Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in subjects with solid tumor cancers receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The incidence of severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in cancer subjects receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) following COVID-19 vaccination and the relationship between the incidence of severe irAE and the interval between COVID-19 vaccination and ICI dose have not been established. We performed a retrospective study evaluating the incidence of irAEs in solid tumor subjects receiving ICI therapy who received any COVID-19 vaccinations since FDA authorization. irAEs were defined as severe with one or more grade 3 or above events (CTCAE v5.0), multiple organ involvement, or requiring hospitalization for management. Two hundred and eighty-four subjects who received COVID vaccinations from December 2020 and February 2022 were included in this analysis [median age at vaccination 67 years (IQR 59.0-75.0); 67.3% male]. Twenty-nine subjects (10.2%) developed severe irAEs, of which 12 subjects (41.4%) received ICI monotherapy, 10 subjects (34.5%) received combination ICI therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 7 subjects (24.1%) received ICI plus VEGFR-TKI therapy. Hospitalization occurred in 62% of subjects with severe irAEs, with a median duration of 3 days (IQR: 3.0-7.5 days). Immunosuppressive therapy was required in 79.3%, with a median duration of 103 days (IQR: 42.0-179.0). ICI therapy was discontinued in 51.7% of subjects with severe irAE; dosing was held or interrupted in 34.5%. Among severe irAEs, the median interval between vaccination and ICI treatment closest to the occurrence of severe irAE was 15.5 days (IQR: 10.0-23.0). In solid tumor cancer subjects receiving ICIs, COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with an increased incidence of severe irAEs compared to historical data and may be safely administered during ICI cancer therapy in subjects who lack contraindications.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

A Rare Case Presentation of Vitiligo Associated With Atezolizumab.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are monoclonal antibodies used in the treatment of solid and hematologic malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors target the T-cell deactivation system via the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) receptor, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor, and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). As a result, the activated T-cell enhances the host tumor response. However, even with their essential clinical benefits, ICIs are associated with a broad spectrum of adverse effects that can be generalized or tissue-specific inflammatory responses known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The most common dermatologic toxicity manifests mainly as maculopapular rash and pruritus. Understanding the complexity of immune-mediated response and the importance of clinical histopathologic correlation in recognizing irAEs allows for appropriate intervention and patient care due. We present the case of a 71-year-old African American male diagnosed with a large-cell poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumor in the gastroesophageal junction of the stomach with mediastinal lymphadenopathy. He was treated with carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab for 4 cycles. However, he developed vitiligo while on maintenance atezolizumab, which is rarely seen with atezolizumab use. Despite the improving clinical outcomes in oncology with ICIs, their adverse effects should not be ignored. When promptly recognized and treated, patients on ICI monotherapy may not need treatment interruption or discontinuation.

Neoadjuvant Cemiplimab for Stage II to IV Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a pilot study involving patients with cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, a high percentage of patients had a pathological complete response with the use of two doses of neoadjuvant cemiplimab before surgery. Data from a phase 2 study are needed to confirm these findings. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2, confirmatory, multicenter, nonrandomized study to evaluate cemiplimab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable stage II, III, or IV (M0) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients received cemiplimab, administered at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to four doses, before undergoing surgery with curative intent. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen) on independent review at a central laboratory, with a null hypothesis that a pathological complete response would be observed in 25% of patients. Key secondary end points included a pathological major response (the presence of viable tumor cells that constitute ≤10% of the surgical specimen) on independent review, a pathological complete response and a pathological major response on investigator assessment at a local laboratory, an objective response on imaging, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant cemiplimab. On independent review, a pathological complete response was observed in 40 patients (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39 to 62) and a pathological major response in 10 patients (13%; 95% CI, 6 to 22). These results were consistent with the pathological responses determined on investigator assessment. An objective response on imaging was observed in 54 patients (68%; 95% CI, 57 to 78). Adverse events of any grade that occurred during the study period, regardless of whether they were attributed to the study treatment, were observed in 69 patients (87%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred during the study period were observed in 14 patients (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy with cemiplimab was associated with a pathological complete response in a high percentage of patients with resectable cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04154943.).

Recurrent and atypical immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced pneumonitis.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a monoclonal antibody against the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor on lymphocytes, which is one of the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved for multiple solid and hematologic malignancies. Although ICIs have proven to be more effective and less toxic compared to chemotherapy, there are reports of adverse side effects with ICIs. For example, pneumonitis is a potentially lethal side effect occurring in 1%-5% of patients who received ICIs in clinical trials, and there are case reports with clinical and radiological features of checkpoint inhibitor-pneumonitis (CIP). CASE REPORT: We report an unusual case of pneumonitis with atypical imaging in a patient who received pembrolizumab for metastatic p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue. We discuss the approach to the recognition and management of atypical CIP in patients on pembrolizumab with the intent to standardize workup and increase awareness among healthcare providers in the new era of immunotherapy. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Serologic workup including laboratory studies for complete blood count (CBC), lactate, procalcitonin, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), Legionella, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Coccidioides, Coxiella, and viral respiratory panel were negative for infectious processes. Since CIP was suspected, the patient was started on steroid therapy. Interval computed tomography (CT) of the chest without contrast showed a resolution of pneumonitis. DISCUSSION: In this case report, we discuss our workup of CIP and initial testing to rule out other possible causes of the patient's symptoms and radiographic findings, and management of the patient's diagnosis of atypical CIP which led to complete clinical recovery from CIP.

A study of the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of extended durvalumab dosing in patients with stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab following chemoradiation in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to improved outcomes. The schedule of administration has been determined by pharmacokinetic studies. This study evaluates real-world efficacy and safety outcomes of extended dosing (ED) vs. standard dosing (SD) of durvalumab. METHODS: Stage III NSCLC patients treated at the Cancer center of Southeastern Ontario with consolidative durvalumab from March 2017-December 2020 were included. Patient characteristics and outcomes were evaluated through retrospective review. Comparisons were made using chi-square and t-tests. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyze overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were included; 15 (43%) switched to ED. Distant recurrence rates were higher in the ED group (53% vs. 20%, p = 0.07), with no differences in the sites of disease recurrence. A similar proportion of patients were alive in the ED vs. SD group (93% vs. 80%, p = 0.3), with no significant difference in OS. There were less grade 3 or greater immune-related adverse events in the ED group (0% vs. 20%). Treatment discontinuation occurred in 47% vs. 50% in the ED vs. SD groups, respectively, owing to toxicity in 20% of patients in the ED group vs. 40% in the SD group. CONCLUSIONS: Extended dosing has similar efficacy and toxicity to standard dosing; however, there was a higher rate of toxicity necessitating discontinuation in the SD group, which may have impacted the clinical decision-making to switch to ED. Our data is limited by a small sample size and should be further validated in larger cohorts.

Monoclonal Antibodies as Long-Acting Products: What Are We Learning From Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

Broadly neutralizing antibodies directed against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) offer promise as long-acting agents for prevention and treatment of HIV. Progress and challenges are discussed. Lessons may be learned from the development of monoclonal antibodies to treat and prevent COVID-19.

Real-life data on monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs in Italian inborn errors of immunity patients during COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus showing a spectrum of disease ranging from asymptomatic to severe COVID-19. A fair number of patients did not respond adequately to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, thus early therapeutic or prophylactic measures were needed to prevent severe or fatal course or COVID-19 and to reduce the burden of hospitalizations. Methods: Longitudinal, multicentric study on patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity immunized with mRNA vaccines treated with monoclonal antibodies and/or antiviral agents at the first infection and at reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. Analyses of efficacy were performed according to the different circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains. Results: The analysis of the cohort of 192 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, across 26 months, showed the efficacy of antivirals on the risk of hospitalization, while mabs offered a positive effect on hospitalization, and COVID-19 severity. This protection was consistent across the alpha, delta and early omicron waves, although the emergence of BA.2 reduced the effect of available mabs. Hospitalized patients treated with mabs and antivirals had a lower risk of ICU admission. We reported 16 re-infections with a length of SARS-CoV-2 positivity at second infection shorter among patients treated with mabs. Treatment with antivirals and mabs was safe. Conclusions: The widespread use of specific therapy, vaccination and better access to care might have contributed to mitigate risk of mortality, hospital admission, and severe disease. However, the rapid spread of new viral strains underlines that mabs and antiviral beneficial effects should be re- evaluated over time.

The Omicron variant of concern: Diversification and convergent evolution in spike protein, and escape from anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies.

WHO-defined SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) drive therapeutics and vaccine development. The Omicron VOC is dominating the arena since November 2021, but the number of its sublineages is growing in complexity. Omicron represent a galaxy with a myriad of stars that suddenly rise and expand before collapsing into apparent extinction when a more fit sublineage appears. This has already happened with BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5 and is happening with BA.2.75. We review here the current PANGO phylogeny, focusing on sublineages with Spike mutations, and show how frequently xxxxxxxx convergent evolution has occurred in these sublineages. We finally summarize how Omicron evolution has progressively defeated the anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies authorized so far, leaving clinicians to again fall back on COVID19 convalescent plasma from vaccinated donors as the only antibody-based therapy available.

The impact of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies on clinical outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Despite progress in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), more clinical data to support the use of mAbs in outpatients with COVID-19 is needed. This study is designed to determine the impact of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, or casirivimab/imdevimab on clinical outcomes within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic medical center with 3 campuses in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island, NY. Patients 12 years of age or older who tested positive for COVID-19 or were treated with a COVID-19-specific therapy, including COVID-19 mAb therapies, at the study site between November 24, 2020, and May 15, 2021, were included. The primary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visit, inpatient admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death within 30 days from the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1,344 mAb-treated patients were propensity matched to 1,344 patients with COVID-19 patients who were not treated with mAb therapy. Within 30 days of diagnosis, among the patients who received mAb therapy, 101 (7.5%) presented to the ED and 79 (5.9%) were admitted. Among the patients who did not receive mAb therapy, 165 (12.3%) presented to the ED and 156 (11.6%) were admitted (relative risk [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75] and 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.64], respectively). Four mAb patients (0.3%) and 2.64 control patients (0.2%) were admitted to the ICU (RR, 01.51; 95% CI, 0.45-5.09). Six mAb-treated patients (0.4%) and 3.37 controls (0.3%) died and/or were admitted to hospice (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.54-4.83). mAb therapy in ambulatory patients with COVID-19 decreases the risk of ED presentation and hospital admission within 30 days of diagnosis.

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.

Promising Immune Treatment of Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Cemiplimab-Real-World Experience in the Global SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most frequent non-melanoma skin cancer. The standard curative treatment is surgical resection, but the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic disease apart from radiotherapy is currently based on cemiplimab. Cemiplimab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of advanced and metastatic cSCC in clinical trials, although real-world data are still limited. We present four cases of cSCC, which showed a tremendous response to cemiplimab-one patient achieved complete response and three of them achieved partial response. Immunotherapy with cemiplimab, a recently approved PD1 inhibitor, is an important addition to the cutaneous oncology therapeutic options that may be considered in patients with advanced disease not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy. In all four cases, the patients postponed visits to the doctor because of the fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection or for administrative and organizational reasons declared difficult access to doctors caused by the pandemic.

Potent monoclonal antibodies neutralize Omicron sublineages and other SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The emergence and global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, which carry an unprecedented number of mutations, raise serious concerns due to the reduced efficacy of current vaccines and resistance to therapeutic antibodies. Here, we report the generation and characterization of two potent human monoclonal antibodies, NA8 and NE12, against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. NA8 interacts with a highly conserved region and has a breadth of neutralization with picomolar potency against the Beta variant and the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages and nanomolar potency against BA.2.12.1 and BA.4. Combination of NA8 and NE12 retains potent neutralizing activity against the major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Cryo-EM analysis provides the structural basis for the broad and complementary neutralizing activity of these two antibodies. We confirm the in vivo protective and therapeutic efficacies of NA8 and NE12 in the hamster model. These results show that broad and potent human antibodies can overcome the continuous immune escape of evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better). RESULTS: Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).

Spike-specific T-cell responses in patients with COVID-19 successfully treated with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 when administered during the initial days of infection. The action of moAbs may impair the generation or maintenance of effective immune memory, similar to that demonstrated in other viral diseases. We aimed to evaluate short-term memory T-cell responses in patients effectively treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab (SOT). METHODS: Spike (S)-specific T-cell responses were analyzed in 23 patients with COVID-19 (vaccinated or unvaccinated) before and after a median of 50 (range: 28-93) days from moAb treatment, compared with 11 vaccinated healthy controls. T-cell responses were measured by interferon-γ-enzyme-linked immunospot and flow cytometric activation-induced marker assay. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in S-specific T-cell responses was observed between patients treated with moAb and vaccinated healthy controls. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups showed significant increases in cellular responses in paired baseline/postrecovery series, as well as vaccinated patients receiving SOT. In contrast, unvaccinated patients prescribed SOT presented no statistically significant increases in T-cell-responses, suggesting diverse impacts of different moAbs on the evolution of S-specific T-cell responses in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. CONCLUSION: The moAbs did not hinder short-term memory S-specific T-cell responses in the overall group of patients; however, differences among moAbs must be further investigated both in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

A Single Center Retrospective Study of the Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Immune-related Adverse Events in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may affect the outcome of irAEs. Data are limited regarding the impact of COVID-19 on irAEs in ICI-treated cancer patients. Hence, in this study, we retrospectively analyzed ICI-treated adult patients with malignant solid tumors at a single institution between August 2020 and August 2021. Patients who had the most recent ICI treatment over 1-month before or after the positive COVID-19 test were excluded from the study. For the COVID-19 positive group, only the irAEs that developed after COVID-19 infection were considered as events. A total of 579 patients were included in our study, with 46 (7.9%) in the COVID-19 positive group and 533 (92.1%) in the COVID-19 negative group. The baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were similar. With a median follow-up of 331 days (range: 21-2226), we noticed a nonsignificant higher incidence of all-grade irAEs in the COVID-19 positive group (30.4% vs. 19.9%, P =0.18). The incidence of grade 3 and 4 irAEs was significantly higher in the COVID-19 positive group (10.9% vs. 3.2%, P =0.02). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association between COVID-19 infection and increased risk of severe irAE development (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.14, P =0.01). Our study suggested that COVID-19 may pose a risk of severe irAEs in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Close monitoring and possibly delaying ICI administration could be considered when cancer patients are infected with COVID-19.

Assessing the Combined Public Health Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions on Pandemic Transmission and Mortality: An Example in SARS CoV-2.

To assess the combined role of anti-viral monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and vaccines in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and mortality in the United States, an agent-based model was developed that accounted for social contacts, movement/travel, disease progression, and viral shedding. The model was calibrated to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality between October 2020 and April 2021 (aggressive pandemic phase), and projected an extended outlook to estimate mortality during a less aggressive phase (April-August 2021). Simulated scenarios evaluated mAbs for averting infections and deaths in addition to vaccines and aggregated non-pharmaceutical interventions. Scenarios included mAbs as a treatment of COVID-19 and for passive immunity for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) during a period when variants were susceptible to the mAbs. Rapid diagnostic testing paired with mAbs was evaluated as an early treatment-as-prevention strategy. Sensitivity analyses included increasing mAb supply and vaccine rollout. Allocation of mAbs for use only as PEP averted up to 14% more infections than vaccine alone, and targeting individuals ≥ 65 years averted up to 37% more deaths. Rapid testing for earlier diagnosis and mAb use amplified these benefits. Doubling the mAb supply further reduced infections and mortality. mAbs provided benefits even as proportion of the immunized population increased. Model projections estimated that ~ 42% of expected deaths between April and August 2021 could be averted. Assuming sensitivity to mAbs, their use as early treatment and PEP in addition to vaccines would substantially reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and mortality even as vaccination increases and mortality decreases. These results provide a template for informing public health policy for future pandemic preparedness.