Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06). Conclusions The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06). Conclusions The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06). Conclusions The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06). Conclusions The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.