Setting up of a hospital Covid‐19 vaccination center: A descriptive study

Background and Aims The coronavirus pandemic challenged countries worldwide in a race against contaminations and variants. Vaccination campaigns were the answer to such an infectious spread. This descriptive study presents the organizational process of the setting up of a Covid‐19 vaccination center in a French University Hospital in January 2021, the issues encountered along the way and assessment of adaptability. Methods Three major stakeholders: SARS CoV‐2 crisis referent, referring vaccination medical doctor and referring vaccination pharmacist retraced key moments and identified issues encountered during the setting up of the vaccination center and its long term maintenance, threw a series of meetings. Records of crisis and periodic meetings that took place threw out the vaccination campaign were consulted. Results A multidisciplinary crisis steering committee with nine different professionals was created January 3. Logistics for the vaccination center opening were discussed: location, informatics, appointment‐scheduling, pharmaceutical circuit, internal circuit, human resources, and information communication. The vaccination center was ready to welcome healthcare workers in less than 24 h on January 4. The first month, 2757 1st shots were administered, leading up to a total of 9167 1st shots during 6 months of activity. From January to June 2021, the multidisciplinary group dealt and adapted its processes to challenging and unexpected situations. Indeed, issues encountered with Pfizer BioNTech's and AstraZeneca's vaccine, were: supply shortages, vaccine manipulation, targeted populations, pharmacovigilance, and general communication. Conclusion This descriptive study provides an exclusive insight on how a hospital vaccination center was organized and adapted during Covid‐19 pandemic to ensure healthcare workers' security and resilience, and to protect high risk patients of severe Covid‐19 infection.

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.

Early Administration of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies Prevents Severe COVID-19 in Kidney Transplant Patients.

Introduction: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are prone to develop severe COVID-19 and are less well protected by vaccine than immunocompetent subjects. Thus, the use of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (MoAb) to confer a passive immunity appears attractive in KTRs. Methods: We performed a French nationwide study to compare COVID-19-related hospitalization, 30-day admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and 30-day death between KTRs who received an early infusion of MoAb (MoAb group) and KTRs who did not (control group). Controls were identified from the COVID-SFT registry (NCT04360707) using a propensity score matching with the following covariates: age, sex, delay between transplantation and infection, induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy, initial symptoms, and comorbidities. Results: A total of 80 KTRs received MoAb between February 2021 and June 2021. They were matched to 155 controls. COVID-19-related hospitalization, 30-day admission to ICU, and 30-day death were less frequently observed in the MoAb group (35.0% vs. 49.7%, P = 0.032; 2.5% vs. 15.5%, P = 0.002; 1.25% vs. 11.6%, P = 0.005, respectively). No patient required mechanical ventilation in the MoAb group. The number of patients to treat to prevent 1 death was 9.7. Conclusion: The early use of MoAb in KTRs with a mild form of COVID-19 largely improved outcomes in KTRs.

Severe relapse of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a kidney transplant recipient with negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR after rituximab.

Immunocompromised patients may experience prolonged viral shedding after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, symptomatic relapses after remission currently remain rare. We herein describe a severe COVID-19 relapse case of a kidney transplant recipient (KTR) following rituximab therapy, 3 months after a moderate COVID-19 infection, despite viral clearance after recovery of the first episode. During the clinical relapse, the diagnosis was established on a broncho-alveolar lavage specimen (BAL) by RT-PCR. The infectivity of the BAL sample was confirmed on a cell culture assay. Whole genome sequencing confirmed the presence of an identical stain (Clade 20A). However, it had an acquired G142D mutation and a larger deletion of 3-amino-acids at position 143-145. These mutations located within the N-terminal domain are suggested to play a role in viral entry. The diagnosis of a COVID-19 relapse should be considered in the setting of unexplained persistent fever and/or respiratory symptoms in KTRs (especially for those after rituximab therapy), even in patients with previous negative naso-pharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR.

Weak antibody response to three doses of mRNA vaccine in kidney transplant recipients treated with belatacept.

Poor responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine have been reported after 2 vaccine injections in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) treated with belatacept. We analyzed the humoral response in belatacept-treated KTRs without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received three injections of BNT162b2-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. We also investigated vaccine immunogenicity in belatacept-treated KTRs with prior COVID-19 and characterized symptomatic COVID-19 infections after the vaccine in belatacept-treated KTRs. Among the 62 belatacept-treated KTRs (36 [58%] males), the median age (63.5 years IQR [51-72]), without COVID-19 history, only four patients (6.4%) developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG with low antibody titers (median 209, IQR [20-409] AU/ml). 71% were treated with mycophenolic acid and 100% with steroids in association with belatacept. In contrast, in all the 5 KTRs with prior COVID-19 history, mRNA vaccine induced a strong antibody response with high antibody titers (median 10 769 AU/ml, IQR [6410-20 069]) after two injections. Seroprevalence after three-vaccine doses in 35 non-belatacept-treated KTRs was 37.1%. Twelve KTRs developed symptomatic COVID-19 after vaccination, including severe forms (50% of mortality). Breakthrough COVID-19 occurred in 5% of fully vaccinated patients. Administration of a third dose of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine did not improve immunogenicity in KTRs treated with belatacept without prior COVID-19. Other strategies aiming to improve patient protection are needed.

Impact of public health measures on the post-COVID-19 respiratory syncytial virus epidemics in France.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, other respiratory illnesses decreased worldwide. This study described the consequences of public health measures on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) severe infections in France, where an interseasonal resurgence of RSV occurred recently. All patients admitted to Necker Hospital (Paris) between August 2018 and April 2021 with a diagnosis of RSV-associated acute lung respiratory infection (ALRI) were enrolled. Characteristics of subjects with RSV-associated ALRI in 2020/2021 were compared to those infected during the two previous outbreaks. Overall, 664 inpatients were diagnosed with RSV-associated ALRI: 229, 183, and 252 during the 2018/2019, 2019/2020, and 2020/2021 outbreaks, respectively. During autumn 2020, a national lockdown began in France but schools remained open. A 3-month delayed RSV epidemic occurred at the end of this lockdown. Compared to previous outbreaks, the 2020/2021 epidemics involved more children aged 6 to 11 months (25.8% versus 13.1%, p < 0.0001), but less infants aged < 6 months (41.3% versus 56.6%, p < 0.0001) and less adults (0.0 versus 2.7%, p < 0.0001). Shorter length of stay at hospital, less frequent requirement of admission to intensive care unit, use of non-invasive ventilation, and/or high-flow nasal oxygen were observed in 2020/2021 than during previous epidemics (p < 0.0001). Delayed RSV outbreak was associated with more hospitalizations for ALRI, higher age of pediatric inpatients, but milder median clinical phenotype. Reinforced public health measures (even while keeping nurseries and schools open with mandatory face masks since six years of age) could impact, at least transiently, the burden of RSV-related hospitalizations.

COVID-19 severity in kidney transplant recipients is similar to nontransplant patients with similar comorbidities.

Higher rates of severe COVID-19 have been reported in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared to nontransplant patients. We aimed to determine if poorer outcomes were specifically related to chronic immunosuppression or underlying comorbidities. We used a 1:1 propensity score-matching method to compare survival and severe disease-free survival (defined as death and/or need for intensive care unit [ICU]) incidence in hospitalized KTRs and nontransplant control patients between February 26 and May 22, 2020. Patients were matched for risk factors of severe COVID-19: age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, preexisting cardiopathy, chronic lung disease, and basal renal function. We included 100 KTRs (median age [interquartile range (IQR)]) 64.7 years (55.3-73.1) in three French transplant centers. After a median follow-up of 13 days (7-30), transfer to ICU was required for 34 patients (34%) and death occurred in 26 patients (26%). Overall, 43 patients (43%) developed a severe disease during a median follow-up of 8.5 days (2-14). Propensity score matching to a large French cohort of 2017 patients hospitalized in 24 centers, revealed that survival was similar between KTRs and matched nontransplant patients with respective 30-day survival of 62.9% and 71% (p = .38) and severe disease-free 30-day survival of 50.6% and 47.5% (p = .91). These findings suggest that severity of COVID-19 in KTRs is related to their associated comorbidities and not to chronic immunosuppression.