SARS-CoV-2 elicits non-sterilizing immunity and evades vaccine-induced immunity: implications for future vaccination strategies.

Neither vaccination nor natural infection result in long-lasting protection against SARS-COV-2 infection and transmission, but both reduce the risk of severe COVID-19. To generate insights into optimal vaccination strategies for prevention of severe COVID-19 in the population, we extended a Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed (SEIR) mathematical model to compare the impact of vaccines that are highly protective against severe COVID-19 but not against infection and transmission, with those that block SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our analysis shows that vaccination strategies focusing on the prevention of severe COVID-19 are more effective than those focusing on creating of herd immunity. Key uncertainties that would affect the choice of vaccination strategies are: (1) the duration of protection against severe disease, (2) the protection against severe disease from variants that escape vaccine-induced immunity, (3) the incidence of long-COVID and level of protection provided by the vaccine, and (4) the rate of serious adverse events following vaccination, stratified by demographic variables.

Exploring the Role of Antiviral Nasal Sprays in the Control of Emerging Respiratory Infections in the Community.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that there is an unmet need for the development of novel prophylactic antiviral treatments to control the outbreak of emerging respiratory virus infections. Passive antibody-based immunisation approaches such as intranasal antibody prophylaxis have the potential to provide immediately accessible universal protection as they act directly at the most common route of viral entry, the upper respiratory tract. The need for such products is very apparent for SARS-CoV-2 at present, given the relatively low effectiveness of vaccines to prevent infection and block virus onward transmission. We explore the benefits and challenges of the use of antibody-based nasal sprays prior and post exposure to the virus. METHODS: The classic susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) mathematical model was extended to describe the potential population-level impact of intranasal antibody prophylaxis on controlling the spread of an emerging respiratory infection in the community. RESULTS: Intranasal administration of monoclonal antibodies provides only a short-term protection to the mucosal surface. Consequently, sustained intranasal antibody prophylaxis of a substantial proportion of the population would be needed to contain infections. Post-exposure prophylaxis against the development of severe disease would be essential for the overall reduction in hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Antibody-based nasal sprays could provide protection against infection to individuals that are likely to be exposed to the virus. Large-scale administration for a long period of time would be challenging. Intranasal antibody prophylaxis alone cannot prevent community-wide transmission of the virus. It could be used along with other protective measures, such as non-pharmaceutical interventions, to bridge the time required to develop and produce effective vaccines, and complement active immunisation strategies.

COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.

Rapid real-world data analysis of patients with cancer, with and without COVID-19, across distinct health systems.

BACKGROUND: The understanding of the impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is evolving, with need for rapid analysis. AIMS: This study aims to compare the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with cancer (with and without COVID-19) and characterize the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Real-world data (RWD) from two health systems were used to identify 146 702 adults diagnosed with cancer between 2015 and 2020; 1267 COVID-19 cases were identified between February 1 and July 30, 2020. Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics were extracted. Incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and invasive respiratory support was assessed between February 1 and August 14, 2020. Among patients with cancer, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be Non-Hispanic black (NHB), have active cancer, have comorbidities, and/or live in zip codes with median household income <$30 000. Patients with COVID-19 living in lower-income areas and NHB patients were at greatest risk for hospitalization from pneumonia, fluid and electrolyte disorders, cough, respiratory failure, and acute renal failure and were more likely to receive hydroxychloroquine. All-cause mortality, hospital admission, and invasive respiratory support were more frequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Male sex, increasing age, living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000, history of pulmonary circulation disorders, and recent treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy were associated with greater odds of all-cause mortality in multivariable logistic regression models. CONCLUSION: RWD can be rapidly leveraged to understand urgent healthcare challenges. Patients with cancer are more vulnerable to COVID-19 effects, especially in the setting of active cancer and comorbidities, with additional risk observed in NHB patients and those living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000.