Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab and remdesivir for early treatment of high-risk hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A propensity score adjusted retrospective cohort study.

Early treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients may prevent disease progression. However, there are limited data to support treatment of hospitalized or fully vaccinated patients with mild-to-moderate disease. In this retrospective cohort study, we studied the effect of early use of sotrovimab and remdesivir in high-risk hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We included PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the National Centre for Infectious Diseases who presented within the first 5 days of illness, and who were not requiring oxygen or ICU care at presentation. Sotrovimab- and remdesivir-treated groups were compared with control (no early treatment). A multiple propensity-score adjusted multivariable regression analysis was conducted with a composite primary endpoint of in-hospital deterioration (oxygen requirement, ICU admission, or mortality). Of 1118 patients, 841 were in the control group, 106 in the sotrovimab group and 169 in the remdesivir group. The median age was 63 years (IQR 46-74 years) and 505 (45.2%) were female. In unvaccinated patients, both remdesivir and sotrovimab treatment were protective (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.064-0.60 and 0.18 [95% CI 0.066-0.47]), respectively. Contrarily, among the vaccinated patients there was no significant treatment effect with early remdesivir treatment (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 0.83-7.57, p = 0.10). Remdesivir and sotrovimab treatment, given early in the disease course to unvaccinated high-risk patients, was effective in reducing the risk of in-hospital deterioration and severe disease. This effect was not seen in fully vaccinated patients, which may be due to a small sample size or residual confounding.

External validation of the PRIORITY model in predicting COVID-19 critical illness in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

OBJECTIVES: Predictive scores are important tools for the triage of patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The PRIORITY score is advantageous because it does not require laboratory and radiologic information. However, the original development and validation cohorts studied only unvaccinated patients in early 2020. We aimed to externally validate the PRIORITY score in a cohort of patients with the novel delta and omicron variants of coronavirus disease 2019 and mixed vaccination status. METHODS: A total of 410 patients were included in a cross-sectional sampling of all patients admitted to the National Centre of Infectious Diseases on October 27, 2021. A further 102 and 136 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Delta and Omicron variant infection from April to August and December 2021, respectively, were also included. Variables at the time of admission were collected retrospectively from medical records and used to calculate the probability of deterioration using the PRIORITY model. RESULTS: Of the total 648 included patients, 447 (69.0%) were vaccinated. The mean age was 61.6 years (standard deviation ± 19.0 years), and 268 patients (41.4%) were female. A total of 112 patients (17.3%) met the primary outcome of developing critical illness or mortality. The performance of the score in this cohort was comparable with the original cohorts, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for all patients of 0.794 (95% CI, 0.752-0.835; p < 0.001), regression coefficient of 1.069, and intercept of 0.04. Subgroup analysis of unvaccinated and vaccinated patients showed that performance was superior in vaccinated individuals, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.684 (95% CI, 0.608-0.760; p < 0.0001) and 0.831 (95% CI, 0.772-0.891; p < 0.0001), respectively. DISCUSSION: Our data support the continued use of the PRIORITY score in this era of novel variants and increased vaccination uptake.