Comparative effectiveness of neutralising monoclonal antibodies in high risk COVID-19 patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

The purpose of this work was to review and synthesise the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of neutralising monoclonal antibody (nMAB) therapies in individuals exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV-2 and at high risk of developing severe COVID-19. Outcomes of interest were mortality, healthcare utilisation, and safety. A rapid systematic review was undertaken to identify and synthesise relevant RCT evidence using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Relative treatment effects for individual nMABs (compared with placebo and one another) were estimated. Pooled effects for the nMAB class compared with placebo were estimated. Relative effects were combined with baseline natural history models to predict the expected risk reductions per 1000 patients treated. Eight articles investigating four nMABs (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab) were identified. All four therapies were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation (70-80% reduction in relative risk; absolute reduction of 35-40 hospitalisations per 1000 patients). For mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation, the risk was lower for all nMABs compared with placebo with moderate to high uncertainty due to small event numbers. Rates of serious AEs and infusion reactions were comparable between nMABs and placebo. Pairwise comparisons between nMABs were typically uncertain, with broadly comparable efficacy. In conclusion, nMABs are effective at reducing hospitalisation among infected individuals at high-risk of severe COVID-19, and are likely to reduce mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation rates; the effect on these latter outcomes is more uncertain. Widespread vaccination and the emergence of nMAB-resistant variants make the generalisability of these results to current patient populations difficult.

Single-Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopy in Advanced Bronchoscopy Procedures: Experience in a Quaternary Referral Centre.

BACKGROUND: The development of single-use flexible or disposable bronchoscopes (SUFBs) has accelerated in recent years, with the reduced risk of infectious transmission and reduced need for endoscopy staffing particularly advantageous in the COVID-19 pandemic era. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the performance of a novel single-use bronchoscope in an academic quaternary referral centre with on-site interventional pulmonology programme. METHODS: With ethical approval in a quaternary referral centre, we prospectively collected data on sequential bronchoscopy procedures using The Surgical Company Broncoflex© range of SUFBs. Data collected included demographic, procedural, scope performance, user satisfaction, and complication parameters in a tertiary bronchoscopy service. RESULTS: 139 procedures were performed by five pulmonology faculty from January to July 2021. The majority were carried out for infection (45%) and malignancy (32%). Most were performed in the endoscopy suite and 8% were COVID positive or suspected. Most procedures reported the highest score in satisfaction (85%) with technical limitations reported in 15% (predominately related to scope suction or inadequate image quality) reverting to a reusable scope in 2.8 %. CONCLUSION: In our subset of patients in a bronchoscopy unit, SUFBs are safe, and both routine and advanced bronchoscopy procedures can be performed with high satisfaction reported.