Mortality and risk factors of vaccinated and unvaccinated frail patients with COVID-19 treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies: A real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: There is a scarcity of data on the outcomes and predictors of therapeutic failure of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in frail patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective study including consecutive COVID-19 outpatients referred by primary care physicians for mAb treatment. The outcomes evaluated were 60-day mortality, time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance, need for hospitalization, and O2 therapy. RESULTS: Among 1026 COVID-19 patients enrolled, 60.2% received casirivamab/imdevimab and 39.8% sotrivimab. Median age was 63 years, 52.4% were males and median time from positive nasopharyngeal swab to mAbs administration was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-5). 78.1% were vaccinated. Overall, the 60-day mortality was 2.14%. No differences in outcomes were observed between the two mAbs used. No difference was observed in mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (P = 0.925); although, lower rate of hospitalization (P <0.005), less need for O2 therapy (P <0.0001) and reduced nasopharyngeal swab negativity time (P <0.0001) were observed in vaccinated patients. Early administration of mAbs was associated with lower mortality (P <0.007), whereas corticosteroid use worsened prognosis (P <0.004). The independent predictors associated with higher mortality were older age (P <0.0001), presence of active hematologic malignancies (P <0.0001), renal failure (P <0.041), and need for O2 therapy (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows similar effectiveness among mAbs used, regardless of vaccination status and identifies patients with COVID-19 in whom mAbs have poor activity.

Different Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 in Two Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 Vaccine, Infected with the Same Viral Variant but with Different Predisposing Conditions for the Progression of the Disease.

Safe and effective vaccines are available to face the global threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we report on the clinical cases of two healthcare workers vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine who were infected by the same viral clade but had different clinical outcomes.

Assessment and Comparison of Two Serological Approaches for the Surveillance of Health Workers Exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic performance of an LFA compared with an ELISA test in a cohort of HWs operating in a COVID-19 unit of a teaching hospital in southern Italy. METHODS: We performed an observational, prospective, interventional study including 65 COVID-19 unit personnel. On a total of 196 serum samples (at least 2 serum samples for each HW), LFA and ELISA tests for SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM were performed. Also, 32 serum samples of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive patients at least 21 days before sampling, and 30 serum samples of patients obtained up to November 2019, before COVID-19 outbreak in China, were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. FINDINGS: Of the 65 HWs enrolled, 6 were positive in LFA; overall, of the 196 serum samples, 20 were positive in LFA. All ELISA tests performed on serum samples collected from HWs were negative. The specificity of LFAs was 90.77% considering the 65 HWs and 89.80% considering all the 196 health workers serum samples analyzed. Considering the data on HWs, ELISA test for SARS-COV-2 antibodies showed a specificity of 100%, including all the 196 serum samples collected, and 100% including the 65 HWs. The ELISA and LFAs performed after 21 days last COVID-19 patient was discharged were all negative. CONCLUSION: LFAs compared to ELISA tests result in less specificity, considering COVID-19 negative personnel and patients. Thus, LFAs seem to be not adequate in the active surveillance of HWs.

Current Status of Laboratory Diagnosis for COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the related disease (COVID-19) has spread rapidly to pandemic proportions, increasing the demands on healthcare systems for the containment and management of COVID-19. One of the critical issues to be addressed is the improvement in laboratory diagnosis and screening of large portions of the population to stop the virus spreading. Currently, the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the related disease is based on the research of viral RNA with rt-PCR methods in upper and lower respiratory airways. Serological tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could help physicians and healthcare workers to support COVID-19 diagnosis and follow-up and perform population screening. Our review, using MEDLINE and EMBASE, summarizes the current knowledge of direct and serological tests performed to research RNA, antigens, or antibodies for SARS-CoV-2, evaluating the advantages and drawbacks for specific tests.