Speicher, Leigh L.

Abstract As of 2021 November 29, booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection has been recommended for all individuals aged 18 years and older in the United States. A key reason for this recommendation is the expectation that a booster vaccine dose can alleviate observed waning of vaccine effectiveness (VE). Although initial reports of booster effectiveness have been positive, the level of protection from booster vaccination is unclear. We conducted two studies to assess the impact of booster vaccination, with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection between August and December 2021. We first compared SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence in cohorts of 3-dose vaccine recipients to incidence in matched cohorts of 2-dose vaccine recipients (cohort size = 24,539 for BNT162b2 and 14,004 for mRNA-1273). Additionally, we applied a test-negative study design to compare the level of protection against symptomatic infection in 3-dose recipients to that observed in recent 2-dose primary vaccine series recipients. The 3-dose recipients experienced a significantly lower incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the matched 2-dose cohorts (BNT162b2 Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.13 and mRNA-1273 IRR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.15). Results from the test-negative study showed the third vaccine dose mitigated waning of VE, with the risk of symptomatic infection in 3-dose recipients being comparable to that observed 7 to 73 days after the primary vaccine series. These results show that 3-dose vaccine regimens with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 are effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection and support the widespread administration of booster vaccine doses.

AbstractBackgroundWhile COVID‐19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge.MethodsAll patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein, with a cut‐off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders.ResultsAmong 627 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0–57.0] vs. 5 [1.0–31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low‐titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high‐titer patients.ConclusionsHospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low‐spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.

Abstract We characterized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough cases admitted to a single center in Florida. With the emergence of delta variant, an increased number of hospitalizations was seen due to breakthrough infections. These patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities. Preventive measures should be maintained even after vaccination.

Abstract Background Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. Methods Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. Results The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9–2.2] and 1.6 [.8–2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. Conclusions This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

1503 Background: Patients with cancer and COVID-19 are at risk for poor clinical outcomes. An established multi-site remote patient monitoring (RPM) service was rapidly adapted to support a novel, interdisciplinary COVID-19 program for outpatient management of patients at high-risk for severe illness. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the RPM program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a multi-site prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). All adult patients with active cancer – defined as currently receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance – and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020 were included. RPM was comprised of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nurse and physician oversight. Results: During the study timeframe 224 cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 at MCCC. Initial management included urgent hospitalization (within 48 hours of diagnosis) in 34 patients (15%). Of the remaining 190 patients (85%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.036 to 12.01, P = 0.044). Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity weighting, rates of hospital admission for RPM and non-RPM patients were 3.1% and 11% respectively, implying that RPM was associated with an 8% reduction in hospital admission rate (-0.077; 95% CI: -0.315 to -0.019, P = 0.009). Use of RPM was also associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the midst of a global pandemic associated with inpatient bed, ventilator, and PPE shortages, the RPM program provided an effective strategy for outpatient clinical management and was associated with decreased rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19. This care model enabled simultaneous opportunity to mitigate the increased risks of exposure, transmission, and resource utilization associated with conventional care.

Abstract Background Limited data are available on the development of skin cancer and the associated risk factors for non‐White liver transplant (LT) recipients. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of newly diagnosed skin cancer postoperatively and to identify the risk factors for the development of skin cancer in non‐White LT recipients. Methods We conducted an initial retrospective chart review of non‐White LT patients who received a transplant at our center between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. Results Of the 96 patients in the study cohort, 32% were Black, 17% were Asian, 15% were White Hispanic, and 10% were Black Hispanic. One patient had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer before transplant. No skin cancers were diagnosed during follow‐up (median, 1.3 years; range, 17 days to 8.6 years). Conclusion Our center’s experience is consistent with the literature and suggests that the incidence of newly diagnosed skin cancer in non‐White liver transplant recipients is low. Longer follow‐up may provide additional insights into the specific risk factors for the posttransplant development of skin cancer.

AbstractBackgroundRelatively few cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) patients with were included in the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial II (MSLT‐II). Our objective was to investigate whether immediate completion lymph node dissection completion of lymph node dissection (CLND) was associated with survival benefit for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive CHNM using the National Cancer Database.MethodsSLN positive patients with CHNM from 2012 to 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) only versus those who underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The primary outcome was 5‐year overall survival (OS).ResultsAmong 530 SLNB + patients, 342 patients underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The SLNB only group had fewer positive SLN, less advanced pathologic stage, and a lower rate of adjuvant immunotherapy. There was no significant difference in 5‐year OS between the two groups (51.0% vs 67%; P = .56). After adjusting for pathologic stage, there remained no difference in 5‐year OS among patients with stage IIIA (63.0% vs. 73.6%, P = 0.22) or IIIB/IIIC disease (39.1% vs 57.8%; P = .52).ConclusionsUsing a large nationwide database, CLND was not shown to be associated with improved OS for patients with SLNB positive CHNM, validating the results of MSLT‐II.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is taking a massive toll on health care systems globally. We developed the COVID-19 virtual clinic (CVC) in conjunction with drive through testing to cope with this situation. There are two arms of the CVC: (1) a screening arm and (2) positive patient arm. Screening is performed over the phone based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guideline. Positive patients are followed at regular intervals by video appointments where concerns can be addressed by a provider while also tracking symptom progression. We enrolled 63 positive patients out of 1,153 screened for COVID-19 as of this writing. The CVC continues to address patients' concerns and symptoms in an effort to minimize emergency department and hospital patient volumes, as incidence increases. Drive through testing in conjunction with a virtual clinic allows us to provide high-quality care in an anxious time without consuming excessive personal protective equipment or unnecessarily exposing health care workers. This article could serve as a model to guide other practices to cope with this and future pandemics.