Back

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients

Suribhatla, R.; Starkey, T.; Ionescu, M. C.; Pagliuca, A.; Richter, A.; Lee, L. Y.

2022-11-07 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.11.07.22281786 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and aimsImmunocompromised patients have a reduced ability to generate antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination and are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, complications and mortality. Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a monoclonal antibody combination which bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, preventing the virus entering human cells. The phase III PROVENT trial reported that immunocompromised patients given Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab had a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. However, PROVENT was conducted before the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron became prevalent. This systematic review provides an updated summary of real-world clinical evidence of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab effectiveness in immunocompromised patients. MethodsTwo independent reviewers conducted PubMed and medRxiv searches for the period of 01/01/2021 to 01/10/2022. Clinical studies which reported the primary outcome of breakthrough COVID-19 infections after Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab administration were included in the review. COVID-19-related hospitalisations, ITU admissions and mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. Clinical effectiveness was determined using the case-control clinical effectiveness methodology. The GRADE tool was used to ascertain the level of certainty for the primary outcome in each study. Results17 clinical studies were included, comprising 24,773 immunocompromised participants of whom 10,775 received Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab. Most studies reported clinical outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron wave. Six studies compared a Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab intervention group to a control group. Overall, the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab against COVID-19 breakthrough infection, hospitalisation and ITU admission were 40.47%, 69.23% and 87.89%, respectively. For prevention of all-cause and COVID-19-specifc mortality, overall clinical effectiveness was 81.29% and 86.36%, respectively. ConclusionsThere is a growing body of real-world evidence validating the original PROVENT phase III study regarding the clinical effectiveness of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab as prophylaxis for immunocompromised patients, notably demonstrating effectiveness during the Omicron wave. This review demonstrates the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab at reducing COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, ITU admission and mortality for immunosuppressed individuals. It is important that ongoing larger-scale and better-controlled real world studies are initiated and evaluated to provide ongoing certainty of the clinical benefit of prophylactic antibody treatment for immunocompromised patients in the face of new variants.

Matching journals

The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.1%
2
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
3
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.8%
5
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
6
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
7
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.7%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
12
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
13
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
14
The Lancet Rheumatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
15
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
17
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
18
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
19
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
20
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
21
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
22
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
23
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
24
RMD Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
25
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
26
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
27
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
28
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
29
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
30
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%