Tulledge‐Scheitel, Sidna M.

ABSTRACT Although severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hospitalization associated with COVID-19 are generally preventable among healthy vaccine recipients, patients with immunosuppression have poor immunogenic responses to COVID-19 vaccines and remain at high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalization. In addition, monoclonal antibody therapy is limited by the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants that have serially escaped neutralization. In this context, there is interest in understanding the clinical benefit associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma collected from persons who have been both naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (“vax-plasma”). Thus, we report the clinical outcome of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and who received contemporary COVID-19-specific therapeutics (standard-of-care group) and a subgroup who also received concomitant treatment with very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (vax-plasma group) with a specific focus on hospitalization rates. The overall hospitalization rate was 2.2% (5 of 225 patients) in the vax-plasma group and 6.2% (10 of 161 patients) in the standard-of-care group, which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 65% ( P = 0.046). Evidence of efficacy in nonvaccinated patients cannot be inferred from these data because 94% (361 of 386 patients) of patients were vaccinated. In vaccinated patients with immunosuppression and COVID-19, the addition of vax-plasma or very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to COVID-19-specific therapies reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. IMPORTANCE As SARS-CoV-2 evolves, new variants of concern (VOCs) have emerged that evade available anti-spike monoclonal antibodies, particularly among immunosuppressed patients. However, high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma continues to be effective against VOCs because of its broad-spectrum immunomodulatory properties. Thus, we report clinical outcomes of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were treated with COVID-19-specific therapeutics and a subgroup also treated with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma. We found that the administration of vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of hospitalization among immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatients. Our data add to the contemporary data providing evidence to support the clinical utility of high-titer convalescent plasma as antibody replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients.

Abstract Background Two independent placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted prior to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron demonstrated that sotrovimab and remdesivir reduced hospitalization among high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, their effectiveness have not been directly compared. Methods This retrospective study examined all high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received either remdesivir or sotrovimab at Mayo Clinic during the Omicron BA.1 surge from January to March 2022. COVID-19-related hospitalization or death within 28 days were compared between the two treatment groups. Results Among 3,257 patients, 2,158 received sotrovimab and 1,099 received remdesivir. Patients treated with sotrovimab were younger (median age, 60 vs. 69 years) and had lower comorbidity (Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score, 5 vs. 6; Charlson Comorbidity Index, 3 vs. 4), but were more likely to be immunocompromised (47.3% vs. 30.2%) than remdesivir-treated patients. The majority (89%) had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (median, 3 doses [IQR 2-3] for both groups). COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.5% and 1.0% in remdesivir and sotrovimab groups, respectively, p=.15) and mortality within 28 days (0.4% in both groups, p=.82) were similarly low. A propensity score weighted analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the rates of COVID-related hospitalization and death within 28 days between the two groups. Conclusion This study demonstrated favorable outcomes that were not significantly different between patients treated with remdesivir or sotrovimab. As sotrovimab is no longer authorized, these results support the continued use of remdesivir for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 during the current Omicron-predominant epoch. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria Maria Gonzalez Suarez, M.D., Ph.D., Gilead: Grant/Research Support Ravindra Ganesh, M.B.B.S., M.D., Alpaca Health: Advisor/Consultant Raymund R. Razonable, MD, Allovir: Endpoint Adjudication Committee|American Society of Transplantation: Board Member|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: DSMB|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support

Abstract Background Antispike monoclonal antibodies are recommended for early treatment of high-risk persons with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical outcomes of their use during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron wave are limited. Methods This is a descriptive retrospective study of high-risk adult patients who received treatment with sotrovimab (January 1–March 20, 2022) or bebtelovimab (March 21–April 30, 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe outcome within 30 days after receiving antispike-neutralizing monoclonal antibody infusion. Results A total of 3872 high-risk patients (median age, 62.7 years; 41.1% male) with mild to moderate COVID-19 received sotrovimab (n = 2182) or bebtelovimab (n = 1690). Among sotrovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were an immunosuppressed condition (46.7%), hypertension (38.2%), and diabetes (21.2%). The rates of severe outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality were 2.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, after sotrovimab infusion. Among bebtelovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (42.7%), diabetes (17.1%), and an immunosuppressed condition (17.0%). The rates of severe disease, ICU admission, and mortality were 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.2%, respectively, after bebtelovimab infusion. Older age, immunosuppressed status, and several comorbidities were associated with severe disease progression, while COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk. No anaphylaxis was reported during monoclonal antibody infusion. Conclusions This real-world analysis of a large cohort of high-risk patients demonstrates low rates of severe disease after treatment with sotrovimab during the era dominated by Omicron B.1.1.529 and after treatment with bebtelovimab during the era dominated by BA.2 and Omicron subvariants.

Abstract The effectiveness of bebtelovimab in real-world settings has not been assessed. In this retrospective cohort study of 3607 high-risk patients, bebtelovimab was used more commonly than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and those with multiple comorbid conditions. Despite its use in patients with multiple comorbid conditions, the rate of progression to severe disease after bebtelovimab (1.4% [95% confidence interval, 1.2%–1.7%]) was not significantly different from that for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (1.2% [.8%–1.5%]). Our findings support the emergency use authorization of bebtelovimab for treatment of COVID-19 during the Omicron epoch dominated by BA.2 and subvariants.

Abstract In a cohort of 483 high-risk patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19, 2 patients (0.4%) required hospitalization by day 30. Four patients (0.8%) experienced rebound of symptoms, which were generally mild, at a median of 9 days after treatment, and all resolved without additional COVID-19–directed therapy.

Objective: The purpose of this report is to describe the elements of a Covid-19 Care Clinic (CCC), patient demographics, and outcomes. Methods: Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. This report is based on 4934 unique patients seen in the CCC who provided research authorization within a 10-month period of time (April 1, 2020-January 31, 2021). The CCC infection control processes consisted of a rooming process that mitigated SARS-COV-2 transmission, preparing examination rooms, using PPE by staff, in room lab drawing, and escorting services to minimize the time in clinic. Results: Of the 4934 unique patients seen (age range newborn-102 years), 76.8% were tested for COVID-19. Of those tested, 11.8% were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Ninety-two percent of the patients with the reason for the visit documented had COVID-19 type symptoms. Cough, shortness of breath, and chest pain were the most common presenting symptom in those with COVID-19. At the time of the visit in the CCC, 5.8% of the patients were actively contagious. Thirty days after being seen in the CCC, 9.1% of the patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) and 0.2% died. During the 10-month period there were no known occupationally related COVID-19 infections. Conclusion: The COVID-19 Care Clinic provided face-to-face access for all ages with COVID-19 type symptoms. A minority of patients had COVID-19 who were seen in the clinic. The clinic provided an additional venue of care outside of the ED. The infectious control measures employed were highly effective in protecting the staff. Lessons learned allow for decentralization of COVID-19 symptom care to the primary care practices employing the infection control measures.

Abstract Background Breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may occur in fully vaccinated persons. Methods We assessed the clinical outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals. Results In this cohort of 1395 persons (mean age, 54.3 years; 60% female; median body mass index, 30.7) who developed breakthrough COVID- 19, there were 107 (7.7%) who required hospitalization by day 28. Hospitalization was significantly associated with the number of medical comorbidities. Antispike monoclonal antibody treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.227; 95% confidence interval, 0.128–0.403; P < .001). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 hospitalization was 225 among the lowest risk patient group compared with NNT of 4 among those with highest numbers of medical comorbidity. Conclusions Monoclonal antibody treatment is associated with reduced hospitalization in vaccinated high-risk persons with mild to moderate COVID-19.

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.

Abstract Background Residents of nursing homes and long‐term care facilities are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) but may not be able to access monoclonal antibody therapies offered at outpatient infusion centers due to frailty and logistical issues. We describe a mobile monoclonal antibody infusion program for patients with COVID‐19 in skilled nursing facilities and provide descriptive data on its outcomes. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Collaboration between Mayo Clinic and skilled nursing facilities in Southeast Minnesota was developed to administer anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization. Participants Seventy five residents of skilled nursing facilities at high risk of COVID‐19 complications. Exposure Emergency use treatment with bamlanivimab and casirivimab–imdevimab. Measurements Hospitalization and medically attended visits. Results The mobile infusion unit, staffed by Mayo Clinic Infusion Therapy registered nurses and supported by the skilled nursing facility staff, infused anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies to 45 of 75 patients (average age, 77.8 years) in December 2020. The infusions occurred at an average of 4.3 days after COVID‐19 diagnosis. Fourteen days after infusion, there were no deaths, two emergency department visits, and three hospitalizations, for a combined event rate of 11.1%. There was one reported adverse event. Conclusion The implementation of a mobile infusion unit embedded in a collaborative process resulted in rapid infusion of monoclonal antibodies to high‐risk COVID‐19 patients in skilled nursing facilities, who would otherwise be unable to access the novel therapies. The therapies were well tolerated and appear beneficial. Further study is warranted to explore the scalability and efficacy of this program.

Introduction Telehealth service provision has accelerated during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As the pandemic continues, clinical practices have discovered ways to resume operations. Opportunities exist to understand patient preferences for telehealth clinical services and to tailor offerings to different demographic groups. Methods We conducted a survey of patients receiving telehealth services through our outpatient practice to understand the types of healthcare services for which patients report preferences for telehealth. Results We received 551 survey responses (response rate = 20.8%; 551/2650). More than half of patients indicated being ‘very likely’ to use telehealth services to refill medication(s) (67.3%), prepare for an upcoming visit (66.1%), review test results (60.3%), or receive education (54.2%). Males had lower odds of preferring telehealth services for reviewing test results (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34–0.94) or mental health issues (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.38–0.77). Respondents who received a video visit were significantly more likely than those who received a telephone visit to report preferences for using telehealth for education, care plan discussions, long-term health issues, and mental health. Discussion Patient preferences for telehealth services vary by services provided and respondent demographics. Experience with telehealth increases the likelihood for future use of these services.