Lack of effectiveness of Bebtelovimab monoclonal antibody among high-risk patients with SARS-Cov-2 Omicron during BA.2, BA.2.12.1 and BA.5 subvariants dominated era.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron subvariants are expected to be resistant to Bebtelovimab (BEB) monoclonal antibody (MAb) and the real-world experience regarding its effectiveness is scarce. This retrospective cohort study reports a data analysis in Banner Healthcare System (a large not-for-profit organization) between 4/5/2022 and 8/1/2022 and included 19,778 Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) positive (by PCR or direct antigen testing) patients who were selected from Cerner-Electronic Health Record after the exclusions criteria were met. The study index date for cohort was determined as the date of BEB MAb administration or the date of the first positive COVID-19 testing. The cohort consist of COVID-19 infected patients who received BEB MAb (N = 1,091) compared to propensity score (PS) matched control (N = 1,091). The primary composite outcome was the incidence of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and/or mortality. All statistical analyses were conducted on the paired (matched) dataset. For the primary composite outcome, the event counts and percentages were reported. Ninety-five percent Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals for percentages were computed. The study cohorts were 1:1 propensity matched without replacement across 26 covariates using an optimal matching algorithm that minimizes the sum of absolute pairwise distance across the matched sample after fitting and using logistic regression as the distance function. The pairs were matched exactly on patient vaccination status, BMI group, age group and diabetes status. Compared to the PS matched control group (2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%, 3.7%), BEB MAb use (2.2%; 95% CI: 1.4%, 3.3%) did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary outcome (p = 0.67). In the subgroup analysis, we observed similar no-difference trends regarding the primary outcomes for the propensity rematched BEB MAb treated and untreated groups, stratified by patient vaccination status, age (<65 years or ≥65), and immunocompromised status (patients with HIV/AIDS or solid organ transplants or malignancy including lymphoproliferative disorder). The number needed to treat (1/0.026-0.022) with BEB MAb was 250 to avoid one hospitalization and/or death over 30 days. The BEB MAb use lacked efficacy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants (mainly BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.5) in the Banner Healthcare System in the Southwestern United States.

The Impact of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Reducing Hospitalizations Among High-Risk Patients with SARS-Cov-2 During the Omicron Predominant Era

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality in high-risk populations. Several therapeutics have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 related complications, hospitalizations, and death. In several studies, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was reported to reduce the risk of hospitalizations and death. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NR in preventing hospitalizations and death during the Omicron predominant period. Methods We retrospectively evaluated patients from June 1, 2022, through September 26, 2022. There was a total of 25,939 documented COVID-19 cases. Using propensity matching, we matched 5,754 NR treated patients with untreated patients. Results Post-matching, the median age of the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) treated group was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 43–70 years) and 42% were vaccinated. Post-matching composite outcome of the 30-day hospitalization and mortality in the NR treated group were 0.9% (95%: CI 0.7% to 1.2%) vs. 2.1% (95% CI: 1.8% to 2.5%) in the matched control group, with a difference of -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8), P-value <0.01. The difference rates (NR vs. control) in 30-day all-cause hospitalizations and mortality were -1.2% (95% CI: -1.6% to -0.7%, p-value <0.01) and-0.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 0.0%, P value= 0.29), respectively. We found similar finding across different age groups (≥65 vs. <65) and the vaccinated group. Conclusion We report a significant benefit with the use of NR in reducing hospitalizations among various high-risk COVID-19 groups during the Omicron BA.5 predominant period.

The Impact of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Reducing Hospitalizations Among High-Risk Patients With SARS-CoV-2 During the Omicron Predominant Era.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality in high-risk populations. Several therapeutics have been developed to reduce the risk of complications related to COVID-19, hospitalizations, and death. In several studies, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was reported to reduce the risk of hospitalizations and death. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NR in preventing hospitalizations and death during the Omicron predominant period. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients from June 1, 2022, through September 24, 2022. There were a total of 25,939 documented COVID-19 cases. Using propensity matching, we matched 5754 patients treated with NR with untreated patients. RESULTS: Postmatching, the median age of the NR-treated group was 58 years (interquartile range, 43-70 years) and 42% were vaccinated. Postmatching composite outcome of the 30-day hospitalization and mortality in the NR-treated group were 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7%-1.2%) versus 2.1% (95% CI: 1.8%-2.5%) in the matched control group, with a difference of -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8), P value <.01. The difference rates (NR vs. control) in 30-day all-cause hospitalizations and mortality were -1.2% (95% CI: -1.6% to -0.7%, P value <.01) and -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2% to 0.0%, P value = 0.29), respectively. We found similar finding across different age groups (≥65 vs. <65) and the vaccinated group. CONCLUSION: We report a significant benefit with the use of NR in reducing hospitalizations among various high-risk COVID-19 groups during the Omicron BA.5 predominant period.

Effect of age and rural residency on perceptions about SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and vaccination in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Transplant patients have poor outcomes in coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pandemic's effects on rural patients' overall care experience, attitudes to telemedicine, and vaccination are poorly understood. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adult kidney transplant recipients in central Pennsylvania across four clinical sites between March 29, 2021 and June 2, 2021. We assessed the pandemic's impact on care access, telemedicine experience, attitudes toward preventive measures, vaccination, and variation by sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Survey completion rate was 51% (303/594). Of these, 52.8% were rural residents. The most common impact was use of telemedicine (79.2%). Predominant barriers to telemedicine were lack of video devices (10.9%), perceived complexity (5.6%), and technical issues (5.3%). On a 0-10 Likert scale, the mean positive impression for telemedicine was 7.7; lower for patients with telephone-only versus video visits (7.0 vs. 8.2; p < .001), and age ≥60 years (7.4 vs. 8.1; p = .01) on univariate analyses. Time/travel savings were commonly identified (115/241, 47.7%) best parts of telemedicine and lack of personal connection (70/166, 42.2%) the worst. Only 68.9% had received any dose of COVID vaccination. The vaccinated group members were older (58.4 vs. 53.5 years; p = .007), and less likely rural (47.8% vs. 65.2%; p = .005). Common themes associated with vaccine hesitancy included concerns about safety (27/59, 46%), perceived lack of data (19/59, 32%), and distrust (17/59, 29%). At least one misconception about the vaccines or COVID-19 was quoted by 29% of vaccine-hesitant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents, the pandemic significantly impacted healthcare experience, especially in older patients in underserved communities. COVID-19 vaccination rate was relatively low, driven by misconceptions and lack of trust.

The Prevention of COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients Using Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab (Evusheld): Real-World Experience at a Large Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Tix-Cil) is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies approved for the prevention of COVID-19 complications in this high-risk group. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who received Tix-Cil during the Omicron variant period (January 17 to April 23, 2022), with a follow-up period until May 24, 2022. We collected data about patient underlying comorbidities and post Tix-Cil COVID-19 infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: There were 463 patients with a median age of 68 years, of which 51% were male, 79% White, 13.2% Hispanic, 1.7% Black/African American, and 5.8% identified as Other. A total of 18% had undergone a solid organ transplantation or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Only 6/98 (6.1%) had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at a median 48 days (interquartile range [IQR] 27.5, 69) follow-up. Forty-two patients (9.1%) were hospitalized, and 4 (0.9%) died, but none were attributed to COVID-19 or Tix-Cil. One hospitalized patient had an incidental, asymptomatic, positive SARS-CoV 2 by PCR. The median days from Tix-Cil administration to non-COVID-19-related hospitalization and death were 30 (IQR 17, 55) and 53 (IQR 18, 91), respectively. CONCLUSION: Tix-Cil provides protection against COVID-19 complications in immunocompromised patients with suboptimal immune responses to vaccines.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Among High-Risk Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 B.1.617.2 (Delta Variant) Infection.

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness of neutralizing casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody (Cas-Imd mAb) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among high-risk patients may inform the response to future SARS-CoV-2 variants. Methods: This study covers an observational retrospective data analysis in Banner Health Care System sites, mainly in Arizona. During the study period, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was between 95% and 100%. Of 29 635 patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 1 August 2021 and 30 October 2021, in the Banner Health Care System, the study cohort was split into 4213 adult patients who received Cas-Imd mAb (1200 mg) treatment compared to a PS-matched 4213 untreated patients. The primary outcomes were the incidence of all-cause hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality within 30 days of Cas-Imd mAb administration or Delta variant infection. Results: Compared to the PS-matched untreated cohort, the Cas-Imd mAb cohort had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization (4.2% vs 17.6%; difference in percentages, -13.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -14.7 to -12.0]; P < .001), ICU admission (0.3% vs 2.8%; difference, -2.4 [95% CI, -3.0 to -1.9]; P < .001), and mortality (0.2% vs 2.0%; difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.3]; P < .001) within 30 days. The Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with lower rate of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22 [95% CI, .19-.26]; P < .001) and mortality (HR, 0.11 [95% CI, .06-.21]; P < .001). Conclusions: Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with a lower hospitalization rate, ICU admission, and mortality within 30 days among patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.

EFFECTIVENESS OF CASIRIVIMAB-IMDEVIMAB MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TREATMENT AMONG HIGH-RISK PATIENTS WITH SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (COVID-19 DELTA VARIANT) INFECTION

BACKGROUND Real-world data on the effectiveness of neutralizing Casirivimab-Imdevimab monoclonal antibody (Cas-Imd mAb) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among high-risk patients may inform the response to future SARS-CoV-2 variants. METHODS This study covers an observational retrospective data analysis in Banner Health Care System sites, mainly in Arizona. During the study period, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was between 95% and 100%. Out of 29,635 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between 8/1/2021 and 10/30/2021, in Banner Health Care System, the study cohort was split into 4213 adult patients who received Cas-Imd mAb (1200 mg) treatment compared to a propensity-matched 4213 untreated patients. The primary outcomes were the incidence of all-cause hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality within 30 days of Cas-Imd mAb administration or COVID-19 Delta variant infection. RESULTS Compared to the propensity matched untreated cohort, the Cas-Imd mAb cohort had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization (4.2% vs 17.6%;difference in percentages and 95% confidence interval [CI] -13.4 [-14,7, -12.0], P <.001), ICU admission (0.3% vs 2.8%;difference and CI -2.4 [-3.0, -1.9], P <.001), and mortality (0.2% vs 2.0%;difference and CI -1.8 [-2.3, -1.3], P <.001) within 30 days. The Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with lower rate of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22;95% CI, 0.19-0.26; P <.001) and mortality (HR, 0.11;95% CI, 0.06-0.21; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Cas-Imd mAb treatment was associated with a lower hospitalization rate, ICU admission, and mortality within 30 days among patients infected with COVID-19 Delta variant.

Liver Transplantation in the Time of a Pandemic: A Widening of the Racial and Socioeconomic Health Care Gap During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, organ transplantation was classified a CMS Tier 3b procedure which should not be postponed. The differential impact of the pandemic on access to liver transplantation was assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in organ access and transplant outcomes among vulnerable populations have served as obstacles in liver transplantation. METHODS: Using UNOS STARfile data, adult waitlisted candidates were identified from March 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 (n = 21,702 pandemic) and March 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019 (n = 22,797 pre-pandemic), and further categorized and analyzed by time periods: March to May (Period 1), June to August (Period 2), and September to November (Period 3). Comparisons between pandemic and pre-pandemic groups included: Minority status, demographics, diagnosis, MELD, insurance type, and transplant center characteristics. Liver transplant centers (n = 113) were divided into tertiles by volume (small, medium, large) for further analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was fitted to assess odds of transplant. Competing risk regression was used to predict probability of removal from the waitlist due to transplantation or death and sickness. Additional temporal analyses were performed to assess changes in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. RESULTS: During Period 1 of the pandemic, Minorities showed greater reduction in both listing (-14% vs -12% Whites), and transplant (-15% vs -7% Whites), despite a higher median MELD at transplant (23 vs 20 Whites, P < 0.001). Of candidates with public insurance, Minorities demonstrated an 18.5% decrease in transplants during Period 1 (vs -8% Whites). Although large programs increased transplants during Period 1, accounting for 61.5% of liver transplants versus 53.4% pre-pandemic (P < 0.001), Minorities constituted significantly fewer transplants at these programs during this time period (27.7% pandemic vs 31.7% pre-pandemic, P = 0.04). Although improvements in disparities in candidate listings, removals, and transplants were observed during Periods 2 and 3, the adjusted odds ratio of transplant for Minorities was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001) over the entire pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19's effect on access to liver transplantation has been ubiquitous. However, Minorities, especially those with public insurance, have been disproportionately affected. Importantly, despite the uncertainty and challenges, our systems have remarkable resiliency, as demonstrated by the temporal improvements observed during Periods 2 and 3. As the pandemic persists, and the aftermath ensues, health care systems must consciously strive to identify and equitably serve vulnerable populations.