Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab as SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Lung Transplant Recipients during the Omicron Wave: A Real-World Monocentric Experience.

Lung transplant recipients (LTRs) respond poorly to vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TIX/CIL) reduces the incidence of infection and the evolution to severe COVID-19. In vitro data show decreased activity against Omicron variants. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of TIX/CIL in LTRs during the Omicron wave. A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at ISMETT in Palermo (Italy). In June 2022, SARS-CoV-2 PrEP with TIX/CIL 150/150 mg was offered to LTRs. LTRs who received TIX/CIL were compared to LTRs who did not. Logistic regression analysis (adjusted for prior COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, age, years from transplant, and rejection) was performed. The objective of this study was to compare the following among the two populations: prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, length of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and COVID-19 disease severity. Among 110 eligible LTRs, 79 (72%) received TIX/CIL and 31 (28%) did not. SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 6% (n = 5) of patients who received TIX/CIL and 29% (n = 9) of patients who did not (p < 0.001). In both groups, infections were mild/asymptomatic, and no one was hospitalized or died. At multivariate analysis, TIX/CIL was associated with a lower risk of infection (aOR 0.22; 95%CI 0.06-0.78; p = 0.02). TIX/CIL was safe and effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 in LTRs during the Omicron wave.

Impact of recipients' socio-economic status on patient and graft survival after liver transplantation: the IsMeTT experience.

AIM: We aimed to determine whether education level and socioeconomic status in a cohort of liver transplant recipients in the south of Italy were potential predictors of graft and patient survival. METHODS: This retrospective study included 221 liver transplant recipients at Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad Alta Specializzazione between January 2006 and September 2009. Donor gender and age, cold ischaemic time, extended criteria donors, recipient age, gender, body mass index, primary aetiology, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, co-morbidities, patient health score assessed on the basis of clinical follow-up, highest level of education achieved, and socioeconomic status were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival measured by education level and socioeconomic status showed a higher survival rate in patients with higher education level (p=0.04) and socioeconomic status (p=0.01). After adjusting for all covariables, results of the multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that only socioeconomic status remained an independent and significant predictor of overall survival (Hazard Ratio=0.16, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Patient survival after liver transplantation was influenced by low income, low educational level, and lack of access to quality health care. Prospective clinical studies are necessary to fully identify the impact of socioeconomic status on long-term health outcomes, and to propose an evidence-based guide to clinical intervention.