TY - JOUR
T1 - Real-world efficacy, roll-out and uptake of intramuscular tixagevimab/ cilgavimab as COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis in people with multiple sclerosis and neuroimmunological conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic
AU - Rath, Louise
AU - Yeh, Wei Zhen
AU - Roldan, Angie
AU - Wesselingh, Robb
AU - Zhong, Michael
AU - Tan, Tracie
AU - Seery, Nabil
AU - Bridge, Francesca
AU - Foong, Yi Chao
AU - Skibina, Olga
AU - Nesbitt, Cassie
AU - Butzkueven, Helmut
AU - Monif, Mastura
AU - van der Walt, Anneke
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024.
PY - 2024/4/30
Y1 - 2024/4/30
N2 - Background In Australia, tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150 mg/150 mg was a government-funded pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and other neuroimmunological conditions (pwNIc) treated with anti-CD20 antibodies or sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators were eligible. Objective To analyse the roll-out, uptake and real-world efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in the prevention and severity of COVID-19. To assess compliance with uptake depending on the location of delivery. Methods We undertook a single-centre study. 440 pwMS and pwNIc were eligible. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of COVID-19 during follow-up and to assess predictors of uptake among those who consented. Results Of the eligible pwMS and pwNIc in our service, 52.7% (233/440) requested a consultation and were included in this study. Consultation resulted in 71.7% of people (167/233) receiving the treatment. Of these, 94.0% (157/167) had received three or more COVID-19 vaccines. Among those who received a single dose of tixagevimab/ cilgavimab, 19.16% (32/167) tested positive for COVID-19 during the observational window. The majority of these were on ocrelizumab (68.8% (22/32)). None of those with COVID-19 required hospitalisation or supplemental oxygen. There was no difference in odds of COVID-19 during the observation period between those who received and did not receive tixagevimab/cilgavimab (adjusted OR, aOR 2.16 (95% CI 0.82 to 6.85), p=0.43). Uptake of tixagevimab/cilgavimab was highest when offered at the hospital infusion centre (aOR 3.09 (95% CI 1.08 to 9.94) relative to referral to the local pharmacy, p=0.04). Conclusion Tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration did not protect against subsequent COVID-19 in our cohort. Compliance with uptake was influenced by administration location.
AB - Background In Australia, tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150 mg/150 mg was a government-funded pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and other neuroimmunological conditions (pwNIc) treated with anti-CD20 antibodies or sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators were eligible. Objective To analyse the roll-out, uptake and real-world efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in the prevention and severity of COVID-19. To assess compliance with uptake depending on the location of delivery. Methods We undertook a single-centre study. 440 pwMS and pwNIc were eligible. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of COVID-19 during follow-up and to assess predictors of uptake among those who consented. Results Of the eligible pwMS and pwNIc in our service, 52.7% (233/440) requested a consultation and were included in this study. Consultation resulted in 71.7% of people (167/233) receiving the treatment. Of these, 94.0% (157/167) had received three or more COVID-19 vaccines. Among those who received a single dose of tixagevimab/ cilgavimab, 19.16% (32/167) tested positive for COVID-19 during the observational window. The majority of these were on ocrelizumab (68.8% (22/32)). None of those with COVID-19 required hospitalisation or supplemental oxygen. There was no difference in odds of COVID-19 during the observation period between those who received and did not receive tixagevimab/cilgavimab (adjusted OR, aOR 2.16 (95% CI 0.82 to 6.85), p=0.43). Uptake of tixagevimab/cilgavimab was highest when offered at the hospital infusion centre (aOR 3.09 (95% CI 1.08 to 9.94) relative to referral to the local pharmacy, p=0.04). Conclusion Tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration did not protect against subsequent COVID-19 in our cohort. Compliance with uptake was influenced by administration location.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192149759&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000667
DO - 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000667
M3 - Article
C2 - 38736583
AN - SCOPUS:85192149759
SN - 2632-6140
VL - 6
JO - BMJ Neurology Open
JF - BMJ Neurology Open
IS - 1
M1 - e000667
ER -
