Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals, or no treatment: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments against new circulating variants remains unclear. We sought to describe characteristics and clinical outcomes of highest risk patients with COVID-19 receiving early COVID-19 treatments in Scotland. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 1, 2021-October 25, 2022, using Scottish administrative health data. We included adult patients who met ≥ 1 of the National Health Service highest risk criteria for early COVID-19 treatment and received outpatient treatment with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or no early COVID-19 treatment. Index date was defined as the earliest of COVID-19 diagnosis or early COVID-19 treatment. Baseline characteristics and acute clinical outcomes in the 28 days following index were reported. Values of ≤ 5 were suppressed. RESULTS: In total, 2548 patients were included (492: sotrovimab, 276: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 71: molnupiravir, and 1709: eligible highest risk untreated). Patients aged ≥ 75 years accounted for 6.9% (n = 34/492), 21.0% (n = 58/276), 16.9% (n = 12/71) and 13.2% (n = 225/1709) of the cohorts, respectively. Advanced renal disease was reported in 6.7% (n = 33/492) of sotrovimab-treated and 4.7% (n = 81/1709) of untreated patients, and ≤ 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated and molnupiravir-treated patients. All-cause hospitalizations were experienced by 5.3% (n = 25/476) of sotrovimab-treated patients, 6.9% (n = 12/175) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients, ≤ 5 (suppressed number) molnupiravir-treated patients and 13.3% (n = 216/1622) of untreated patients. There were no deaths in the treated cohorts; mortality was 4.3% (n = 70/1622) among untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was often used by patients who were aged < 75 years. Among patients receiving early COVID-19 treatment, proportions of 28-day all-cause hospitalization and death were low.

Antiviral combination regimens as rescue therapy in immunocompromised hosts with persistent COVID-19.

The management of severe/prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised hosts is still challenging. We describe nine patients with hematologic malignancies with a history of unsuccessful SARS-CoV-2 treatment receiving antiviral combination treatment for persistent infection at a tertiary hospital in central Italy (University Hospital of Careggi, Florence). Combination treatments consisted of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus molnupiravir (n = 4), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus remdesivir (n = 4) or remdesivir plus molnupiravir (n = 1) for 10 days, in some cases associated with sotrovimab. Combinations were generally well tolerated. One patient obtained viral clearance but died due to the underlying disease. In eight cases, clinical and virological success was confirmed by radiological follow-up. Antivirals combination is likely to become a mainstay in the future management of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients, but knowledge in this field is still very limited and prospective studies on larger cohorts are urgently warranted.

Unveiling therapeutic dynamics: An in-depth comparative analysis of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies and favipiravir in alleviating COVID-19 outpatients impacts among middle-aged and special populations (MA-FAST).

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NMabs) are recognized for their efficacy against non-severe COVID-19. However, spike protein mutations may confer resistance. This study evaluates the effectiveness of favipiravir (FPV) versus NMabs in preventing severe COVID-19 in special populations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was conducted on middle-aged, elderly, diabetic, or obese patients with COVID-19 treated with either FPV or NMabs. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for analysis. RESULTS: The study included 1410 patients, resulting in four cohorts: middle-aged (36), elderly (48), diabetic (46), and obese (28) post-PSM. No significant differences were noted in 28-day emergency department (ED) visits across all groups between NMabs and FPV treatments, despite lower immunity in the FPV group. However, the diabetic group treated with FPV had higher 28-day hospitalization and oxygen supplemental, with no differences in the other groups. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Early dose-adjusted FPV showed no difference from NMabs in preventing ED visits, ICU admissions, ventilator needs, or mortality among patients with major comorbidities. Diabetic patients on FPV experienced higher hospitalizations and oxygen needs, with no observed differences in other groups. FPV may be a viable alternative, especially in settings with limited resources.

Real-world evidence of sotrovimab effectiveness for preventing severe outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement propensity-matched retrospective cohort study of a pan-provincial program in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Post-marketing surveillance of sotrovimab's effect during implementation in the Canadian population is limited. METHODS: The study used a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort design. Follow-up began between the periods of December 15, 2021 and April 30 2022. The study assessed any severe outcome defined as all-cause hospital admission or mortality within 30 days of a confirmed COVID-19-positive test. Covariate-adjusted odds ratios between sotrovimab treatment and the severe outcome was conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 22,289 individuals meeting the treatment criteria for sotrovimab. There were 1603 treated and 6299 untreated individuals included in the analysis. The outcome occurrence in the study was 5.49% (treated) and 4.21% (untreated), with a median time from diagnosis to treatment of 1.00 days (interquartile range 2.00 days). In the propensity-matched cohort, sotrovimab was not associated with lower odds of a severe outcome (odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.58), adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for confounding variables, sotrovimab treatment was not associated with lower odds of a severe outcome within 30-days of COVID-19-positive date.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presumed to be treated with sotrovimab in NHS hospitals in England.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the constantly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on the effectiveness of early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments is unclear. Here, we report characteristics and acute clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with a monoclonal antibody (mAb; presumed to be sotrovimab) across six distinct periods covering the emergence and predominance of Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5) in England. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics database from January 1-July 31, 2022. Included patients received a mAb delivered by a National Health Service (NHS) hospital as a day-case, for which the primary diagnosis was COVID-19. Patients were presumed to have received sotrovimab based on NHS data showing that 99.98% of COVID-19-mAb-treated individuals received sotrovimab during the study period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations were reported overall and across six distinct periods of Omicron subvariant prevalence. Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with severe renal disease and active cancer. RESULTS: Among a total of 10,096 patients, 1.0% (n = 96) had a COVID-19-attributable hospitalization, 4.6% (n = 465) had a hospital visit due to any cause, and 0.3% (n = 27) died due to any cause during the acute period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalization rates were consistent among subgroups, and no significant differences were observed across periods of Omicron subvariant predominance. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations and deaths were low in mAb-treated patients and among subgroups. Similar hospitalization rates were observed whilst Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 were predominant, despite reported reductions in in vitro neutralization activity of sotrovimab against BA.2 and BA.5.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30). CONCLUSION: The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 subvariant predominance: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes associated with sotrovimab use during Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 predominance. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals, preprint articles and conference abstracts from January 1, 2022 to February 27, 2023. RESULTS: The 14 studies identified were heterogeneous in terms of study design, population, endpoints and definitions. They included > 1.7 million high-risk patients with COVID-19, of whom approximately 41,000 received sotrovimab (range n = 20-5979 during BA.2 and n = 76-1383 during BA.5 predominance). Four studies compared the effectiveness of sotrovimab with untreated or no monoclonal antibody treatment controls, two compared sotrovimab with other treatments, and three single-arm studies compared outcomes during BA.2 and/or BA.5 versus BA.1. Five studies descriptively reported rates of clinical outcomes in patients treated with sotrovimab. Rates of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality (0.95-4.0% during BA.2; 0.5-2.0% during BA.5) and all-cause mortality (1.7-2.0% during BA.2; 3.4% during combined BA.2 and BA.5 periods) among sotrovimab-treated patients were consistently low. During BA.2, a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization or mortality was reported across studies with sotrovimab versus untreated cohorts. Compared with other treatments, sotrovimab was associated with a lower (molnupiravir) or similar (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality during BA.2 and BA.5. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 periods. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review suggests continued effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing severe clinical outcomes during BA.2 and BA.5 predominance, both against active/untreated comparators and compared with BA.1 predominance.

Infección leve por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes vulnerables: implantación de una vía clínica de tratamiento precoz / Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: Implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment

Introducción: El objetivo del manuscrito es describir la vía clínica de tratamiento precoz de pacientes con infección aguda por SARS-CoV-2 y evaluar los primeros resultados de su implementación. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de la implementación de una vía clínica de tratamiento en pacientes no hospitalizados (del 1 de enero al 30 de junio de 2022). Elaboración de vía clínica: sistemas de detección y derivación desde Atención Primaria, Servicio de Urgencias, especialidades médicas y sistema de detección automatizada; evaluación clínica y administración de tratamiento en hospital de día COVID-19, y seguimiento clínico posterior. Variables explicativas: demográficas, comorbilidad, estado vacunal, vías de derivación y administración de tratamiento. Variables de resultado: hospitalización y muerte a los 30 días, toxicidad grado 2-3 relacionada con el tratamiento. Resultados: Se administró tratamiento a 262 pacientes (53,4% mujeres, mediana de edad 60 años). Criterio de indicación de tratamiento: inmunosupresión (68,3%), y la combinación de edad, estado vacunal y comorbilidad en el resto. El 47,3% de los pacientes recibieron remdesivir, el 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, el 13,4% sotrovimab y el 2,4% tratamiento combinado, con una mediana de 4 días tras el inicio de síntomas. El 6,1% de los pacientes precisó ingreso hospitalario, el 3,8% por progresión de COVID-19. Ningún paciente falleció. El 18,7% presentaron toxicidad grado 2-3: 89,8% disgeusia y sabor metálico relacionado con nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Siete pacientes interrumpieron tratamiento por toxicidad. Conclusión: La creación e implementación de una vía clínica para pacientes no hospitalizados con infección por SARS-CoV-2 es efectiva y permite la accesibilidad temprana y la equidad de los tratamientos actualmente disponibles.(AU)

Introduction: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. Methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30, 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. Outcome variables: hospitalization and death within 30 days, grade 2–3 toxicity related to treatment. Results: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53.4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosuppression (68.3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest; 47.3% of the patients received remdesivir, 35.9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13.4% sotrovimab and 2.4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6.1% of the patients, 3.8% related to COVID-19 progression. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2–3 toxicity was reported in 18.7%, 89.8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Conclusion: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.(AU)

Longitudinal outcomes of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients from 2020 to 2023.

Data regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr) across severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) waves, including the impact of different measures, are lacking. This cohort study, conducted from March 2020 to May 2023 in Toronto, Canada, aimed to analyze COVID-19 outcomes in 1975 SOTr across various SARS-CoV-2 waves and assess the impact of preventive and treatment measures. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19, defined as requiring supplemental oxygen, with secondary outcomes including hospitalization, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. SARS-CoV-2 waves were categorized as Wildtype/Alpha/Delta (318 cases, 16.1%), Omicron BA.1 (268, 26.2%), Omicron BA.2 (268, 13.6%), Omicron BA.5 (561, 28.4%), Omicron BQ.1.1 (188, 9.5%), and Omicron XBB.1.5 (123, 6.2%). Severe COVID-19 rate was highest during the Wildtype/Alpha/Delta wave (44.6%), and lower in Omicron waves (5.7%-16.1%). Lung transplantation was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR: 4.62, 95% CI: 2.71-7.89), along with rituximab treatment (OR: 4.24, 95% CI: 1.04-17.3), long-term corticosteroid use (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.46-6.62), older age (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.30-1.76), chronic lung disease (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.36-3.30), chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.17-4.07), and diabetes (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37-2.83). Early treatment and ≥3 vaccine doses were associated with reduced severity (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.46, and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21-0.60, respectively). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab and bivalent boosters did not show a significant impact. The study concludes that COVID-19 severity decreased across different variants in SOTr. Lung transplantation was associated with worse outcomes and may benefit more from preventive and early therapeutic interventions.

Comparable outcomes of outpatient remdesivir and sotrovimab among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during the omicron BA.1 surge.

Studies 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 has not been directly compared. This 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. Among 3257 patients, 2158 received sotrovimab and 1099 received remdesivir. Patients treated with sotrovimab were younger and had lower comorbidity but were more likely to be immunocompromised than remdesivir-treated patients. The majority (89%) had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.5% and 1.0% in remdesivir and sotrovimab, 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 outcomes between the two groups. We demonstrated favorable outcomes that were not significantly different between patients treated with remdesivir or sotrovimab.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to explore relevant studies from January 2021 to November 2023. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.0). RESULTS: Fifteen retrospective studies involving 13, 306 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 1.38), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.10), and intensive unit care admission (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 10.07). In terms of safety, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.29 to 9.17). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab have similar effectiveness in treating COVID-19 patients. However, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is low. High-quality research is needed to better compare these interventions in COVID-19.

Sotrovimab: una opción terapéutica en trasplante pulmonar / Sotrovimab: a therapeutic option in lung transplant patients

Antecedentes: Los trasplantados pulmonares son un grupo con mayor riesgo de desarrollar enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) grave. El sotrovimab demostró reducir el riesgo de progresión de enfermedad y ha sido utilizado en pacientes con trasplante de órgano sólido, pero no ha sido estudiado en trasplantados pulmonares. Objetivo: Describir la evolución de la COVID-19 en trasplantados pulmonares tratados con sotrovimab. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo que incluyó trasplantados pulmonares que recibieron sotrovimab para la COVID-19 entre 2021 y 2022. Resultados: Se estudiaron 33 pacientes, 19 varones, con edad media de 61 años, 24 de ellos trasplantados bipulmonares, siendo las causas más frecuentes la enfermedad pulmonar intersticial difusa y la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica. El 90% requirieron ingreso. La mayoría necesitó algún tipo de soporte respiratorio, pudiéndose manejar el 39% con bajo flujo. El 42% presentaron sobreinfecciones, el 12% tromboembolia pulmonar y el 58% insuficiencia renal aguda. Seis pacientes fallecieron. Conclusiones: Este estudio presenta resultados similares a otros realizados en pacientes con trasplante de otro órgano sólido que recibieron sotrovimab respecto a tasas de hospitalización, mortalidad y seguridad. Se describe una menor mortalidad respecto a estudios previos de trasplantados pulmonares con infección por coronavirus 2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo grave previo al uso de sotrovimab. Este estudio sugiere que el sotrovimab es una opción terapéutica válida para la COVID-19 en trasplantados pulmonares. (AU)

Background: Lung transplant recipients are a group at higher risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sotrovimab has demonstrated a reduction in the risk of disease progression and has been used in solid organ transplant patients, but it has not been studied in lung transplant recipients. Objective: To describe the course of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients treated with sotrovimab. Material and methods: Retrospective observational study included lung transplant recipients who received sotrovimab for COVID-19 between 2021 and 2022. Results: Thirty-three patients were studied, 19 males, with an average age of 61 years, and 24 of them had received bilateral lung transplants, with the most common causes being diffuse interstitial lung disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 90% required hospitalization. The majority needed some form of respiratory support, with 39% manageable with low-flow oxygen. Superinfections were observed in 42% of cases, pulmonary embolism in 12%, and acute renal failure in 58%. Six patients died. Conclusions: This study presents results similar to those conducted in patients with transplants of other solid organs who received sotrovimab in terms of hospitalization rates, mortality, and safety. A lower mortality rate is described compared to previous studies of lung transplant recipients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before the use of sotrovimab. This study suggests that sotrovimab is a valid therapeutic option for COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients. (AU)

Sotrovimab: A Review of Its Efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Among the anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the S-309 derivative sotrovimab was the most successful in having the longest temporal window of clinical use, showing a high degree of resiliency to SARS-CoV-2 evolution interrupted only by the appearance of the BA.2.86* variant of interest (VOI). This success undoubtedly reflects rational selection to target a highly conserved epitope in coronavirus Spike proteins. We review here the efficacy of sotrovimab against different SARS-CoV-2 variants in outpatients and inpatients, discussing both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Although it could not be anticipated at the time of its development and introduction, sotrovimab's use in immunocompromised individuals who harbor large populations of variant viruses created the conditions for its eventual demise, as antibody selection and viral evolution led to its eventual withdrawal due to inefficacy against later variant lineages. Despite this, based on observational and real-world data, some authorities have continued to promote the use of sotrovimab, but the lack of binding to newer variants strongly argues for the futility of continued use. The story of sotrovimab highlights the power of modern biomedical science to generate novel therapeutics while also providing a cautionary tale for the need to devise strategies to minimize the emergence of resistance to antibody-based therapeutics.

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 with Dual-Drug Resistant Mutations During a Long-Term Infection in a Kidney Transplant Recipient.

Introduction: Various therapeutic agents are being developed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, it is crucial to accumulate information regarding the features of drug-resistant viruses to these antiviral drugs. Methods: We investigated the emergence of dual-drug resistance in a kidney transplant recipient who received sotrovimab (from day 0) and remdesivir (RDV) (from day 8 to day 17). We sequenced the whole viral genomes from nasopharyngeal swabs taken on day 0 and seven points after starting treatment (on days 12, 19, 23, 37, 43, 48, and 58). The genetic traits of the wild-type (day 0) and descendant viruses (after day 12) were determined by comparing the genomes with those of a Wuhan strain and the day 0 wild-type strain, respectively. Three viral isolates (from samples collected on days 0, 23, and 37) were investigated for their escape ability and growth kinetics in vitro. Results: The sotrovimab resistant mutation (S:E340K) and the RDV resistant mutation RdRp:V792I (nt: G15814A) emerged within 12 days (day 12) and 11 days (day 19) after the treatment, respectively. The day 23 isolate harboring S:E340K/RdRp:V791I was resistant to both sotrovimab and RDV, showing 364- and 2.73-fold higher resistance respectively, compared with the wild-type. Moreover, compared with the day 23 isolate, the day 37 isolate accumulated multiple additional mutations and had a higher level of resistance to both drugs. Conclusion: Drug-resistant variants with double mutations (S:E340K/RdRp:V791I) became dominant within 23 days after starting treatment, suggesting that even a combination therapy involving sotrovimab and RDV, dual-drug resistant viruses may emerge rapidly in immunocompromised patients. The dual-resistant variants had lower virus yields than those of the wild-type virus in vitro, suggesting that they paid a fitness cost.

Detailed tracking of antigen and antibody levels during coronavirus disease 2019 treatment in an immunosuppressed patient with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis.

A 67-year-old woman with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis was not vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and was on multiple immunosuppressive drugs. She was hospitalized because of interstitial shadowing in the lungs and diagnosed with persistent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite treatment with a recombinant monoclonal antibody and antivirals, her symptoms persisted and she lacked a specific antibody response. She tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antigen after the second antiviral treatment, and a subsequent chest radiograph showed improvement. However, the antibody levels did not change. This case highlights the importance of careful monitoring of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and antibody levels during COVID-19 treatment in patients with immunosuppression.

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination with Etesevimab or Sotrovimab on Persistently High Viral Load in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Phase 2 BLAZE-4 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with monoclonal antibodies provides rapid, passive immunity and may stop COVID-19 disease progression. The study evaluated the effect of bamlanivimab (BAM) or BAM + etesevimab (ETE)/sotrovimab compared to placebo on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The phase 2, randomized, single-dose study included patients aged between ≥ 18 and < 65 years, not hospitalized at the time of randomization, and had ≥ 1 mild or moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Study included arms 1-6 (placebo, BAM 175 mg + ETE 350 mg, BAM 700 mg + ETE 1400 mg, BAM 2800 mg + ETE 2800 mg, BAM 700 mg alone, and BAM 350 mg + ETE 700 mg, respectively), BAM 700 mg + ETE 700 mg unintentional dosing; and arms 7 and 8 (BAM 700 mg + sotrovimab 500 mg and placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 log viral load > 5.27 on day 7 (persistently high viral load [PHVL]) who received BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab). RESULTS: A total of 725 patients, mean age 39.6 years (range 18-75 years), 50.2% male were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 1-6; and a total 202 patients, mean age 38 years (range 18-63 years), 53.5% female were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 7 and 8. A significantly lower proportion of patients in arms 2-6 and arm 7 experienced PHVL on day 7 compared to placebo. On day 7, patients in arms 2, 3, and 6 consistently experienced significantly greater reduction in viral load than placebo. Significant improvement was observed in time to viral load clearance and time to symptom improvement by day 29 in some arms compared to placebo. No new safety concerns were observed with drug combinations. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab) experienced a PHVL at day 7. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04634409.

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.

Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest 47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.

Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Omicron BA.2 subvariant predominance: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have impacted the in vitro activity of sotrovimab, with variable fold changes in neutralization potency for the Omicron BA.2 sublineage and onward. The correlation between reduced in vitro activity and clinical efficacy outcomes is unknown. A systematic literature review (SLR) evaluated the effectiveness of sotrovimab on severe clinical outcomes during Omicron BA.2 predominance. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed journals, preprint articles, and conference abstracts published from January 1-November 3, 2022. RESULTS: Five studies were included, which displayed heterogeneity in study design and population. Two UK studies had large samples of patients during BA.2 predominance: one demonstrated clinical effectiveness vs molnupiravir during BA.1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88; p = 0.014) and BA.2 (aHR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.71; p = 0.001); the other reported no difference in the clinical outcomes of sotrovimab-treated patients when directly comparing sequencing-confirmed BA.1 and BA.2 cases (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74-1.86). One US study showed a lower risk of 30-day all-cause hospitalization/mortality for sotrovimab compared with no treatment during the BA.2 surge in March (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62) and April 2022 (aRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.08-3.54). Two studies from Italy and Qatar reported low progression rates but were either single-arm descriptive or not sufficiently powered to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of sotrovimab. CONCLUSION: This SLR showed that the effectiveness of sotrovimab was maintained against Omicron BA.2 in both ecological and sequencing-confirmed studies, by demonstrating low/comparable clinical outcomes between BA.1 and BA.2 periods or comparing against an active/untreated comparator.

Safety of Sotrovimab use in children with COVID-19: an Italian experience.

Sotrovimab is a monoclonal antibody approved in adult and adolescents at high risk for COVID-19. Thirty-three children evaluated in five Italian paediatric centres received Sotrovimab infusion and were retrospectively enrolled from December 2021 to April 2022. In more than half of cases (19/33, 57.6%) Sotrovimab was prescribed off-label. Overall, the infusion was well tolerated with no significative differences in those receiving an off-label prescription. All children had a complete recovery. Data on the safety of Sotrovimab should be investigated in a larger paediatric cohort, considering the continuous selection of new SARS CoV-2 variants which may be more or less susceptible to the effects of the Sotrovimab.