Abstract
Objectives:
To determine the incidence and baseline factors associated with breakthrough COVID-19 after pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab among patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).
Methods:
We performed a retrospective cohort study among patients with SARDs who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab between January 2, 2022 and November 16, 2022. The primary outcome was breakthrough COVID-19 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab. We performed multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for baseline factors to identify risk factors for breakthrough COVID-19.
Results:
We identified 444 SARD patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (mean age 62.0 years, 78.2% female). There were 83 (18.7%) breakthrough COVID-19 cases (incidence rate 31.5 per 1000 person-months [95% CI 24.7 – 38.2]), 7 (1.6%) hospitalizations and 1 (0.2%) death. Older age was inversely associated with breakthrough COVID-19 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.86 per 10 years, 95% CI 0.75 – 0.99). Higher baseline spike antibody levels were associated with lower risk of breakthrough COVID-19 (aHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 – 0.99 for spike antibody levels >200 vs. <0.4 units). CD20 inhibitor users had a similar risk of breakthrough COVID-19 (aHR 1.05, 95% CI 0.44 – 2.49) compared to conventional synthetic DMARD users.
Conclusions:
We found that SARD patients had frequent breakthrough COVID-19, but the proportion experiencing severe COVID-19 was low. DMARD type, including CD20 inhibitors, did not significantly affect risk of breakthrough COVID-19. Evidence of prior humoral immunity was protective against breakthrough infection, highlighting the continued need for a multimodal approach to prevent severe COVID-19 as novel PrEP therapies are being developed.
Keywords: COVID-19, autoimmune diseases, tixagevimab/cilgavimab, pre-exposure prophylaxis
INTRODUCTION
Vaccines and therapeutics aimed at preventing and treating COVID-19 have been developed and authorized at a remarkable pace since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (1–3). Unique among these options is tixagevimab/cilgavimab, a combination of monoclonal antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021 for use as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among patients who are moderately to severely immunocompromised. The original clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab enrolled participants with various risk factors for severe COVID-19, but only 3.3% of the participants were eligible due to immunosuppressive medications (4). Nevertheless, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was approved for use in immunosuppressed patients, including those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Given its limited availability particularly early on, it was often reserved for those receiving B cell depleting therapy because of concerns about their risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections, severe outcomes, and poor humoral response to vaccinations (5–8). However, little is known regarding the real-world experience with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with SARDs. Therefore, we aimed to determine the incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab among immunocompromised patients with SARDs and identify potential risk factors for breakthrough COVID-19 in this population.
METHODS
Study design and population
We performed a retrospective cohort study within the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Healthcare system in Massachusetts, United States. MGB encompasses a total of 14 healthcare facilities including tertiary care hospitals, community hospitals, and outpatient centers. We identified all patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP between January 2, 2022, when tixagevimab/cilgavimab first became available within our system, and November 16, 2022, when the predominant viral strain circulating in Massachusetts became resistant to tixagevimab/cilgavimab (9) The study was approved by the MGB Institutional Review Board (2020P000833).
Identification of SARD patients and index date
We identified all patients ≥18 years of age within the MGB system who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab between January 2, 2022 and November 16, 2022 using an electronic query of the MGB data warehouse. We then screened for patients with SARDs by filtering for at least one International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for a SARD diagnosis and use of immunomodulatory medications or glucocorticoids within one year prior to the first tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt, as described in prior studies (10). We did not include patients who were being treated for osteoarthritis, crystalline arthritis, mechanical back pain, or fibromyalgia as these patients are often cared for by non-rheumatologists. We confirmed the SARD diagnosis by manual medical record review.
The index date was the date of administration of the first dose of tixagevimab/cilgavimab. For patients who initially received the 150mg/150mg dose of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (prior to the change in the dosage to 300mg/300mg in February 2022) (11), the first date of tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration was considered the index date, but we quantified the number of patients who received a supplementary dose.
Patient characteristics
We collected demographic information, comorbidities, smoking history, vaccination status, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, and SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels from electronic query. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea, chronic kidney disease, and interstitial lung disease. Vaccination status was defined as follows: 1) unvaccinated, 2) partially vaccinated 3), two doses mRNA or one dose viral vector vaccine, 4) three doses mRNA vaccines or one dose viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine and 5) any additional vaccine doses, as described previously (12). Specific SARD type and presence of other indications for tixagevimab/cilgavimab (active cancer, organ transplant, other immune-mediated inflammatory disease [e.g. multiple sclerosis], primary immunodeficiency) were collected by manual medical record review. For patients on CD20 inhibitor treatment for their SARD, we also collected clinical data on time from the last CD20 inhibitor infusion to the index date and peripheral circulating B cell levels where available.
Outcome: Breakthrough COVID-19
The primary outcome was breakthrough COVID-19 after the index date as identified by electronic query and confirmed by manual medical record review. We included both polymerase-chain reaction tests and home rapid antigen test results if the latter was reported to a physician. We performed medical record review on all patients to identify COVID-19 outcomes that included patient messages to physicians about positive test results up to the end of study. We also evaluated for severe COVID-19, which we defined as hospitalization or death within 30 days from the positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. We chose SARS-CoV-2 infection as the primary outcome to match the primary efficacy endpoint in the original study for tixagevimab/cilgavimab (4). We report on severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalization but did not expect many severe COVID-19 events given the improvement in outcomes during the omicron variant era, as we previously reported (12).
Covariates
We considered age as a continuous variable per 10 years. For patients receiving multiple immunosuppressive medications, we stratified the medications based on a hierarchical system as in prior studies: CD20 inhibitors > biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs > conventional DMARDs (10). For instance, a patient using methotrexate and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor would be categorized as a biologic DMARD user. We also considered calendar time as a covariate (categorized into three periods: before April 6, 2022, between April 6 and June 30, 2022, and after June 30, 2022) given the shift in local prescribing patterns and supply of tixagevimab/cilgavimab over time. Due to the initial limited supply at our institution, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was rolled out in phases: CD20 inhibitor users, organ transplant recipients, and those with primary immunodeficiency were prioritized in the first phase before April 6, 2022; subsequently, all patients with low spike antibody levels became eligible; finally, after June 30, 2022, any patient with risk factors for severe illness with COVID-19 became eligible.
We also evaluated surrogates of immunity including baseline spike antibody levels and prior COVID-19 before the index date. We categorized the spike antibodies as <0.4 units/mL (undetectable), 0.4 to 200 units/mL, and >200 units/mL based on the negative, suboptimal, and low immune response categories based on the ongoing ACV01 clinical trial for COVID-19 booster vaccines in SARD patients (13). For patients with missing spike antibody levels, those who were concomitantly receiving CD20 inhibitors were imputed to have undetectable (<0.4 units) spike antibody levels.
Statistical analysis
We reported the following descriptive statistics at baseline of tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt: frequencies and proportions of categorical variables and mean (standard deviation) and median (interquartile range) of continuous variables, as appropriate. Follow-up time for each patient was measured from the index date to the earliest of breakthrough COVID-19, death, or end of study (November 16, 2022). The incidence rate (95% CI) of breakthrough COVID-19 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt was calculated. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to censor patients upon receipt of the earliest of a second full dose of tixagevimab/cilgavimab or six months from the index date, in addition to the other censoring events in the primary analysis.
We then assessed for associations of baseline factors that may predispose to breakthrough COVID-19 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab, using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breakthrough COVID-19. In the multivariable models, we adjusted for age, sex, calendar date, spike antibody level, DMARD use, and previous COVID-19 based on findings from univariate analyses and known risk factors for breakthrough infection.
Two-sided p values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were completed using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Study cohort characteristics
We identified 501 patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab and met our screening for SARD diagnosis; after manual medical record review, we identified 444 patients with confirmed SARD who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab between January 2, 2022 and November 16, 2022 (Supplementary Figure S1). The majority were female (78.2%), and the mean age was 62.0 (SD 14.0) years. Most patients were white (79.3%), followed by Black (8.3%), and Asian (5.2%). Comorbidities were common (median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 [IQR 1 – 5]) and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (45.7%), interstitial lung disease (23.0%), and chronic kidney disease (21.0%). A total of 88 (19.8%) patients had other indications for receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab in addition to their SARD diagnosis, including history of solid organ or bone marrow transplant (10.4%), active cancer treatment (6.1%), other immune-mediated inflammatory disease (3.8%), and primary immunodeficiency (0.7%) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of SARD patients at time of initial tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt
| Characteristic | SARD patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (n=444) |
|---|---|
| Age (mean, SD, years) | 62.0 (14.0) |
| Female | 347 (78.2%) |
| Race | |
| White | 352 (79.3%) |
| Black or African American | 37 (8.3%) |
| Asian | 23 (5.2%) |
| Other or multiple | 24 (5.4%) |
| Unknown | 8 (1.8%) |
| Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity | 12 (2.7%) |
| Body mass index (mean, SD, kg/m2) | 27.7 (6.9) |
| Smoking status | |
| Never | 267 (60.1%) |
| Past | 162 (36.5%) |
| Current | 11 (2.5%) |
| Unknown | 4 (0.9%) |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index (median [IQR]) | 2 (1 – 5) |
| Comorbidities | |
| Hypertension | 203 (45.7%) |
| Interstitial lung disease | 102 (23.0%) |
| Chronic kidney disease | 93 (21.0%) |
| Coronary artery disease | 74 (16.7%) |
| Asthma | 70 (15.8%) |
| Diabetes | 67 (15.1%) |
| Obstructive sleep apnea | 52 (11.7%) |
| Heart failure | 40 (9.0%) |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 26 (5.9%) |
| Other tixagevimab/cilgavimab indications | |
| None | 356 (80.2%) |
| Any | 88 (19.8%) |
| History of solid organ/bone marrow transplant | 46 (10.4%) |
| Active cancer treatment | 27 (6.1%) |
| Other immune-mediated inflammatory diseasea | 17 (3.8%) |
| Primary immunodeficiency | 3 (0.7%) |
| COVID-19 vaccination status | |
| Unvaccinated | 14 (3.2%) |
| Partially vaccinated | 9 (2.0%) |
| 2 doses mRNA or 1 dose viral vector vaccine | 44 (9.9%) |
| 3 doses mRNA or 1 dose viral vector vaccine + 1 additional dose | 238 (53.6%) |
| Additional doses | 139 (31.3%) |
| Months from last COVID-19 vaccine to index date, (median, IQR) | 5 (3 – 8) |
| Received vaccine dose within 6 months before index date | 273 (61.5%) |
| Previous COVID-19 infection before index date | 84 (18.9%) |
| Median spike antibody level before index date, units (IQR) [n = 329] | 2.2 (0.3 – 765) |
| Spike antibody level categories, units | |
| <0.4 (undetectable) | 155 (34.9%) |
| ≥0.4 to 200 | 67 (15.1%) |
| >200 | 107 (24.1%) |
| Missing spike level | 115 (25.9%) |
| Duration from the most recent spike antibody test to index date, days (median, IQR) | 96.5 (29 – 166) |
| Calendar time of initial tixagevimab/cilgavimab | |
| Before April 6, 2022 | 172 (38.7%) |
| Between April 6, 2022 and June 30, 2022 | 150 (33.8%) |
| After June 30, 2022 | 122 (27.5%) |
SARD, systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019
Includes multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other inflammatory conditions that require immunosuppression but not typically treated by rheumatologists
The most common SARD diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (43.7%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (14.9%), and ANCA-associated vasculitis (11.7%) (Table 2). CD20 inhibitors were used by 48.7% of the cohort. Specific details on the patients receiving CD20 inhibitors including their SARD diagnoses, time from last infusion to the index date, and number of infusions prior to the index date, and measurement of circulating B cell levels, where available, are shown in Supplementary Table S1. Since the recommended dose of tixagevimab/cilgavimab was revised from 150mg/150mg to 300mg/300mg on February 25, 2022, we report post-baseline variables including additional tixagevimab/cilgavimab doses as well as any vaccinations after the index date (Supplementary Table S2).
Table 2.
Baseline systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease characteristics at time of initial tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt
| Characteristic | SARD patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (n=444) |
|---|---|
| SARD diagnosis | |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 194 (43.7%) |
| Systemic lupus erythematosus | 66 (14.9%) |
| ANCA-associated vasculitis | 52 (11.7%) |
| Psoriatic arthritis | 17 (3.8%) |
| Systemic sclerosis | 14 (3.2%) |
| Sjogren’s disease | 13 (2.9%) |
| Polymyalgia rheumatica and/or giant cell arteritis | 20 (4.5%) |
| Idiopathic inflammatory myositis | 12 (2.7%) |
| Axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis | 6 (1.4%) |
| Mixed connective tissue disease | 6 (1.4%) |
| Multiple primary rheumatic diseases | 21 (4.7%) |
| Other diagnosesa | 22 (5.0%) |
| Immunomodulatory medications | |
| DMARDs | 433 (97.5%) |
| Biologic DMARDs | 298 (67.1%) |
| CD20 inhibitor | 216 (48.7%) |
| TNF inhibitor | 37 (8.3%) |
| IL-6 receptor inhibitor | 18 (4.1%) |
| CTLA-4 immunoglobulin | 17 (3.8%) |
| B-cell activating factor inhibitor | 8 (1.8%) |
| IL-17, IL-12/23, or IL-23 inhibitor | 5 (1.1%) |
| Targeted synthetic DMARD | |
| JAK inhibitor | 11 (2.5%) |
| Conventional synthetic DMARDs | 289 (65.1%) |
| Methotrexate | 98 (22.1%) |
| Mycophenolate mofetil / mycophenolic acid | 91 (20.5%) |
| Antimalarials | 85 (19.1%) |
| Calcineurin inhibitorb | 63 (14.2%) |
| Azathioprine | 29 (6.5%) |
| Leflunomide | 22 (5.0%) |
| Cyclophosphamide | 14 (3.2%) |
| Sulfasalazine | 12 (2.7%) |
| Oral glucocorticoid | 52 (11.7%) |
SARD, systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease; ANCA, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IL, interleukin; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; JAK, Janus kinase
Includes IgG4 related disease, sarcoidosis, relapsing polychondritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, other inflammatory arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, primary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, Behçet disease, and Takayasu arteritis
Includes tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and voclosporin
COVID-19 outcomes
We identified 83 (18.7%) breakthrough COVID-19 during 2,637.6 person-months of follow up (Table 3). The incidence rate of breakthrough COVID-19 was 31.5 (95% CI 24.7 – 38.2) per 1000 person-months. The median time (IQR) from the index date to symptomatic COVID-19 among cases was 146 (98 – 209) days. The distribution of breakthrough infections after the index date is shown in Supplementary Figure S2. Of these, 7 (1.6% of total cohort, incidence rate 2.7 [95%CI 0.7 – 4.6]) had severe COVID-19 (hospitalization or death within 30 days of COVID-19). One death occurred in a patient with RA who developed acute limb ischemia in the setting of COVID-19. 68 of the 83 patients (81.9%) with breakthrough infection received COVID-19 specific treatments, with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) being the most common treatment (43 of 83, 51.8%).
Table 3.
Breakthrough COVID-19 outcomes after tixagevimab/cilgavimab among patients with SARDs
| Outcome | SARD patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (n=444) |
|---|---|
| Breakthrough COVID-19 | 83 (18.7%) |
| Incidence rate for breakthrough COVID-19 per 1000 person-months (95% CI) | 31.5 (24.7 – 38.2) |
| Severe COVID-19 | 7 (1.6%) |
| Hospitalizations | 7 (1.6%) |
| Deaths | 1 (0.2%) |
| Incidence rate for severe COVID-19 per 1000 person-months (95% CI) | 2.7 (0.7 – 4.6) |
| Median days from index date to infection (IQR) | 146 (98 – 209) |
| Outpatient COVID-19 treatmentsa | 63 (75.9%) |
| Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir | 43 (51.8%) |
| Outpatient monoclonal antibodies | 20 (24.1%) |
| No outpatient treatment | 15 (18.1%) |
| Inpatient COVID-19 treatmentsb | 5 (6.0%) |
SARD, systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range
No patients received molnupiravir or outpatient remdesivir
Inpatient COVID-19 treatments included remdesivir, dexamethasone, baricitinib, and monoclonal antibodies. Two out of the seven patients with severe COVID-19 received outpatient monoclonal antibodies before being admitted for secondary complications of COVID-19.
Baseline variables associated with breakthrough COVID-19
Older age was associated with a lower risk of breakthrough infection (aHR 0.86 per year, 95% CI 0.75 – 0.99). Higher baseline spike antibody levels were also associated with lower risk of breakthrough COVID-19 (aHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 – 0.99 for spike antibody levels >200 units vs. <0.4 units). The cumulative incidence curve stratified by spike antibody levels is shown in Figure 1. Prior COVID-19 infection was not associated with risk for breakthrough COVID-19. In the unadjusted and multivariable models, different DMARD classes had no significant association with the risk of breakthrough infection. Notably, CD20 inhibitor users did not have higher risk of breakthrough COVID-19 (aHR 1.05, 95% CI 0.44 – 2.49) compared to patients on conventional synthetic DMARDs (Table 4).
Figure 1. Cumulative incidence curve of breakthrough COVID-19 stratified by spike antibody level.
aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval
Adjusted hazard ratio for breakthrough COVID-19 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 – 0.99) for spike antibody level >200 units vs. < 0.4 units
Table 4.
Associations of baseline demographic- and treatment-related factors with COVID-19 breakthrough after tixagevimab/cilgavimab receipt
| Variable | COVID-19 cases | Personmonths | Incidence rate (per 1000 person-months) | Multivariable HRa (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (per 10 years) | 83 | 2,637.6 | 31.5 (24.7, 38.2) | 0.86 (0.75 – 0.99) |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 62 | 2,047.9 | 30.3 (22.7, 37.8) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Male | 21 | 589.7 | 35.6 (20.4, 50.9) | 1.13 (0.67 – 1.90) |
| Calendar time | ||||
| Before 4/6/2022 | 48 | 1,394.2 | 34.4 (24.7, 44.2) | 1.00 (ref) |
| 4/6 to 6/30/2022 | 21 | 841.5 | 26.1 (15.2, 37.1) | 1.01 (0.54 – 1.87) |
| 7/1/2022 and later | 13 | 401.9 | 32.3 (14.8, 49.9) | 1.62 (0.80 – 3.27) |
| Spike antibody level | ||||
| <0.4 | 36 | 1,089 | 33.1 (22.3, 43.9) | 1.00 (ref) |
| 0.4 to 200 | 14 | 405.4 | 34.5 (16.4, 52.6) | 0.94 (0.45 – 1.96) |
| >200 | 9 | 551.6 | 16.32 (5.7, 27.0) | 0.42 (0.18 – 0.99) |
| Missing | 24 | 591.6 | 40.6 (24.3, 56.8) | 0.93 (0.40 – 2.17) |
| Previous COVID-19 before index date | ||||
| No | 72 | 2,167.2 | 33.2 (25.6, 40.9) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Yes | 11 | 470.4 | 23.4 (9.6, 37.2) | 0.66 (0.35 – 1.25) |
| DMARD use | ||||
| csDMARD onlyb | 8 | 321.0 | 24.9 (7.7, 42.2) | 1.00 (ref) |
| No DMARD | 2 | 58.3 | 34.3 (0.0, 81.9) | 1.55 (0.31 – 7.72) |
| MMF | 13 | 354.6 | 36.7 (16.7, 56.6) | 1.45 (0.59 – 3.60) |
| CD20 inhibitor | 42 | 1,460.5 | 28.8 (20.1, 37.5) | 1.05 (0.44 – 2.49) |
| Other b/tsDMARD | 18 | 443.1 | 40.6 (21.9, 59.4) | 1.89 (0.83 – 4.32) |
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; b/tsDMARD, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil
Adjusted for age and sex, calendar date, spike antibody level, DMARD use, previous COVID-19
csDMARD other than MMF
Sensitivity analyses
We performed a sensitivity analysis censoring patients at 6 months after their index date (when we presume the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies would wane), upon receipt of the second full dose of tixagevimab/cilgavimab, death, COVID-19, or end of study (Supplementary table S3). In this analysis, the observed incidence rate (27.0 per 1000 person-months, 95% CI 19.6 – 34.4) of COVID-19 was similar to the primary analysis. In addition, initiation of tixagevimab/cilgavimab later in the pandemic (index date on or after 7/1/2022) was associated with a higher risk of breakthrough infection (aHR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 – 5.49).
DISCUSSION
In this large retrospective cohort study among patients with SARDs who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab during its period of viral neutralizing ability, we found that breakthrough COVID-19 was frequent but severe infections were uncommon. We did not find disease- or treatment-specific factors associated with breakthrough COVID-19. Importantly, though patients using CD20 inhibitors have been reported to be at an increased risk of breakthrough infection and severe COVID-19 (2, 5, 14), those who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab had a similar risk of breakthrough COVID-19 as those using conventional synthetic DMARDs alone.
We found a lower risk for breakthrough infection among older patients, which may in part be due to behavioral differences such as more shielding practices, smaller social contacts, or differences in COVID-19 testing practices. In addition, higher baseline spike antibodies were protective against breakthrough COVID-19, highlighting the additional protection afforded by prior immunity from vaccination. Indeed, temporarily interrupting immunosuppression (e.g., holding methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil) or delaying CD20 inhibitor treatment to administer vaccines (15), even if not as protective as in the general population, may be an important complementary strategy in patients using these medications. Alternatively, the spike antibody may be a surrogate for overall immune system function, including cellular immunity that may have prevented symptomatic COVID-19.
Several other studies have described early experiences with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with SARDs and observed a low proportion of patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (2–14%) as well as overall mild infections (16–18). We observed a slightly higher proportion (18.6%) with breakthrough COVID-19 in our cohort, which may be due to longer follow-up time (median time from index date to COVID-19 of 146 days) as well as inclusion of SARD patients with substantial comorbidities such as organ transplant or active cancer. A recent study of SARD patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab in France reported similar proportions of breakthrough COVID-19 (20%) as in our study (22). The incidence rate of breakthrough COVID-19 was higher in our current study (31.5 per 1000 person-months [95% CI 24.7 – 38.2]) compared to our prior study (2.6 [2.3 – 2.9] per 1000 person-months) (10), likely owing to the difference in the study period. While there are few studies reporting on rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections among SARD patients during the Omicron era, studies from other countries indicate high rates of breakthrough infection (17 – 23%) among SARD patients after January 2022 (23, 24).
In our study, approximately 10% of the patients with symptomatic COVID-19 required hospitalization; while this is lower than in prior studies in SARD patients (19–21), it is still substantially higher than the values reported for the general population during a similar period (25), thus highlighting the ongoing need for additional strategies to protect this group. The similar risk of infection observed in CD20 inhibitor users and those using conventional DMARDs highlights the importance of the PrEP strategy, especially for our most vulnerable patients with SARDs.
At the end of 2022, it was recognized that tixagevimab/cilgavimab did not neutralize the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, leading to removal of its EUA status. Thus, ours is the first study to our knowledge that investigated the real-world experience of tixagevimab/cilgavimab among SARDs throughout its entire period of viral neutralizing activity. This revocation has left many of the most vulnerable SARD patients at high risk again for severe COVID-19. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying other forms of PrEP, either antivirals (26) or monoclonal antibodies, to protect patients with SARDs and inform future PrEP strategies. Additional studies are warranted that investigate these strategies in the highest risk patients. A clinical trial investigating a newer-generation PrEP is ongoing (27).
Strengths of our study include the systematic identification of large numbers of SARD patients receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab, as well as confirmation of SARD diagnoses and other clinically relevant risk factors by medical record review. We were also able to ascertain COVID-19 outcomes in the electronic medical record. Finally, we were able to include many patients on CD20 inhibitors, a population considered particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to the limited humoral response despite vaccination (7, 28). Also, we were able to examine the real-world experience of the entire clinical experience of tixagevimab/cilgavimab at our center during its active EUA.
Our study has several limitations. First, we did not include a comparator group of SARD patients who did not receive tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Thus, we are unable to estimate the comparative effectiveness of use or non-use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab. It would be challenging to identify an appropriate comparator group that was at high-risk for COVID-19 but did not receive tixagevimab/cilgavimab, as the clinical recommendation for much of 2022 encouraged the use of PrEP in immunocompromised patients (9). Also, SARD patients who sought PrEP may have important unmeasured differences related to health behaviors and access to care. Despite this, we made important observations regarding the incidence and risk factors of breakthrough COVID-19 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Second, since this was a retrospective study, circulating B cells or immunoglobulin levels were not clinically tested in many patients, limiting the conclusions we can draw regarding the association of these factors with the risk of infection. Third, we identified patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by PCR or self-reported home antigen test. As such, we likely did not capture all infections, especially asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic COVID-19. Thus, the rate of infection, especially non-severe disease in our study may be an underestimate. However, given that the patients in the cohort are among the most immunosuppressed SARD patients, they are likely to reach out to their providers for guidance in the setting of a symptomatic infection. Finally, a majority of patients also received outpatient treatment with COVID-19 specific treatments such as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Thus, the relatively mild infections observed in our cohort could be attributed to the outpatient treatments (23) in addition to the effects of PrEP with tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
In summary, we found that breakthrough COVID-19 following tixagevimab/cilgavimab was common but that the vast majority of infections in this high-risk population were non-severe. Further, we found no associations between DMARD type, including CD20 inhibitors, with the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 among SARD patients who recieved tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Currently (as of July 2023), there is no pre-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV2 for severely immunocompromised patients such as SARD patients using CD20 inhibitors or other potent immunosuppressive agents. Our findings highlight the high clinical need for PrEP to prevent COVID-19 among particularly vulnerable patients.
Supplementary Material
Funding/Support:
YK is supported by the National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32 AR007530). ZSW is funded by NIH/NIAMS (R01 AR080659, K23 AR073334 and R03 AR078938). JAS is funded by NIH/NIAMS (grant numbers R01 AR080659, R01 AR077607, P30 AR070253, and P30 AR072577), the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award funded by the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation.
Competing Interests:
NJP reports consulting fees from FVC Health, Chronius, and Arrivo Bio unrelated to this work. ZSW reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting/advisory board fees from Viela Bio, Zenas BioPharma, PPD, Visterra, Novartis, BioCryst, Sanofi, Horizon, and MedPace. JAS reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, and ReCor unrelated to this work. All other authors report no competing interests.
REFERENCES
- 1.Hammond J, Leister-Tebbe H, Gardner A, et al. Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(15):1397–408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Grainger R, Kim AHJ, Conway R, Yazdany J, Robinson PC. COVID-19 in people with rheumatic diseases: risks, outcomes, treatment considerations. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(4):191–204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines National Institutes of Health. [Accessed June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/. [PubMed]
- 4.Levin MJ, Ustianowski A, De Wit S, et al. Intramuscular AZD7442 (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab) for Prevention of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(23):2188–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Patel NJ, D’Silva KM, Hsu TY, et al. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes Among Recipients of Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies for Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Comparative Cohort Study. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2022;4(3):238–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Furer V, Eviatar T, Zisman D, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: a multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1330–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zheng YQ, Li HJ, Chen L, Lin SP. Immunogenicity of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):17955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Spiera R, Jinich S, Jannat-Khah D. Rituximab, but not other antirheumatic therapies, is associated with impaired serological response to SARS- CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1357–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Clinical Guidance on Therapeutics for COVID-19 (Issued November 16, 2022) Commonwealth of Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health. [Accessed June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://www.mass.gov/doc/guidance-for-the-use-of-therapeutics-for-treatment-of-covid-19-nov-16-2022/download.
- 10.Patel NJ, Wang X, Fu X, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19 breakthrough infection among vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases: A cohort study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023;58:152108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers: Emergency Use Authorization for Evusheld (tixagevimab co-packaged with cilgavimab) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Accessed June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/154701/download.
- 12.Kawano Y, Patel NJ, Wang X, et al. Temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: from the first wave through the initial Omicron wave. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(12):1742–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.COVID-19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non-Responders ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05000216.
- 14.Avouac J, Drumez E, Hachulla E, et al. COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases treated with rituximab: a cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021;3(6):e419–e26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Curtis JR, Johnson SR, Anthony DD, et al. American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 5. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023;75(1):E1–E16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Aqeel F, Geetha D. Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) in Rituximab-treated Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody Vasculitis Patients. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(11):2537–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Calabrese C, Kirchner E, Villa-Forte A, et al. Early experience with tixagevimab/cilgavimab pre-exposure prophylaxis in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease undergoing B cell depleting therapy and those with inborn errors of humoral immunity. RMD Open. 2022;8(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ocon AJ, Mustafa SS. Real-World Experience of Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) in Rheumatologic Patients on Rituximab. J Clin Rheumatol. 2023;29(2):109–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.D’Silva KM, Serling-Boyd N, Wallwork R, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rheumatic disease: a comparative cohort study from a US ‘hot spot’. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(9):1156–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Xu C, Yi Z, Cai R, Chen R, Thong BY, Mu R. Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global data. Autoimmun Rev. 2021;20(4):102778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Conway R, Grimshaw AA, Konig MF, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(5):766–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Thomas M, Masson M, Bitoun S, Hamroun S, Seror R, Dupuy H, et al. Prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab is associated with lower COVID-19 incidence and severity in patients with autoimmune diseases. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023. Accepted manuscript. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Benny L, Mehta P, Ahmed S, Paul A, Sukumaran A, Mohanan M, et al. Correlates of breakthrough Omicron (B.1.1.529) infections in a prospective cohort of vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43(6):1033–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Boekel L, Besten YR, Hooijberg F, Wartena R, Steenhuis M, Vogelzang E, et al. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the omicron dominant period. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4(11):e747–e50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Havers FP, Patel K, Whitaker M, et al. Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults During SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 Variant Predominance - COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network, 14 States, June 20, 2021-May 31, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(34):1085–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Qian G, Wang X, Patel NJ, et al. Outcomes with and without outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment for patients with COVID-19 and systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(3):e139–e50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Study Understanding Pre-Exposure pRophylaxis of NOVel Antibodies (SUPERNOVA) ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05648110.
- 28.Simon D, Tascilar K, Schmidt K, et al. Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccination in Autoimmune Disease Patients With B Cell Depletion. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(1):33–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.