Bamlanivimab reduces nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels but not symptom duration in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Saliva Is a Sensitive and Accessible Sample Both for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and for the Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness in Follow-Up Studies

Despite emerging evidence indicating that molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests performed on saliva have diagnostic sensitivity and specificity comparable to those observed with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs), most in vivo follow-up studies on the efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2 have been performed on NPSs, not considering saliva as a possible alternative matrix. For this reason, in this study, we used, in parallel, saliva and NPS samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR in patients receiving Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab as a treatment against SARS-CoV-2. Our results showed a good correlation between the NPS and saliva samples for each drug; moreover, comparable changes in the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in saliva and NPSs were observed both 7 days and 30 days after treatment, thus confirming that the saliva represents a good matrix for in vivo follow-up studies verifying the effectiveness of treatments against SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment impact on symptoms and post-COVID conditions among high-risk patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, there is limited information regarding the impact of treatment on symptoms and the prevalence of post-COVID Conditions (PCC). Understanding of the association between time to mAb infusion and the development of PCC is also limited.

METHODS

This longitudinal study was conducted among patients with COVID-19 who received mAb infusions at a Federally Qualified Health Center in San Diego, CA. A series of telephone interviews were conducted at baseline and follow-up (14 days and 28+ days). A comprehensive symptom inventory was completed and physical and mental health status were measured using PROMIS-29 and PHQ-2. Pearson's Chi-squared tests and independent two-sample t-tests were performed to test for association between time to mAb infusion and outcomes at follow-up. A Poisson regression model was used to analyze whether time to mAb infusion predicts risk of developing PCC.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 411) were 53% female, ranged in age from 16 to 92 years (mean 50), and a majority (56%) were Latino/Hispanic. Cross-sectional findings revealed a high symptom burden at baseline (70% of patients had cough, 50% had fever, and 44% had headache). The prevalence of many symptoms decreased substantially by the final follow-up survey (29% of patients had cough, 3% had fever, and 28% had headache). Longitudinal findings indicated that 10 symptoms decreased in prevalence from baseline to final follow-up, 2 remained the same, and 14 increased. The severity of symptoms and most patient-reported physical and mental health measure scores decreased over time. The prevalence of PCC was 69% when PCC was defined as ≥ 1 symptom at final follow-up. Time to mAb infusion was not significantly associated with any outcome at follow-up. Time to infusion was not associated with PCC status at final follow-up in the crude or adjusted Poisson regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of PCC was high among this patient population following COVID-19 mAb treatment. Time to mAb infusion did not predict the development of PCC. Further research in these areas is essential to answer urgent clinical questions about effective treatments of COVID-19.

Qualitative interviews to evaluate content validity of the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD)

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures are needed to assess the impact of treatments for COVID-19 on symptoms. The ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD) is being used in the ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-2 (ACTIV-2) platform clinical trial. The purpose of the current study was to conduct qualitative interviews to assess content validity of the ACSD.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with adults who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The ACSD begins with global items, followed by a symptom checklist. Each interview began with concept elicitation focusing on participant experiences with COVID-19. Then, participants completed the ACSD, and cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate the questionnaire. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded following a qualitative content analysis. For the qualitative analysis, a coding dictionary was developed with a list of all potential codes and instructions for how the codes should be applied and combined.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 30 participants (mean age = 39 years; 57% female; 17% Latinx; 17% Black/African American; 40% meeting at least one criterion for classification as high risk of progression to severe COVID-19). Commonly reported symptoms included fatigue (reported by 100% of the sample), body pain/muscle pain/aches (87%), headaches (87%), cough (83%), loss of smell (73%), shortness of breath/difficulty breathing (70%), and chills (70%). The 13 symptoms most commonly reported in this study are included in the ACSD. After completing the ACSD, participants consistently reported that it was clear and easy to complete, and all items were generally interpreted as intended. Based on participants' input, the ACSD was edited slightly after the first 13 interviews, and the revised version was used for the final 17 interviews. Two additional items assessing "brain fog" and dizziness were recommended for addition to the ACSD in future research.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study supports the content validity of the ACSD for assessment of COVID-19 symptoms. Quantitative research with larger samples will be needed to examine the questionnaire's measurement properties.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

SARS-CoV-2 Virology

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in 2020 and has led to an unprecedented global pandemic. Understanding the virology behind SARS-CoV-2 infection has provided key insights into our efforts to develop antiviral agents and control the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, the authors focus on the genomic features of SARS-CoV-2, its intrahost and interhost evolution, viral dynamics in respiratory tract, and systemic dissemination.

Human Identical Sequences, hyaluronan, and hymecromone ─ the new mechanism and management of COVID-19

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has created formidable damage to public health and market economy. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 variants has exacerbated the transmission from person-to-person. Even after a great deal of investigation on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is still rampaging globally, emphasizing the urgent need to reformulate effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we review the latest research progress of COVID-19 and provide distinct perspectives on the mechanism and management of COVID-19. Specially, we highlight the significance of Human Identical Sequences (HIS), hyaluronan, and hymecromone ("Three-H") for the understanding and intervention of COVID-19. Firstly, HIS activate inflammation-related genes to influence COVID-19 progress through NamiRNA-Enhancer network. Accumulation of hyaluronan induced by HIS-mediated HAS2 upregulation is a substantial basis for clinical manifestations of COVID-19, especially in lymphocytopenia and pulmonary ground-glass opacity. Secondly, detection of plasma hyaluronan can be effective for evaluating the progression and severity of COVID-19. Thirdly, spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 may bind to hyaluronan and further serve as an allergen to stimulate allergic reaction, causing sudden adverse effects after vaccination or the aggravation of COVID-19. Finally, antisense oligonucleotides of HIS or inhibitors of hyaluronan synthesis (hymecromone) or antiallergic agents could be promising therapeutic agents for COVID-19. Collectively, Three-H could hold the key to understand the pathogenic mechanism and create effective therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

Emulation of a Target Trial From Observational Data to Compare Effectiveness of Casirivimab/Imdevimab and Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab for Early Treatment of Non-Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Objectives

Comparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta.

Methods

Allocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7.Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period.

Results

COVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p<0.001) on D7.

Conclusions

In a pre-Omicron epidemiologic scenario, CAS/IMD reduced risk of clinical progression of COVID-19 compared to BAM/ETE. This effect was not associated with a concomitant difference in virological response.

Monoclonal antibody treatment drives rapid culture conversion in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are the treatment of choice for high-risk ambulatory persons with mild to moderate COVID-19. We studied viral culture dynamics post-treatment in a subset of participants receiving the mAb bamlanivimab in the ACTIV-2 trial. Viral load by qPCR and viral culture were performed from anterior nasal swabs collected on study days 0 (day of treatment), 1, 2, 3, and 7. Treatment with mAb resulted in rapid clearance of culturable virus in participants without treatment-emergent resistance. One day after treatment, 0 of 28 (0%) participants receiving mAb and 16 of 39 (41%) receiving placebo still had culturable virus (p <0.0001); nasal viral loads were only modestly lower in the mAb-treated group at days 2 and 3. Recrudescence of culturable virus was detected in three participants with emerging mAb resistance and viral load rebound. The rapid reduction in shedding of viable SARS-CoV-2 after mAb treatment highlights the potential role of mAbs in preventing disease transmission.