Evidence Hub

Reply to “successful early use of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 monoclonal neutralizing antibodies in SARS‐CoV‐2 infected hematological patients—A Czech multicenter experience”: A case series of SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron infection and aggressive lymphoma in the Sotrovimab era

Ramona Cassin, N. Rampi, Fidanza C, Antonio Muscatello, B. Mariani, A. Noto, F. Rossi, L. Baldini

Hematological Oncology, 2022

8 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

A prospective multicentre experience of early administration of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (MA) with efficacy among patients with hematological malignancies and early‐stage COVID‐ 19 was reported by Weinbergerová et al. The study validated the safety and efficacy of MA early use among hematological patients with newly diagnosed early‐stage COVID‐19 in terms of alleviating infection course and decreasing mortality. However no reference to new variant (Delta and Omicron) or other MA (e.g., Sotrovimab) has been reported. We reported our monocentric experience of 8 aggressive lymphoma patients with Omicron infection, 7 of whom treated with this MA in our Institution between December 2021 and February 2022. Among the patients treated with Sotrovimab nobody experienced neither SARS‐CoV2 reactivation, nor other infectious events. One patients on active lymphoma treatment was hospitalized for pneumonia and treated with remdesivir. In 4/8 patients negativization of molecular swab occurred concomitantly to symptoms resolution with a median of 5.25 days, while the other 4 patients remained persistently positive with a median of 26.3 days. In this group, in order to maintain the chemo/chemoimmunotherapy (CT/CIT) dose‐density, lymphoma treatment was reassumed independently on molecular swab analysis. SARS‐CoV‐2 negativization occurred with a median of 7.7 days after the resumption of CT/CIT. The one patient treated with remdesivir, although still…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 8 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free