Impact of SARS-CoV-2 omicron and delta sub-lineage AY.4.2 variant on neutralization by sera of patients treated with different licensed monoclonal antibodies

Role of prior immunity in binding to spike of "future" Omicron subvariants

BACKGROUND

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, virus evolution and large-scale vaccination programs have caused multiple exposures to SARS CoV-2 spike protein, resulting in complex antibody profiles. The binding of these to spike protein of "future" variants in the context of such heterogeneous exposure has not been studied.

METHODS

We tested archival sera (Delta and Omicron period) stratified by anti-spike antibody (including IgG) levels for reactivity to Omicron-subvariants(BA.1, BA.2,BA.2.12.1, BA.2.75, BA.4/5 and BF.7) spike protein. Assessed antigenic distance between groups using Antigenic Cartography and performed hierarchical clustering of antibody data in a Euclidean distance framework.

RESULTS

Antibody (including IgG) antibody reactivity to Wild-type (CLIA) and subvariants (ELISA) spike protein were similar between periods (p > 0.05). Both 'High S' and 'Low S' of Delta and Omicron periods were closely related to "future" subvariants by Antigenic Cartography. Sera from different S groups clustered together with 'Low S' interspersed between 'High S' on hierarchical clustering, suggesting common binding sites. Further, anti-spike antibodies (including IgG) to Wild-type (S1/S2 and Trimeric S) clustered with Omicron-subvariant binding antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid immunity caused by cumulative virus exposure in Delta or Omicron periods resulted in equivalent binding to "future" variants, which might be due to binding to conserved regions of spike protein of future variants. A prominent finding is that the 'Low S' antibody demonstrates similar binding.

Vectored immunoprophylaxis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a preclinical model

Vectored immunoprophylaxis was first developed as a means of establishing engineered immunity to HIV using an adenoassociated viral vector expressing a broadly neutralizing antibody. We applied this concept to establish long-term prophylaxis against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a mouse model using adenoassociated virus and lentiviral vectors expressing a high-affinity angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) decoy. Administration of decoy-expressing (adenoassociated virus) AAV2.retro and AAV6.2 vectors by intranasal instillation or intramuscular injection protected mice against high-titered SARS-CoV-2 infection. AAV and lentiviral vectored immunoprophylaxis was durable and was active against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. The AAV vectors were also effective therapeutically when administered postinfection. Vectored immunoprophylaxis could be of value for immunocompromised individuals for whom vaccination is not practical and as a means to rapidly establish protection from infection. Unlike monoclonal antibody therapy, the approach is expected to remain active despite continued evolution viral variants.

Vectored Immunoprophylaxis and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Vectored immunoprophylaxis was first developed as a means to establish engineered immunity to HIV through the use of an adeno-associated viral vector expressing a broadly neutralizing antibody. We have applied this concept to establish long-term prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 by adeno-associated and lentiviral vectors expressing a high affinity ACE2 decoy receptor. Administration of decoy-expressing AAV vectors based on AAV2.retro and AAV6.2 by intranasal instillation or intramuscular injection protected mice against high-titered SARS-CoV-2 infection. AAV and lentiviral vectored immunoprophylaxis was durable and active against recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. The AAV vectors were also effective when administered up to 24 hours post-infection. Vectored immunoprophylaxis could be of value for immunocompromised individuals for whom vaccination is not practical and as a means to rapidly establish protection from infection. Unlike monoclonal antibody therapy, the approach is expected to remain active despite continued evolution viral variants.

Efficacy of Licensed Monoclonal Antibodies and Antiviral Agents against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Sublineages BA.1 and BA.2

Newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants may escape monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and antiviral drugs. By using live virus assays, we assessed the ex vivo inhibition of the B.1 wild-type (WT), delta and omicron BA.1 and BA.2 lineages by post-infusion sera from 40 individuals treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab (BAM/ETE), casirivimab/imdevimab (CAS/IMD), and sotrovimab (SOT) as well as the activity of remdesivir, nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir. mAbs and drug activity were defined as the serum dilution (ID₅₀) and drug concentration (IC₅₀), respectively, showing 50% protection of virus-induced cytopathic effect. All pre-infusion sera were negative for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity. BAM/ETE, CAS/IMD, and SOT showed activity against the WT (ID₅₀ 6295 (4355–8075) for BAM/ETE; 18,214 (16,248–21,365) for CAS/IMD; and 456 (265–592) for SOT) and the delta (14,780 (ID₅₀ 10,905–21,020) for BAM/ETE; 63,937 (47,211–79,971) for CAS/IMD; and 1103 (843–1334) for SOT). Notably, only SOT was active against BA.1 (ID₅₀ 200 (37–233)), whereas BA.2 was neutralized by CAS/IMD (ID₅₀ 174 (134–209) ID₅₀) and SOT (ID₅₀ 20 (9–31) ID₅₀), but not by BAM/ETE. No significant inter-variant IC₅₀ differences were observed for molnupiravir (1.5 ± 0.1/1.5 ± 0.7/1.0 ± 0.5/0.8 ± 0.01 μM for WT/delta/BA.1/BA.2, respectively), nirmatrelvir (0.05 ± 0.02/0.06 ± 0.01/0.04 ± 0.02/0.04 ± 0.01 μM) or remdesivir (0.08 ± 0.04/0.11 ± 0.08/0.05 ± 0.04/0.08 ± 0.01 μM). Continued evolution of SARS-CoV-2 requires updating the mAbs arsenal, although antivirals have so far remained unaffected.