Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) for COVID-19 among 1112 severely immunocompromised patients.

OBJECTIVE: Immunocompromised patients have an increased risk of a severe form of COVID-19. The clinical efficacy of the tixagevimab/cilgavimab monoclonal antibody combination as pre-exposure prophylaxis against BA.1 and BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages is unknown. We aimed to describe the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis during the Omicron wave in France. METHODS: This was an observational multicentre cohort study of immunocompromised patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as preexposure prophylaxis between December 28, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Patients received tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150/150 mg intramuscularly if they had impaired vaccine response and a high risk of severe form of COVID-19. RESULTS: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab was administered to 1112 immunocompromised patients. After a median (range) follow-up of 63 (49-73) days, COVID-19 was confirmed in 49/1112 (4.4%) ≥5 days after treatment. During the study period, mean weekly incidence rate was 1669 in 100 000 inhabitants in Ile-de-France and 530 in 100 000 among patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis. Among infected patients, 43/49 (88%) had a mild-to-moderate form and 6/49 (12%) had a moderate-to-severe form of COVID-19. Patients with moderate-to-severe illnesses were less likely to have received early therapies than patients with mild forms (53.5% vs. 16.7% respectively) and 2/49 (4%) patients died from COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Our study reported a low rate of infections and severe illnesses among immunocompromised patients treated with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. A global preventive strategy including vaccines, preexposure prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies, and early therapies might be effective to prevent severe forms of COVID-19 among severely immunocompromised patients.

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

BACKGROUND: Little is known about targeted (antiviral or monoclonal antibody) anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the real-life efficacy and tolerance of targeted treatment of COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-centre retrospective case series of immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 between December 2021 and March 2022. We recorded all cases of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients treatment between 20 December 2021 and 15 March 2022. Choice of treatment was left to the physician's decision, according to internal treatment protocol, treatment availability and circulating variants. Main outcome was death from COVID-19 after no treatment or targeted treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-seven immunocompromised patients [38 male; median (IQR) age, 53 (43-63) years], with a median (IQR) follow-up of 60 (47-80) days. Ten patients did not receive any targeted treatment. Targeted treatment consisted of IV curative remdesivir (n = 22), sotrovimab (n = 16), tixagevimab/cilgavimab (n = 13) and casirivimab/imdevimab (n = 1). Ten patients (15%) presented severe COVID-19 and 2 (3%) died from Omicron COVID-19. Comparing patients who received targeted anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment and no prophylaxis, (n = 42; 81%) with those who did not (n = 10; 19%), death rate was significantly lower in treated patients [n = 0 (0%) versus n = 2 (20%); P = 0.034]. No severe adverse events were reported among treated patients. Among 15 patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis, 6 received an additional curative treatment and none died from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that targeted COVID-19 treatment, including direct antivirals or monoclonal antibodies, is safe and efficient and could be proposed in high-risk immunocompromised patients.

Transmission Routes of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Healthcare Workers of a French University Hospital in Paris, France.

In this case-control study on 564 healthcare workers of a university hospital in Paris (France), contacts without protection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients or with colleagues were associated with infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas working in a COVID-dedicated unit and having children kept in childcare facilities were not.

Comparing Dynamics and Determinants of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Transmissions Among Healthcare Workers of Adult and Pediatric Settings in Central Paris.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have paid a heavy toll during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Routes of transmission remain to be fully understood. METHODS: This prospective study compared a 1500-bed adult and 600-bed pediatric setting of a tertiary-care university hospital located in central Paris. From 24 February until 10 April 2020, all symptomatic HCWs were screened for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on a nasopharyngeal swab. HCWs screened positive were questioned on their profession, symptoms, and occupational and nonoccupational exposures to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1344 HCWs tested, 373 were positive (28%) and 336 (90%) corresponding questionnaires were completed. Three hospitalizations and no deaths were reported. Most HCWs (70%) had patient-facing occupational activities (22% in COVID-19 dedicated units). The total number of HCW cases peaked on 23 March, then decreased slowly, concomitantly with a continuous increase of compliance to preventive measures (including universal medical masking and personal protective equipment [PPE] for direct care to COVID-19 patients). Attack rates were of 3.2% and 2.3% in the adult and pediatric settings, respectively (P = .0022). In the adult setting, HCWs more frequently reported exposure to COVID-19 patients without PPE (25% vs 15%, P = .046). Report of contacts with children attending out-of-home care facilities dramatically decreased over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Universal masking, reinforcement of hand hygiene, and PPE with medical masks for patients' care allowed protection of HCWs and containment of the outbreak. Residual transmissions were related to persistent exposures with undiagnosed patients or colleagues and not to contacts with children attending out-of-home care facilities.