active disease at COVID-19 onset in each group. During COVID-19 infection, one third of patients from each group were admitted to hospital. Although a similar proportion of patients in the two groups were vaccinated (molnupiravir n=77, 66% vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir n=87, 75%), more of those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had received four vaccine doses (n=27, 23%) compared with those treated with molnupiravir (n=5, 4%) (P<0.001). No differences were detected in COVID-19 severity (P=0.39) or hospitalisation (P=1.0). No statistically significant differences were identified in overall mortality rate (P=0.78) or survival probability (d30 P=0.19, d60 P=0.67, d90 P=0.68, last day of follow up P=0.68). Deaths were either attributed to COVID-19, or the infection was judged by the treating physician to have contributed to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalisation and mortality rates with molnupiravir were comparable to those with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a plausible alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 treatment in patients with haematological malignancy.

COVID-19 Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients in a German Transplant Center

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) show higher morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 than the general population and have an impaired response to vaccination. We analyzed COVID-19 incidence and clinical outcomes in a single-center cohort of approximately 2500 KTRs. Between 1 February 2020 and 1 July 2022, 578 KTRs were infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 25 (4%) recurrent infections. In total, 208 KTRs (36%) were hospitalized, and 39 (7%) died. Among vaccinated patients, infection with the Omicron variant had a mortality of 2%. Unvaccinated patients infected with the Omicron variant showed mortality (9% vs. 11%) and morbidity (hospitalization 52% vs. 54%, ICU admission 12% vs. 18%) comparable to the pre-Omicron era. Multivariable analysis revealed that being unvaccinated (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.38, 3.35]), infection in the pre-Omicron era (OR = 3.06, 95% CI [1.92, 4.87]), and higher patient age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.03, 1.06]) are independent risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization, whereas a steroid-free immunosuppressive regimen was found to reduce the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.33, 0.79]). This suggests that both virological changes in the Omicron variant and vaccination reduce the risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in KTRs. Our data extend the knowledge from the general population to KTRs and provide important insights into outcomes during the Omicron era.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761.

FINDINGS

Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Outpatient Treatment with AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) Prevented COVID-19 Hospitalizations over 6 Months and Reduced Symptom Progression in the TACKLE Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

We assessed effects of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) on deaths from any cause or hospitalizations due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptom severity and longer-term safety in the TACKLE adult outpatient treatment study.

METHODS

Participants received 600 mg AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451) ≤ 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.

RESULTS

Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 (key secondary endpoint) occurred in 20/399 (5.0%) participants receiving AZD7442 versus 40/407 (9.8%) receiving placebo [relative risk reduction (RRR) 49.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5, 69.7; p = 0.009] or 50.7% (95% CI 17.5, 70.5; p = 0.006) after excluding participants unblinded before day 169 for consideration of vaccination). AZD7442 reduced progression of COVID-19 symptoms versus placebo through to day 29 (RRR 12.5%; 95% CI 0.5, 23.0) and improved most symptoms within 1-2 weeks. Over median safety follow-up of 170 days, adverse events occurred in 174 (38.5%) and 196 (43.5%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. Cardiac serious adverse events occurred in two (0.4%) and three (0.7%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AZD7442 was well tolerated and reduced hospitalization and mortality through 6 months, and symptom burden through 29 days, in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://beta.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/study/NCT04723394 ).

Treatment effect of remdesivir on the mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Switzerland across different patient groups: a tree-based model analysis

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Remdesivir has shown benefits against COVID-19. However, it remains unclear whether, to what extent, and among whom remdesivir can reduce COVID-19-related mortality. We explored whether the treatment response to remdesivir differed by patient characteristics.

METHODS

We analysed data collected from a hospital surveillance study conducted in 21 referral hospitals in Switzerland between 2020 and 2022. We applied model-based recursive partitioning to group patients by the association between treatment levels and mortality. We included either treatment (levels: none, remdesivir within 7 days of symptom onset, remdesivir after 7 days, or another treatment), age and sex, or treatment only as regression variables. Candidate partitioning variables included a range of risk factors and comorbidities (and age and sex unless included in regression). We repeated the analyses using local centring to correct the results for the propensity to receive treatment.

RESULTS

Overall (n = 21,790 patients), remdesivir within 7 days was associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratios 1.28-1.54 versus no treatment). The CURB-65 score caused the most instability in the regression parameters of the model. When adjusted for age and sex, patients receiving remdesivir within 7 days of onset had higher mortality than those not treated in all identified eight patient groups. When age and sex were included as partitioning variables instead, the number of groups increased to 19-20; in five to six of those branches, mortality was lower among patients who received early remdesivir. Factors determining the groups where remdesivir was potentially beneficial included the presence of oncological comorbidities, male sex, and high age.

CONCLUSIONS

Some subgroups of patients, such as individuals with oncological comorbidities or elderly males, may benefit from remdesivir.

Challenges of conducting an international observational study to assess immunogenicity of multiple COVID-19 vaccines

The International Study on COVID-19 Vaccines to Assess Immunogenicity, Reactogenicity, and Efficacy is an observational study to assess the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines used in Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Indonesia, Liberia, Mali, Mexico, and Mongolia. The study, which has enrolled 5,401 adults, is prospectively following participants for approximately two years. This study is important as it has enrolled participants from resource-limited settings that have largely been excluded from COVID-19 research studies during the pandemic. There are significant challenges to mounting a study during an international health emergency, especially in resource-limited settings. Here we focus on challenges and hurdles encountered during the planning and implementation of the study with regard to study logistics, national vaccine policies, pandemic-induced and supply chain constraints, and cultural beliefs. We also highlight the successful mitigation of these challenges through the team's proactive thinking, collaborative approach, and innovative solutions. This study serves as an example of how established programs in resource-limited settings can be leveraged to contribute to biomedical research during a pandemic response. Lessons learned from this study can be applied to other studies mounted to respond rapidly during a global health crisis and will contribute to capacity for stronger pandemic preparedness in the future when there is a crucial need for urgent response and data collection.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preliminary Evidence of Good Safety Profile and Outcomes of Early Treatment with Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab Compared to Previously Employed Monoclonal Antibodies for COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Patients

OBJECTIVES

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have proven to be a valuable tool against COVID-19, mostly among subjects with risk factors for progression to severe illness. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TIX/CIL), a combination of two Fc-modified human monoclonal antibodies, has been recently approved to be employed as early treatment.

METHODS

Two groups of immunocompromised patients exposed to different early treatments (i.e., TIX/CIL vs. other mAbs [casirivimab/imdevimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, sotrovimab]) were compared in terms of clinical outcomes (hospitalisation and mortality within 14 days from administration) and time to the negativity of nasal swabs. We used either Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, whereas the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was employed for continuous ones. Kaplan-Meier curves were produced to compare the time to nasopharyngeal swab negativity.

RESULTS

Early treatment with TIX/CIL was administered to 19 immunocompromised patients, while 89 patients received other mAbs. Most of them were solid organ transplant recipients or suffering from hematologic or solid malignancies. Overall, no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding clinical outcomes. In the TIX/CIL group, one patient (1/19, 5.3%), who was admitted to the emergency room within the first 14 days from treatment and was hospitalised due to COVID-19 progression, died. Regarding the time to nasal swab negativity, no significant difference (p = 0.088) emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection with TIX/CIL showed favourable outcomes in a small group of immunocompromised patients, reporting no significant difference compared to similar patients treated with other mAbs.

Uses and Challenges of Antiviral Polyclonal and Monoclonal Antibody Therapies

Viral diseases represent a major public health concerns and ever-present risks for developing into future pandemics. Antiviral antibody therapeutics, either alone or in combination with other therapies, emerged as valuable preventative and treatment options, including during global emergencies. Here we will discuss polyclonal and monoclonal antiviral antibody therapies, focusing on the unique biochemical and physiological properties that make them well-suited as therapeutic agents. We will describe the methods of antibody characterization and potency assessment throughout development, highlighting similarities and differences between polyclonal and monoclonal products as appropriate. In addition, we will consider the benefits and challenges of antiviral antibodies when used in combination with other antibodies or other types of antiviral therapeutics. Lastly, we will discuss novel approaches to the characterization and development of antiviral antibodies and identify areas that would benefit from additional research.

Transport of Designed Ankyrin Repeat Proteins through reconstituted human bronchial epithelia and protection against SARS-CoV-2

Clinical studies have proven antiviral effectiveness of treatment with a Designed Ankyrin Repeat Protein (DARPin) specific against the spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2). More information on transport mechanisms and efficiency to the site of action is desirable. Transepithelial migration through air-liquid interface (ALI) cultures of reconstituted human bronchial epithelia (HBE) was assessed by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays and Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for different DARPin designs in comparison to a monoclonal antibody. Antiviral efficacy against authentic SARS-CoV-2, applied apically on HBE, was investigated based on viral titers and genome equivalents, after administration of therapeutic candidates on the basal side. Transepithelial translocation of all DARPin candidates and the monoclonal antibody was efficient and dose dependent. Small DARPins and the antibody migrated more efficiently than larger molecules, indicating different transport mechanisms involved. Microscopic analyses support this, demonstrating passive paracellular transport of smaller DARPins and transcellular migration of the larger molecules. All therapeutic candidates applied to the basal side of HBE conferred effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. In summary, we have shown that DARPins specific against SARS-CoV-2 translocate across intact airway epithelia and confer effective protection against infection and viral replication.

Report of the first seven agents in the I-SPY COVID trial: a phase 2, open label, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An urgent need exists to rapidly screen potential therapeutics for severe COVID-19 or other emerging pathogens associated with high morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Using an adaptive platform design created to rapidly evaluate investigational agents, hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥6 L/min oxygen were randomised to either a backbone regimen of dexamethasone and remdesivir alone (controls) or backbone plus one open-label investigational agent. Patients were enrolled to the arms described between July 30, 2020 and June 11, 2021 in 20 medical centres in the United States. The platform contained up to four potentially available investigational agents and controls available for randomisation during a single time-period. The two primary endpoints were time-to-recovery (<6 L/min oxygen for two consecutive days) and mortality. Data were evaluated biweekly in comparison to pre-specified criteria for graduation (i.e., likely efficacy), futility, and safety, with an adaptive sample size of 40-125 individuals per agent and a Bayesian analytical approach. Criteria were designed to achieve rapid screening of agents and to identify large benefit signals. Concurrently enrolled controls were used for all analyses. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04488081.

FINDINGS

The first 7 agents evaluated were cenicriviroc (CCR2/5 antagonist; n = 92), icatibant (bradykinin antagonist; n = 96), apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor; n = 67), celecoxib/famotidine (COX2/histamine blockade; n = 30), IC14 (anti-CD14; n = 67), dornase alfa (inhaled DNase; n = 39) and razuprotafib (Tie2 agonist; n = 22). Razuprotafib was dropped from the trial due to feasibility issues. In the modified intention-to-treat analyses, no agent met pre-specified efficacy/graduation endpoints with posterior probabilities for the hazard ratios [HRs] for recovery ≤1.5 between 0.99 and 1.00. The data monitoring committee stopped Celecoxib/Famotidine for potential harm (median posterior HR for recovery 0.5, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.28-0.90; median posterior HR for death 1.67, 95% CrI 0.79-3.58).

INTERPRETATION

None of the first 7 agents to enter the trial met the prespecified criteria for a large efficacy signal. Celecoxib/Famotidine was stopped early for potential harm. Adaptive platform trials may provide a useful approach to rapidly screen multiple agents during a pandemic.

FUNDING

Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative is the trial sponsor. Funding for this trial has come from: the COVID R&D Consortium, Allergan, Amgen Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Implicit Bioscience, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc., Roche/Genentech, Apotex Inc., FAST Grant from Emergent Venture George Mason University, The DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), The Department of Health and Human ServicesBiomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and The Grove Foundation. Effort sponsored by the U.S. Government under Other Transaction number W15QKN-16-9-1002 between the MCDC, and the Government.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

Background

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

Findings

A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448–4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619–8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093–0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014–0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration.

Interpretation

Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

Funding

EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

Monoclonal Antibodies in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: The Role of SARS-COV-2 Serostatus in an Evolving Pandemic

Appropriately selected neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) are an effective treatment for patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. In contrast, the efficacy of nmAbs in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 has been mixed, and clinical benefit has largely been restricted to seronegative patients [i.e. those lacking endogenous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies] in the trials with positive outcomes. This review summarises the major clinical trial data investigating nmAb treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and explores current definitions of seropositivity, what they mean in a late-pandemic context and discusses the current late-pandemic challenges associated with defining 'seroprotection' in a clinically meaningful way. We conclude that following widespread vaccination, increasing numbers of prior infections and emerging viral variants, seropositivity now reflects a range of immune coverage rather than a binary tool with which to aid decision-making on a clinically actionable timescale. Treatment decisions with nmAbs in a late-pandemic context would therefore likely best rely on information regarding clinical status, time since symptom onset, underlying patient condition(s) and the dominant circulating variant, should they be approved for future use in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

B-cell malignancies and COVID-19: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been extensively characterized in immunocompetent hosts and to a lesser extent in immunocompromised populations. Among the latter, patients treated for B-cell malignancies have immunosuppression generated by B-cell lymphodepletion/aplasia resulting in an increased susceptibility to respiratory virus infections and poor response to vaccination. The consequence is that these patients are likely to develop severe or critical COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the overall impact of COVID-19 in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or receiving chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) immunotherapy administered in case of relapsed or refractory disease.

SOURCES

We searched in the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies, trials, reviews, or meta-analyses focusing on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 management in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or recipients of CAR-T cell therapy up to 8 July 2022.

CONTENT

The epidemiology and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with B-cell malignancy and CAR-T cell recipients are summarized. Vaccine efficacy in these subgroups is compiled. Considering the successive surges of variants of concern, we propose a critical appraisal of treatment strategies by discussing the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma therapy, direct-acting antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators.

IMPLICATIONS

For patients with B-cell malignancy, preventive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains essential and the management of COVID-19 includes control of viral replication because of protracted SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Passive immunotherapy (monoclonal neutralizing antibody therapy and convalescent plasma therapy) and direct-active antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are the best currently available treatments. Real-world data and subgroup analyses in larger trials are warranted to assess COVID-19 therapeutics in B-cell depleted populations.

Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld™) Prophylaxis Prevents Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections in Immunosuppressed Population: 6-Month Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Persons with neuroinflammatory diseases (pwNID) treated with potent immunosuppressives are at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and reduced vaccine seroconversion. We aimed at determining the real-world efficacy of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld™) in immunosuppressed pwNID in preventing breakthrough COVID-19 infections.

METHODS

31 immunosuppressed pwNID were followed for 6 months after administration of tixagevimab and cilgavimab as a prophylactic COVID-19 medication (January 2022-July 2022). Only pwNID treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies and sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators were considered eligible for the study. A control group of 126 immunosuppressed pwNID (38 seropositive and 88 seronegative after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination) were included. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections rate and their severity was determined over the follow-up.

RESULTS

The pwNID treated with tixagevimab and cilgavimab had more comorbidities when compared with the total and seronegative pwNID control group (54.8% vs. 30.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.02 and p = 0.005, respectively). After a 6-month follow-up, significantly lower numbers of pwNID treated with tixagevimab and cilgavimab had breakthrough COVID-19 when compared with the control pwNID group (6.5% vs. 34.1%, p = 0.002) and seronegative control pwNID group (6.5% vs. 38.6%, p < 0.001). All COVID-19 infections in Evusheld-treated pwNID were mild, whereas 9/43 COVID-19 infections in the control group were moderate/severe. No side effects to tixagevimab and cilgavimab were recorded.

CONCLUSION

In pwNID treated with immunosuppressive therapies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld™) significantly reduced the numbers and severity of breakthrough COVID-19 infections during the Omicron (BA.2-BA.5 variants) wave.

Management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19: Narrative review and evidence-based practical recommendations

Patients with hematologic malignancies can be immunocompromized because of their disease, anti-cancer therapy, and concomitant immunosuppressive treatment. Furthermore, these patients are usually older than 60 years and have comorbidities. For all these reasons they are highly vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have an increased risk of developing severe/critical Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the general population. Although COVID-19 vaccination has proven effective in reducing the incidence of severe/critical disease, vaccinated patients with lymphoma may not be protected as they often fail to develop a sufficient antiviral immune response. There is therefore an urgent need to address the management of patients with lymphoma and COVID-19 in the setting of the ongoing pandemic. Passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is a currently available complementary drug strategy to active vaccination for lymphoma patients, while monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs (remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and molnupiravir) have proven effective in preventing the progression to severe/critical COVID-19. In this narrative review we present the most recent data documenting the characteristics and outcomes of patients with concomitant lymphoma and COVID-19. Our ultimate goal is to provide practice-oriented guidance in the management of these vulnerable patients from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up of lymphoma. To this purpose, we will first provide an overview of the main data concerning prognostic factors and fatality rate of lymphoma patients who develop COVID-19; the outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination will also be addressed. We will then discuss current COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment options for lymphoma patients. Finally, based on the literature and our multidisciplinary experience, we will summarize a set of indications on how to manage patients with lymphoma according to COVID-19 exposure, level of disease severity and former history of infection, as typically encountered in clinical practice.

Is the 4C Score Still a Valid Item to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in People with SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the Omicron Variant Era?

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several scores have been proposed to identify infected individuals at a higher risk of progression and death. The most famous is the 4C score. However, it was developed in early 2020. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the 4C score during the wave in which the Omicron variant was prevalent. An observational study was conducted at an Italian University Hospital between 1 January and 31 July 2022. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of the 4C score to predict mortality. Overall, 1186 people were recruited, of which 160 (13.5%) died. According to the 4C score, 177 (11.6%) were classified as having a low risk of mortality, 302 (25.5%) were intermediate, 596 (50.3%) were high, and 151 (12.7%) were very high. The ROC curve of the 4C score showed an AUC (95% CI) value of 0.78 (0.74−0.82). At the criterion value of > 10, the sensitivity was 76.2% and the specificity was 62.67%. Similar to previous studies, the 4C mortality score performed well in our sample, and it is still a useful tool for clinicians to identify patients with a high risk of progression. However, clinicians must be aware that the mortality rate reported in the original studies was higher than that observed in our study.

Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab in SARS-CoV-2 Prophylaxis and Therapy: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Experience

Effective treatments and vaccines against COVID-19 used in clinical practice have made a positive impact on controlling the spread of the pandemic, where they are available. Nevertheless, even if fully vaccinated, immunocompromised patients still remain at high risk of adverse outcomes. This has driven the largely expanding field of monoclonal antibodies, with variable results. Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab (AZD7442), a long-acting antibody combination that inhibits the attachment of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the surface of cells, has proved promising in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 or death in high-risk individuals without major adverse events when given as prophylaxis, as well as early treatment. Real-world data confirm the antibody combination's prophylaxis efficacy in lowering the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality associated with COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and hematological malignancies, and patients in B-cell-depleting therapies. Data suggest a difference in neutralization efficiency between the SARS-CoV-2 subtypes in favor of the BA.2 over the BA.1. In treating COVID-19, AZD7442 showed a significant reduction in severe COVID-19 cases and mortality when given early in the course of disease, and within 5 days of symptom onset, without being associated with severe adverse events, even when it is used in addition to standard care. The possibility of the development of spike-protein mutations that resist monoclonal antibodies has been reported; therefore, increased vigilance is required in view of the evolving variants. AZD7442 may be a powerful ally in preventing COVID-19 and the mortality associated with it in high-risk individuals. Further research is required to include more high-risk groups and assess the concerns limiting its use, along the SARS-CoV-2 evolutionary trajectory.

Management of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnancy

Although the majority of pregnant patients who contract severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will have a mild course of illness, pregnant patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are more likely than their nonpregnant counterparts to develop a severe illness with an increased risk of poor maternal and fetal outcomes. Although the extent of research in this specific patient population remains limited, there are tenets of care with which physicians and other providers must be familiar to increase the chances of better outcomes for the two patients in their care.

Strategies Tackling Viral Replication and Inflammatory Pathways as Early Pharmacological Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Any Potential Role for Ketoprofen Lysine Salt?

COVID-19 is an infective disease resulting in widespread respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms prompted by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and host cell receptors prompts activation of pro-inflammatory pathways which are involved in epithelial and endothelial damage mechanisms even after viral clearance. Since inflammation has been recognized as a critical step in COVID-19, anti-inflammatory therapies, including both steroids and non-steroids as well as cytokine inhibitors, have been proposed. Early treatment of COVID-19 has the potential to affect the clinical course of the disease regardless of underlying comorbid conditions. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which are widely used for symptomatic relief of upper airway infections, became the mainstay of early phase treatment of COVID-19. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for using NSAIDs in early phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection with focus on ketoprofen lysine salt based on its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic features.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a review

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to protect vulnerable individuals who do not respond to vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly following the emergence of new variants. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab, the only monoclonal antibody combination authorized for pre-exposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), demonstrated efficacy in unvaccinated individuals in the PROVENT study.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses predominantly on real-world evidence examining the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in populations who are immunocompromised and otherwise vulnerable. The ability of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to neutralize Omicron subvariants, the appropriate dosage in vulnerable populations, and the impact of prior vaccination on tixagevimab/cilgavimab effectiveness are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The tixagevimab/cilgavimab combination is important in providing protection in people who either cannot have a full vaccination or respond poorly to COVID-19 vaccines. Abundant clinical data have emerged to inform clinical use in adults in need, although some additional data-formal pediatric and adolescent studies, plus information on optimal doses required to protect against emerging variants, and the ideal interval between tixagevimab/cilgavimab dosing and vaccination-would be welcomed. Importantly, despite the current effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab, we must recognize the possibility that resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants could emerge in the future.

Uncovering the information immunology journals transmitted for COVID-19: A bibliometric and visualization analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the global epidemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of immunological studies related to COVID-19 have been published in various immunology journals. However, the results from these studies were discrete, and no study summarized the important immunological information about COVID-19 released by these immunology journals. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of COVID-19 published in major immunology journals through bibliometrics.

METHODS

Publications on COVID-19 in major immunology journals were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R-bibliometrix were comprehensively used for bibliometric and visual analysis.

RESULTS

1,331 and 5,000 publications of 10 journals with high impact factors and 10 journals with the most papers were included, respectively. The USA, China, England, and Italy made the most significant contributions to these papers. University College London, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Harvard Medical School, University California San Diego, and University of Pennsylvania played a central role in international cooperation in the immunology research field of COVID-19. Yuen Kwok Yung was the most important author in terms of the number of publications and citations, and the H-index. CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES and FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY were the most essential immunology journals. These immunology journals mostly focused on the following topics: "Delta/Omicron variants", "cytokine storm", "neutralization/neutralizing antibody", "T cell", "BNT162b2", "mRNA vaccine", "vaccine effectiveness/safety", and "long COVID".

CONCLUSION

This study systematically uncovered a holistic picture of the current research on COVID-19 published in major immunology journals from the perspective of bibliometrics, which will provide a reference for future research in this field.