ArticleBMJ neurology open2024
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.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Improved SARS-CoV-2 Cross-Variant Antibody Response and Prediction of Protection.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.