In outpatients with COVID-19 during Omicron variant circulation, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved outcomes.

SOURCE CITATION: Sommer I, Ledinger D, Thaler K, et al. Outpatient treatment of confirmed COVID-19: a living, rapid evidence review for the American College of Physicians (version 2). Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1377-1385. 37722115.

Evaluating in vivo effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of Omicron subvariant BA.2 versus BA.1: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In vitro data suggested reduced neutralizing capacity of sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, against Omicron BA.2 subvariant. However, limited in vivo data exist regarding clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to Omicron BA.2. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at three Canadian academic tertiary centres. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥ 18 years with mild COVID-19 (sequencing-confirmed Omicron BA.1 or BA.2) treated with sotrovimab between February 1 to April 1, 2022. Thirty-day co-primary outcomes included hospitalization due to moderate or severe COVID-19; all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality. Risk differences (BA.2 minus BA.1 group) for co-primary outcomes were adjusted with propensity score matching (e.g., age, sex, vaccination, immunocompromised status). RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included (15 BA.2, 70 BA.1) with similar baseline characteristics between groups. Adjusted risk differences were non-statistically significant between groups for 30-day hospitalization (- 14.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 32.6 to 4.0%), ICU admission (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%), and mortality (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were demonstrated in hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates within 30 days between sotrovimab-treated patients with BA.1 versus BA.2 infection. More real-world data may be helpful to properly assess sotrovimab's effectiveness against infections due to specific emerging COVID-19 variants.

Overprescription of antibiotics for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review & meta-analysis.

Background: Empirical use of antibiotics was reported throughout the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, evidence of bacterial coinfection or secondary bacterial infection among COVID-19 patients was sparse. Antibiotic overprescription for COVID-19 patients without confirmed bacterial coinfection can increase antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objective of this study is to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic use during COVID-19 by summarizing the frequency of antibiotic use among hospitalized COVID-19 and the frequency of antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of the Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases by generating search terms using the concepts of "COVID-19," "Bacterial Coinfection," "Secondary bacterial infection," and "Antimicrobial resistance" to identify studies reporting antibiotic prescription for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with or without bacterial coinfection. We excluded studies on outpatients, studies informed infection due to mechanical ventilation, and randomized controlled trials. The pooled estimate of the percentage of the total and confirmed appropriate antibiotic prescriptions provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients was generated using a random effect meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting. The study protocol registration DOI is osf.io/d3fpm. Results: Of 157,623 participants from 29 studies (11 countries, 45 % women) included in our review, antibiotics were prescribed to 67 % of participants (CI 64 %-71 %, P < 0·001), of which 80 % (CI 76 %-83 %, P < 0·001) of prescriptions were for COVID-19 patients without confirmed bacterial coinfections. Antibiotic overprescription varied during different periods of the pandemic and between High-Income and Upper and Lower Middle-Income Countries. We found heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 100 %). The risk of bias analysis showed that 100 % of the included studies had the proper sample framing, and we are at low risk of bias due to sampling. Discussion: We find greater than expected use of antibiotics to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients without bacterial coinfections, which may contribute to AMR globally. Concrete guidelines for using antibiotics to treat COVID-19 patients, strict monitoring, and administering Antimicrobial Stewardship are needed to prevent overprescription.

Monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 prophylaxis therapy in immunocompromised patient populations.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to examine the latest literature regarding the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 prophylaxis therapy for immunocompromised patient populations. METHODS: Literature review of published real-world and randomized control trials (RCTs) from 2020 to May 2023. RESULTS: COVID-19 is highly transmissible with potentially serious health outcomes, underscoring the need for effective prevention and treatment strategies. Vaccines are highly effective at preventing COVID-19 for the general population; however, efficacy is often impaired in immunocompromised patients given insufficient response to initial exposure and/or memory for secondary exposures. Some individuals may also have contraindications to vaccination. As such, additional protective measures are needed to bolster the immune response in these populations. Monoclonal antibodies have been effective at bolstering immune system responses to COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients; however, they are proving ineffective against the most recent Omicron strains (BA.4 and BA.5). CONCLUSION: Several studies have investigated the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies as pre- and post-prophylaxis for COVID-19. Historical evidence is promising; however, new variants of concern are proving challenging for currently available regimens.

In critically ill patients with COVID-19, IL-6 receptor antagonists reduced mortality vs. control at 180 d.

SOURCE CITATION: Writing Committee for the REMAP-CAP Investigators; Higgins AM, Berry LR, Lorenzi E, et al. Long-term (180-day) outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:39-51. 36525245.

Comparison of three dosing intervals for the primary vaccination of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162b2) on magnitude, neutralization capacity and durability of the humoral immune response in health care workers: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The dosing interval of a primary vaccination series can significantly impact on vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. The current study compared 3 dosing intervals for the primary vaccination series of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, on humoral immune response and durability against SARS-CoV-2 ancestral and Beta variants up to 9 months post immunization. METHODS: Three groups of age- and sex-matched healthcare workers (HCW) who received 2 primary doses of BNT162b2 separated by 35-days, 35-42 days or >42-days were enrolled. Vaccine induced antibody titers at 3 weeks, 3 and 6-9 months post-second dose were assessed. RESULTS: There were 309 age- and sex-matched HCW (mean age 43 [sd 13], 58% females) enrolled. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding (IgG, IgM, IgA) and neutralizing antibody titers showed significant waning in levels beyond 35 days post first dose. The second dose induced a significant rise in antibody titers, which peaked at 3 weeks and then declined at variable rates across groups. The magnitude, consistency and durability of response was greater for anti-Spike than anti-RBD antibodies; and for IgG than IgA or IgM. Compared to the shorter schedules, a longer interval of >42 days offered the highest binding and neutralizing antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 ancestral and Beta (B1.351) variants beyond 3 months post-vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study to compare 3 dosing intervals for the primary vaccination of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine implemented in the real world. These findings suggest that delaying the second dose beyond 42 days can potentiate and prolong the humoral response against ancestral and Beta variants of SARS-CoV-2 up to 9 months post-vaccination.

Early Experience with Modified Dose Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Dialysis Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was approved for use in high-risk outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, patients with severe CKD were excluded from the phase 3 trial, and the drug is not recommended for those with GFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . On the basis of available pharmacological data, we developed a modified low-dose regimen of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg on day 1, followed by 150/100 mg daily from day 2 to 5. In this study, we report our experience with this modified dose regimen in dialysis patients in the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: We included dialysis patients who developed COVID-19 and were treated with the modified dose nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen during a 60-day period between April 1 and May 31, 2022. Details of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use and outcomes were captured manually, and demographic data were obtained from a provincial database. Data are presented with descriptive statistics. The principal outcomes we describe are 30-day hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and required medication changes with the modified dose regimen. RESULTS: A total of 134 dialysis patients with COVID-19 received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir during the period of study. Fifty-six percent were men, and the mean age was 64 years. Most common symptoms were cough and/or sore throat (60%). Medication interactions were common with calcium channel blockers, statins being the most frequent. Most patients (128, 96%) were able to complete the course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and none of the patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir died of COVID-19 in the 30 days of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A modified dose of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use was found to be safe and well tolerated, with no serious adverse events being observed in a small sample of maintenance dialysis patients.

Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach.

Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%; p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%; p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643). SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group. LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination. CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.

In high-risk outpatients with COVID-19, remdesivir reduced COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death at 28 d.

SOURCE CITATION: Gottlieb RL, Vaca CE, Paredes R, et al. Early remdesivir to prevent progression to severe Covid-19 in outpatients. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:305-15. 34937145.

Comparing the usability of the World Health Organization's conventional tuberculosis guidelines to the eTB recommendations map: A two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial.

Best practices for the dissemination of global health guidelines has not undergone rigorous research. We used a new approach to digitizing World Health Organization (WHO) global tuberculosis guideline recommendations (eTB RecMap) and compared its usability to the conventional method of accessing TB recommendations using the WHO website. We conducted a two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial using a survey among global stakeholders who were past or planned future users of TB guidelines, recommendations, or policy advice. We assigned participants randomly (1:1) to complete an activity using the WHO eTB RecMap or the conventional website. The primary outcome was the accessibility of information and secondary outcomes understanding, satisfaction, and preference for one of the two formats. Between February 26 and August 29, 2021, we received 478 responses from stakeholders, of whom 244 (122 per group) were eligible and provided analysable results. Participants rated the eTB RecMap as more accessible, on average, when compared to the conventional website (on a seven-point scale, the mean difference {MD} was 0.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.6, 1.2; p < 0.001) and were more likely to correctly answer understanding questions. This is the first trial comparing digitized dissemination formats of health guideline recommendations. Stakeholders rated the WHO eTB RecMap as more accessible than the conventional WHO website for the tested recommendations. They also understood presented information better. The findings support better usability of TB information through the eTB RecMap and contribute to the effort to end the TB epidemic. Trial registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04745897) on February 9, 2021.

In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, tocilizumab reduces mortality at 28 d.

SOURCE CITATION: WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518. 34228774.

In patients with COVID-19, viral shedding time is 17 d and varies in some subgroups.

SOURCE CITATION: Yan D, Zhang X, Chen C, et al. Characteristics of viral shedding time in SARS-CoV-2 infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2021;9:652842. 33816427.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

In South Africa, a 2-dose Oxford/AZ vaccine did not prevent mild to moderate COVID-19 (cases mainly B.1.351 variant).

SOURCE CITATION: Madhi SA, Baillie V, Cutland CL, et al. Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 vaccine against the B.1.351 variant. N Engl J Med. 2021. [Epub ahead of print.] 33725432.