Targeted SARS-CoV-2 treatment is associated with decreased mortality in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19

Efficacy and safety of antiviral plus anti-spike monoclonal antibody combination therapy vs. monotherapy for high-risk immunocompromised patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV2 infection during the Omicron era: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Antivirals and monoclonal antibodies lower the risk of progression in immunocompromised patients. However, combination therapy with both types of agents has not been studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a single-centre, prospective, cohort study. All immunocompromised patients who received treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 from 1 January 2022 to 30 October 2022 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 progression at 90 days, defined as hospital admission or death due to COVID-19 and/or seronegative persistent COVID-19.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients were included: 43 patients (14.1%) received sotrovimab plus a direct-acting antiviral, and 261 (85.9%) received monotherapy. Primary outcome occurred more frequently after monotherapy (4.6% vs. 0%, P=0.154). Among patients with anti-spike immunoglobulin G (anti-S IgG) titre <750 BAU/mL, COVID-19 progression was more common after monotherapy (23.9% vs. 0%, P=0.001), including more frequent COVID-related admission (15.2% vs. 0%, P=0.014) and seronegative persistent COVID-19 (10.9% vs. 0%, P=0.044). Combination therapy was associated with lower risk of progression (odds ratio [OR] 0.08, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.01-0.64). Anti-S IgG titre <750 BAU/mL and previous anti-CD20 were associated with higher risk of progression (OR 13.70, 95% CI 2.77-67.68; and OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.20-10.94, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In immunocompromised patients, combination therapy with sotrovimab plus an antiviral may be more effective than monotherapy for SARS-CoV2.

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.

Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) Boosts Antibody Levels to SARS-CoV-2 in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Chronic Hemodialysis: A Single-Center Study

Background and Objectives: In addition to a suboptimal and rapidly diminishing response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, hemodialysis (HD) patients are at risk for developing a severe COVID-19 infection. In 2022, the combination of cilgavimab and tixagevimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca) was approved for COVID-19 preexposure prophylaxis in high-risk groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the humoral response and short-term safety of this antibody combination in a group of HD patients. Materials and Methods: Seventy-three adult maintenance hemodialysis patients were recruited from a tertiary-care hospital for this double-blinded, non-randomized, placebo-controlled study. Patients were placed into two groups: the intervention group (n = 43) received a single 300 mg dosage of cilgavimab and tixagevimab, while the control group (n = 30) received a saline placebo. The titer of COVID-19-neutralizing antibodies was measured at baseline and after 1 and 6 months. The patients were evaluated for any drug-related adverse effects and monitored for six months for the emergence of any COVID-19-related events. Results: Patients in the intervention group were substantially older and had been on HD for longer (p = 0.002 and 0.006, respectively). The baseline antibody levels were higher in the Evusheld group. The antibody level in the intervention group increased significantly after 1 month and remained consistent for 6 months, whereas the antibody level in the control group fell significantly after 6 months during the study period (Wald χ2 = 30.620, p < 0.001). The drug-related adverse effects were modest and well-tolerated, and only seven patients experienced them. Six months after study enrollment, 10 patients in the intervention group and 6 patients in the control group had been infected with COVID-19, respectively. In the control group, ICU admission and mortality were observed, but in the intervention group, the infection was milder with no aggressive consequences. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the short-term safety and efficacy of tixagevimab-cilgavimab for COVID-19 preexposure prophylaxis in HD patients. These findings require more studies with more HD patients and longer follow-up periods.

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.

Immunogenicity and effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccination among people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effect of booster vaccinations with the coronavirus virus disease (COVID-19) vaccine on people living with HIV (PLWH) remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the immunogenicity and effectiveness of booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in PLWH.

Methods

Literature research was done through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science databases up to 4 July 2023. Pooled estimates were calculated and compared using the DerSimonian and Laird method for a random effects model. Randomized control trials and observational studies were both considered for inclusion.

Results

We included 35 eligible studies covering 30,154 PLWH. The pooled immune response rate (IRR) of PLWH after the COVID-19 booster vaccination was 97.25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.81-99.49), and similar to healthy control (HC) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The pooled IRR for PLWH with CD4+ T-cell counts ≤ 200 was 86.27 (95% CI, 65.35-99.07). For Omicron variants, the pooled IRR for PLWH after booster dose was 74.07% (95% CI, 58.83-89.30), and the risk of IRR was reduced by 10% in PLWH compared with HC (RR = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.80-1.00). The T-cell immune response of PLWH was found to be comparable to HC (p ≥ 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that mRNA vaccines produced a relatively high IRR in PLWH compared to other vaccines. In addition, the results showed that booster vaccination appeared to further reduce the risk of COVID-19-related infections, hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the primary vaccination.

Conclusion

It was shown that booster vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine provided a high IRR in PLWH and still produced a desirable moderate IRR in PLWH with a CD4+ T-cell count of ≤ 200. Importantly, the humoral and T-cell responses to booster vaccination in PLWH were comparable to HC, and similar results were observed with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Our review strongly emphasizes the effect of mRNA vaccine booster vaccination in PLWH on eliciting desirable protective IRR. Furthermore, booster vaccination appears to further reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in PLWH compared to primary vaccination. However, more evidence is needed to confirm its effectiveness.

Outcomes of targeted treatment in immunocompromised patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: a retrospective study

The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of targeted COVID-19 treatments in immunocompromised patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 during the period of expansion of the different Omicron subvariants in France. A retrospective monocentric observational study was performed. All immunocompromised patients aged 18 or more, with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19, and who had received a targeted treatment with sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir at the Bordeaux University Hospital from 1st January 2022 to 31st December 2022 were eligible. The primary outcomes of interest was defined as a composite of either (i) progression to moderate (WHO-Clinical Progression Scale at 4 or 5) or severe COVID-19 (WHO-CPS ≥ 6), or (ii) the occurrence of COVID-19-related death. The secondary outcomes of interest were the components of the primary outcome. Outcomes were collected until day 30 after targeted treatment administration or at discharge for patients still hospitalised in relation with COVID-19 at day 30. 223 immunocompromised patients received targeted treatment for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19: 114 received sotrovimab, 50 tixagevimab/cilgavimab, 49 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 10 remdesivir. Among 223 treated patients, 10 (4.5%) progressed to moderate or severe disease: three patients (1.3%) progressed to moderate COVID-19 and 7 (3.1%) patients progressed to severe disease. Among them, 4 (1.8%) died of COVID-19. More than 95% of immunocompromised patients with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 treated by targeted therapies during the Omicron subvariants era did not progress to moderate or severe disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Agents and Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with SLE: A Case-Control Study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related disease (COVID-19) has spread pandemically with high rates of morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 has also posed unprecedented challenges in terms of rapid development of pharmacological countermeasures to prevent or contrast SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents and monoclonal antibodies have been specifically designed to attenuate COVID-19 morbidity and prevent mortality in vulnerable subjects, such as patients with immune-mediated diseases, but evidence for the safe and effective use of these drugs in this latter population group is scarce. Therefore, we designed a retrospective, multicentre, observational, case-control study to analyse the impact of these treatments in COVID-19 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a paradigmatic, multi-organ autoimmune disease. We identified 21 subjects treated with antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies who were matched with 42 untreated patients by age, sex, SLE extension and duration. Treated patients had higher baseline SLE disease activity index 2000 scores [SLEDAI-2K median (interquartile range) = 4 (1-5) vs. 0 (0-2); p = 0.009], higher prednisone doses [5 (0-10) mg vs. 0 (0-3) mg; p = 0.002], and more severe COVID-19 symptoms by a five-point World Health Organisation-endorsed analogue scale [1 (0-1) vs. 0 (0-1); p < 0.010] compared to untreated patients. There was no difference between groups in terms of COVID-19 outcomes and sequelae, nor in terms of post-COVID-19 SLE exacerbations. Three subjects reported mild adverse events (two with monoclonal antibodies, one with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir). These data suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antivirals and monoclonal antibodies might be safely and effectively used in patients with SLE, especially with active disease and more severe COVID-19 symptoms at presentation.

Remdesivir Use in the Real-World Setting: An Overview of Available Evidence

In the years of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), various treatment options have been utilized. COVID-19 continues to circulate in the global population, and the evolution of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has posed significant challenges to the treatment and prevention of infection. Remdesivir (RDV), an anti-viral agent with in vitro efficacy against coronaviruses, is a potent and safe treatment as suggested by a plethora of in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials. Emerging real-world data have confirmed its effectiveness, and there are currently datasets evaluating its efficacy and safety against SARS-CoV-2 infections in various clinical scenarios, including some that are not in the SmPC recommendations according for COVID-19 pharmacotherapy. Remdesivir increases the chance of recovery, reduces progression to severe disease, lowers mortality rates, and exhibits beneficial post-hospitalization outcomes, especially when used early in the course of the disease. Strong evidence suggests the expansion of remdesivir use in special populations (e.g., pregnancy, immunosuppression, renal impairment, transplantation, elderly and co-medicated patients) where the benefits of treatment outweigh the risk of adverse effects. In this article, we attempt to overview the available real-world data of remdesivir pharmacotherapy. With the unpredictable course of COVID-19, we need to utilize all available knowledge to bridge the gap between clinical research and clinical practice and be sufficiently prepared for the future.

Effectiveness of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and the need for alternative preventative approaches in immunocompromised individuals: a narrative review of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including administration of booster doses, continues to be the most effective method for controlling COVID-19-related complications including progression to severe illness and death.However, there is mounting evidence that more needs to be done to protect individuals with compromised immune function.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we review the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients, including those with primary immunodeficiencies, HIV, cancer (including hematological malignancies), solid organ transplant recipients and chronic kidney disease, as reported in systematic reviews/meta-analyses published over a 12-month period in PubMed. Given the varied responses to vaccination patients with compromised immune function, a major goal of this analysis was to try to identify specific risk-factors related to vaccine failure.

EXPERT OPINION

COVID-19 remains a global problem, with new variants of concern emerging at regular intervals. There is an ongoing need for optimal vaccine strategies to combat the pandemic. In addition, alternative treatment approaches are needed for immunocompromised patients who may not mount an adequate immune response to current COVID-19 vaccines. Identification of high-risk patients, and the introduction of newer antiviral approaches such as monoclonal antibodies, will offer physicians therapeutic options for such vulnerable individuals.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab to Prevent COVID-19 (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) are neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against different epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that have been considered as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Objectives: This study seeks to assess the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at high risk for breakthrough and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection who never benefited maximally from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for those who have a contraindication to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Design: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, medRxiv, ProQuest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2021 to 30 November 2022 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: 2019-nCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus, COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, combination, monoclonal, passive, immunization, antibody, efficacy, clinical trial, cohort, pre-exposure, prophylaxis, and prevention. We included studies in moderate to severe immunocompromised adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged ≥12 years) who cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19 or may have an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The effect sizes of the outcome of measures were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk ratios (RRs). Results: Of the 76 papers that were identified, 30 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 13 articles were included in the quantitative analysis (23 cohorts, 5 case series, 1 care report, and 1 randomized clinical trial). Studies involving 27,932 patients with high risk for breakthrough and severe COVID-19 that reported use of TGM/CGM combination were analyzed (all were adults (100%), 62.8% were men, and patients were mainly immunocompromised (66.6%)). The patients’ ages ranged from 19.7 years to 79.8 years across studies. TGM/CGM use was associated with lower COVID-19-related hospitalization rate (0.54% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.27), lower ICU admission rate (0.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.68), lower mortality rate (0.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.67), higher neutralization of COVID-19 Omicron variant rate (12.9% vs. 6%, p = 0.60), lower proportion of patients who needed oxygen therapy (8% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.27), lower RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate (2.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01), lower proportion of patients who had severe COVID-19 (0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.79), lower proportion of patients who had symptomatic COVID-19 (1.8% vs. 6%, p = 0.22), and higher adverse effects rate (11.1% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.0066) than no treatment or other alternative treatment in the prevention of COVID-19. Conclusion: For PrEP, TGM/CGM-based treatment can be associated with a better clinical outcome than no treatment or other alternative treatment. However, more randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings and investigate the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at risk for breakthrough or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.