Search

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022., Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17)., Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Dr O’Horo received grants from nference, Inc, and the MITRE Corporation and consulting fees from Bates College, all of which was outside the present work. Dr Razonable received grants from Roche, Regeneron, and Gilead; received honoraria from Integritas and Medscape; is on the Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novartis; and has a leadership role in the American Society of Transplantation., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: To evaluate care utilization, cost, and mortality among high-risk patients enrolled in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remote patient monitoring (RPM) program., Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at risk for severe disease who enrolled in the RPM program between March 2020 and October 2021. The program included in-home technology for symptom and physiologic data monitoring with centralized care management. Propensity score matching established matched cohorts of RPM-engaged (defined as ≥1 RPM technology interactions) and non-engaged patients using a logistic regression model of 59 baseline characteristics. Billing codes and the electronic death certificate system were used for data abstraction from the electronic health record and reporting of care utilization and mortality endpoints., Results: Among 5796 RPM-enrolled patients, 80.0% engaged with the technology. Following matching, 1128 pairs of RPM-engaged and non-engaged patients comprised the analysis cohorts. Mean patient age was 63.3 years, 50.9% of patients were female, and 81.9% were non-Hispanic White. Patients who were RPM-engaged experienced significantly lower rates of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs 18.0%, P=.01), prolonged hospitalization (3.5% vs 6.7%, P=.001), intensive care unit admission (2.3% vs 4.2%, P=.01), and mortality (0.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.78; P=.01), as well as cost of care ($2306.33 USD vs $3565.97 USD, P=0.04), than those enrolled in RPM but non-engaged., Conclusion: High-risk COVID-19 patients enrolled and engaged in an RPM program experienced lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mortality, and cost than those enrolled and non-engaged. These findings translate to improved hospital bed access and patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection after full vaccination with BNT162b2 against polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in a national medical practice from January 2021 through January 2022. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar time of testing to assess the association between time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection or non-COVID-19 hospitalization (negative control), adjusted for several covariates. There were 5,985 symptomatic individuals with a positive test after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (cases) and 32,728 negative tests contributed by 27,753 symptomatic individuals after full vaccination (controls). The adjusted odds of symptomatic infection were higher 250 days after full vaccination versus at the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.62, 95% CI: 2.52 to 5.20). The odds of infection were still lower 285 days after the first BNT162b2 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.67), when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated status. Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization (negative control) decreased with time since vaccination, suggesting a possible underestimation of waning protection by this approach due to confounding factors. In summary, BNT162b2 strongly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned significantly over this period., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences.)

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection against symptomatic infection after vaccination with mRNA-1273. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar date of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing to assess the association between the time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection, adjusted for several covariates. There were 2,364 symptomatic individuals who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 ("cases") and 12,949 symptomatic individuals who contributed 15,087 negative tests after full vaccination ("controls"). The odds of symptomatic infection were significantly higher 250 days after full vaccination compared to the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-5.13). The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization and non-COVID-19 pneumonia (negative control outcomes) remained relatively stable over the same time interval (Day 250 OR Non-COVID Hospitalization : 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-1.0; Day 250 OR Non-COVID Pneumonia : 1.11, 95% CI: 0.24-5.2). The odds of symptomatic infection remained significantly lower almost 300 days after the first mRNA-1273 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose, when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated state (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.17-0.39). Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. In summary, mRNA-1273 robustly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned over this time period., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences.)

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood., Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021., Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273., Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose., Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

Background: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines., Methods: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing., Findings: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VE mRNA-1273 : 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VE BNT162b2 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VE mRNA-1273 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VE BNT162b2 : 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VE mRNA-1273 : 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VE BNT162b2 : 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67)., Conclusions: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions., Funding: This study was funded by nference., Competing Interests: A.P., P.J.L., E.S., M.J.M.N., J.C.O., A.J.V., and V.S. are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company. nference is collaborating or has collaborated with Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen, and other bio-pharmaceutical companies on data science initiatives unrelated to this study. These collaborations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. J.C.O. receives personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College and receives small grants from nference, Inc., outside the submitted work. A.D.B. is supported by grants from NIAID (grants AI110173 and AI120698), Amfar (no. 109593), and Mayo Clinic (HH Shieck Khalifa Bib Zayed Al-Nahyan Named Professorship of Infectious Diseases). A.D.B. is a paid consultant for Abbvie, Gilead, Freedom Tunnel, Pinetree Therapeutics, Primmune, Immunome, and Flambeau Diagnostics; is a paid member of the DSMB for Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Equilium, and Excision Biotherapeutics; has received fees for speaking for Reach MD and Medscape; owns equity for scientific advisory work in Zentalis and nference; and is founder and President of Splissen Therapeutics. M.D.S. received grant funding from Pfizer via Duke University for a vaccine side effect registry. J.C.O., A.V., M.D.S., J.E.G., L.L.S., H.L.G., W.K., J.H., and A.D.B. are employees of the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic may stand to gain financially from the successful outcome of the research. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (© 2021 The Authors.)

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Background: Real-world clinical data to support the use of casirivimab-imdevimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is needed. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of casirivimab-imdevimab treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19., Methods: A retrospective cohort of 696 patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab between December 4, 2020 and April 9, 2021 was compared to a propensity-matched control of 696 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Primary outcome was rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21 and 28 after infusion., Findings: The median age of the antibody-treated cohort was 63 years (interquartile range, 52-71); 45·5% were ≥65 years old; 51.4% were female. High-risk characteristics were hypertension (52.4%), body mass index ≥35 (31.0%), diabetes mellitus (24.6%), chronic lung disease (22.1%), chronic renal disease (11.4%), congestive heart failure (6.6%), and compromised immune function (6.7%). Compared to the propensity-matched untreated control, patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab had significantly lower all-cause hospitalization rates at day 14 (1.3% vs 3.3%; Absolute Difference: 2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-3.7%), day 21 (1.3% vs 4.2%; Absolute Difference: 2.9%; 95% CI: 1.2-4.7%), and day 28 (1.6% vs 4.8%; Absolute Difference: 3.2%; 95% CI: 1.4-5.1%). Rates of intensive care unit admission and mortality at days 14, 21 and 28 were similarly low for antibody-treated and untreated groups., Interpretation: Among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was associated with a significantly lower rate of hospitalization., Funding: Mayo Clinic., Competing Interests: Dr. Arndt has nothing to disclose. Dr. Arndt has nothing to disclose. Dr. Badley reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Freedom Tunnel, personal fees from Pinetree Therapeutics, personal fees from Primmune, personal fees from Immunome, personal fees from Flambeau Diagnostics, personal fees from Corvus, personal fees from Equilium, personal fees from Excision Biotherapeutics, personal fees from Zentilis, personal fees from Nference, outside the submitted work Dr. Bierle has nothing to disclose. Ms. Destro Borgen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Ganesh has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hanson has nothing to disclose. Michelle Hedin has nothing to disclose. Dr. Lenehan reports other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. O'Horo reports personal fees from Bates College, personal fees from Elsevier, Inc, grants from Nference, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr. Pawlowski reports personal fees from nference, outside the submitted work. Dr. Puranik reports personal fees from nference, outside the submitted work. Dr. Razonable reports grants from Regeneron, grants from Roche, grants from Gilead, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seville has nothing to disclose. Dr. Speicher has nothing to disclose. Dr. Tulledge-Scheitel has nothing to disclose. Dr. Venkatakrishnan reports personal fees from nference, outside the submitted work. Dr. Wilker has nothing to disclose., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Established technology, operational infrastructure, and nursing resources were leveraged to develop a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19. The program included two care-delivery models with different monitoring capabilities supporting variable levels of patient risk for severe illness. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of a multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness. We report an evaluation of 7074 patients served by the program across 41 US states. Among all patients, the RPM technology engagement rate was 78.9%. Rates of emergency department visit and hospitalization within 30 days of enrollment were 11.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4%. A multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness is feasible, safe, and associated with a low mortality rate. Further research and expansion of RPM programs for ambulatory management of other acute illnesses are warranted., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The administration of spike monoclonal antibody treatment to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is very challenging. This article summarizes essential components and processes in establishing an effective spike monoclonal antibody infusion program. Rapid identification of a dedicated physical infrastructure was essential to circumvent the logistical challenges of caring for infectious patients while maintaining compliance with regulations and ensuring the safety of our personnel and other patients. Our partnerships and collaborations among multiple different specialties and disciplines enabled contributions from personnel with specific expertise in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, infection prevention and control, electronic health record (EHR) informatics, compliance, legal, medical ethics, engineering, administration, and other critical areas. Clear communication and a culture in which all roles are welcomed at the planning and operational tables are critical to the rapid development and refinement needed to adapt and thrive in providing this time-sensitive beneficial therapy. Our partnerships with leaders and providers outside our institutions, including those who care for underserved populations, have promoted equity in the access of monoclonal antibodies in our regions. Strong support from institutional leadership facilitated expedited action when needed, from a physical, personnel, and system infrastructure standpoint. Our ongoing real-time assessment and monitoring of our clinical program allowed us to improve and optimize our processes to ensure that the needs of our patients with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting are met., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models., Results: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care., Conclusion: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)