Symptom and Viral Rebound in Untreated SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Characterization of Treatment Resistance and Viral Kinetics in the Setting of Single-Active Versus Dual-Active Monoclonal Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is unclear whether combination mAbs offer a benefit over single-active mAb treatment. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab significantly reduced the risk of hospitalizations or death in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Certain SARS-CoV-2 variants are intrinsically resistant against romlusevimab, leading to only single-active mAb therapy with amubarvimab in these variants. We evaluated virologic outcomes in individuals treated with single- versus dual-active mAbs.

METHODS

Participants were nonhospitalized adults at higher risk of clinical progression randomized to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and targeted S-gene next-generation sequencing was performed on anterior nasal samples. We compared viral load kinetics and resistance emergence between individuals treated with effective single- versus dual-active mAbs depending on the infecting variant.

RESULTS

Study participants receiving single- or dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared with single-active mAb treatment, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study days 3 (P < .001) and 7 (P < .01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than with placebo (2.6% vs 0%; P < .001) and were more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared with dual-active mAb treatment (7.3% vs 1.1%; P < .01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with single-active mAb therapy, dual-active mAbs led to similar clinical outcomes but significantly faster viral load decline and a lower risk of emergent resistance.

Persistence of an infectious form of SARS-CoV-2 post protease inhibitor treatment of permissive cells in vitro

Reports have described SARS-CoV-2 rebound in COVID-19 patients treated with nirmatrelvir, a 3CL protease inhibitor. The cause remains a mystery, although drug resistance, re-infection, and lack of adequate immune responses have been excluded. We now present virologic findings that provide a clue to the cause of viral rebound, which occurs in ∼20% of the treated cases. Persistence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was experimentally documented in vitro after treatment with nirmatrelvir or another 3CL protease inhibitor, but not with a polymerase inhibitor, remdesivir. This infectious form decayed slowly with a half-life of ∼1 day, suggesting that its persistence could outlive the treatment course to re-ignite SARS-CoV-2 infection as the drug is eliminated. Notably, extending nirmatrelvir treatment beyond 8 days abolished viral rebound in vitro. Our findings point in a particular direction for future investigation of virus persistence and offer a specific treatment recommendation that should be tested clinically.

COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir

Background

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NM/r) is a safe and effective oral antiviral therapeutic used for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Case reports described a clinical rebound syndrome whereby individuals experience a relapse of symptoms shortly after completing successful treatment. There is a lack of information on frequency of COVID-19 rebound after NM/r in routine clinical care, contributing factors, and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records to verify COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment with NM/r from January-June 2022. We defined COVID-19 clinical rebound as clear improvement in symptoms followed by recurrence or worsening of symptoms within 30 days of a five-day course of NM/r.

Results

We studied 268 adults with median age 57 (IQR 47, 68), 80% White race, 85% non-Hispanic ethnicity, 55% female, 80% vaccinated and boosted against SARS-CoV-2, and 68% with any co-morbidity. Sixteen (6.0%) of studied patients were determined to have COVID-19 clinical rebound. The median time from starting NM/r to rebound was 11 days (IQR 9, 13). Notable demographic and clinical factors with higher proportion (not statistically significant) among COVID-19 rebound patients were female sex (75% rebound vs 54.5% no rebound), Black race (12.5% rebound vs 4.9% no rebound), presence of at least one co-morbidity (81.3% rebound vs 67.5% no rebound), and lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (100% rebound vs 92.9% no rebound). Only one patient (6.25%) was hospitalized after COVID-19 rebound.

Conclusions

COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with NM/r is mild with favorable outcomes and more common than previously reported from real-world clinical care studies.

Viral SARS-CoV-2 Rebound Rates in Linked Commercial Pharmacy-Based Testing and Health Care Claims

Background

Viral SARS-CoV-2 rebound (viral RNA rebound) is challenging to characterize in large cohorts due to the logistics of collecting frequent and regular diagnostic test results. Pharmacy-based testing data provide an opportunity to study the phenomenon in a large population, also enabling subgroup analyses. The current real-world evidence approach complements approaches focused on smaller, prospective study designs.

Methods

We linked real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction test data from national pharmacy-based testing to health care claims data via tokenization to calculate the cumulative incidence of viral RNA rebound within 28 days following positive test results in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV-r)-treated and untreated individuals during the Omicron era (December 2021-November 2022) and prior to the Omicron era (October 2020-November 2021).

Results

Among 30 646 patients, the rate of viral RNA rebound was 3.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-5.7%) in NMV-r-treated infections as compared with 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.7%) in untreated infections during the Omicron era and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.1%) prior to the Omicron era. Viral RNA rebound in patients who were vaccinated (n = 8151), high risk (n = 4411), or older (≥65 years, n = 4411) occurred at comparable rates to the overall cohort (range, 1.1%-4.8%). Viral rebounds to high RNA levels in NMV-r-treated infections occurred in 8% of viral rebounds as compared with 5% to 11% in untreated infections. Rates of hospitalization were comparable between patients with NMV-r-treated infections with viral RNA rebound (0%) and untreated patients with viral RNA rebound (0%-1.2%).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest viral RNA rebound is rare (< 5%), with rates that were consistent with those from the EPIC-HR trial (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients). Most occurrences of viral RNA rebound were associated with low viral RNA levels, and viral RNA rebound progression to severe disease was not observed.

Symptoms, Viral Loads, and Rebound Among COVID-19 Outpatients Treated With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Compared With Propensity Score-Matched Untreated Individuals

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R treatment and similar untreated individuals.

METHODS

We identified symptomatic participants who tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study. Index cases from ambulatory settings and their households contacts were enrolled. We collected daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative polymerase chain reaction for 10 days during March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R treatment (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R treatment completion or 7 days after symptom onset if untreated.

RESULTS

Treated (n = 130) and untreated participants (n = 241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; P = .009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; P < .001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; P = .5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who completed N/R treatment experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but rebound occured more often compared with untreated individuals. Providers should prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate rebound risk to patients.

Review: The Landscape of Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19 in the Era of Widespread Population Immunity and Omicron-Lineage Viruses

The goals of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral therapy early in the pandemic were to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As these outcomes have become infrequent in the age of widespread population immunity, the objectives have shifted. For the general population, COVID-19-directed antiviral therapy should decrease symptom severity and duration and minimize infectiousness, and for immunocompromised individuals, antiviral therapy should reduce severe outcomes and persistent infection. The increased recognition of virologic rebound following ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NMV/r) and the lack of randomized controlled trial data showing benefit of antiviral therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for standard-risk, vaccinated individuals remain major knowledge gaps. Here, we review data for selected antiviral agents and immunomodulators currently available or in late-stage clinical trials for use in outpatients. We do not review antibody products, convalescent plasma, systemic corticosteroids, IL-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, or agents that lack Food and Drug Administration approval or emergency use authorization or are not appropriate for outpatients.

COVID-19 Rebound After VV116 vs Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

With the widespread use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, accumulating data have revealed potential viral load rebound after treatment.

Objective

To compare COVID-19 rebound after a standard 5-day course of antiviral treatment with VV116 vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a single-center, investigator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Shanghai, China. Adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between December 20, 2022, and January 19, 2023, and randomly allocated to receive either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Interventions

Participants in the VV116 treatment group received oral 600-mg VV116 tablets every 12 hours on day 1 and 300 mg every 12 hours on days 2 through 5. Participants in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment group received oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir tablets with 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir every 12 hours for 5 days. Participants were followed up every other day until day 28 and every week until day 60.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was viral load rebound (VLR), defined as a half-log increase in viral RNA copies per milliliter compared with treatment completion. Secondary outcomes included a reduction in the cycle threshold value of 1.5 or more, time until VLR, and symptom rebound, defined as an increase of more than 2 points in symptom score compared with treatment completion. The primary outcome and secondary outcomes were analyzed using the full analysis set. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the per protocol set. Adverse events were analyzed using the safety analysis set.

Results

The full analysis set included 345 participants (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.8] years; 175 [50.7%] were men) who received VV116 (n = 165) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 180). Viral load rebound occurred in 33 patients (20.0%) in the VV116 group and 39 patients (21.7%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .70). Symptom rebound occurred in 41 of 160 patients (25.6%) in the VV116 group and 40 of 163 patients (24.5%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .82). Viral whole-genome sequencing of 24 rebound cases revealed the same lineage at baseline and at viral load rebound in each case.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, viral load rebound and symptom rebound were both common after a standard 5-day course of treatment with either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Prolongation of treatment duration might be investigated to reduce COVID-19 rebound.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200066811.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Treatments for COVID-19

The treatment for COVID-19 has evolved rapidly since the start of the pandemic and now consists mainly of antiviral and immunomodulatory agents. Antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, have proved to be most useful earlier in illness (e.g., as outpatient therapy) and for less severe disease. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as dexamethasone and interleukin-6 or Janus kinase inhibitors, are most useful in severe disease or critical illness. The role of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies has diminished because of the emergence of viral variants that are not anticipated to be susceptible to these treatments, and there still is not a consensus on the use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 has been associated with increased rates of venous thromboembolism, but the role of antithrombotic therapy is limited. Multiple investigational agents continue to be studied, which will alter current treatment paradigms as new data are released.

SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and evolution varies by type and severity of immunodeficiency

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but the immune defects that predispose an individual to persistent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain incompletely understood. In this study, we performed detailed viro-immunologic analyses of a prospective cohort of participants with COVID-19. The median times to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to hematologic malignancy or transplant (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, both of which were significantly longer than clearance rates in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to autoimmunity or B cell deficiency (S-A), individuals with nonsevere immunodeficiency, and nonimmunocompromised groups (P < 0.01). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing resistance against therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses, whereas only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across distinct immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.

Olgotrelvir, a dual inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and cathepsin L, as a standalone antiviral oral intervention candidate for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral antiviral drugs with improved antiviral potency and safety are needed to address current challenges in clinical practice for treatment of COVID-19, including the risks of rebound, drug-drug interactions, and emerging resistance.

METHODS

Olgotrelvir (STI-1558) is designed as a next-generation antiviral targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), an essential enzyme for SARS-CoV-2 replication, and human cathepsin L (CTSL), a key enzyme for SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells.

FINDINGS

Olgotrelvir is a highly bioavailable oral prodrug that is converted in plasma to its active form, AC1115. The dual mechanism of action of olgotrelvir and AC1115 was confirmed by enzyme activity inhibition assays and co-crystal structures of AC1115 with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and human CTSL. AC1115 displayed antiviral activity by inhibiting replication of all tested SARS-CoV-2 variants in cell culture systems. Olgotrelvir also inhibited viral entry into cells using SARS-CoV-2 Spike-mediated pseudotypes by inhibition of host CTSL. In the K18-hACE2 transgenic mouse model of SARS-CoV-2-mediated disease, olgotrelvir significantly reduced the virus load in the lungs, prevented body weight loss, and reduced cytokine release and lung pathologies. Olgotrelvir demonstrated potent activity against the nirmatrelvir-resistant Mpro E166 mutants. Olgotrelvir showed enhanced oral bioavailability in animal models and in humans with significant plasma exposure without ritonavir. In phase I studies (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05364840 and NCT05523739), olgotrelvir demonstrated a favorable safety profile and antiviral activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Olgotrelvir is an oral inhibitor targeting Mpro and CTSL with high antiviral activity and plasma exposure and is a standalone treatment candidate for COVID-19.

FUNDING

Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Rebound After Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Treatment in Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials - United States and International Sites, 2021-2022

Rebound of SARS-CoV-2 shedding or COVID-19 signs and symptoms has been described after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). The direct association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to COVID-19 rebound remains unclear because most reports are based on individual cases or nonrandomized studies. Viral RNA shedding data from two phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients [EPIC-HR] and Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in Standard-Risk Patients [EPIC-SR]) were analyzed to investigate the role of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 rebound. Rates of rebound of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding, identified based on an increase in nasopharyngeal viral RNA levels from day 5 (end-of-treatment) to day 10 or day 14, were similar between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and placebo recipients. Among subjects with a virologic response through day 5, viral RNA rebound occurred in 6.4%-8.4% of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 5.9%-6.5% of placebo recipients across EPIC-HR and the 2021/pre-Omicron and 2022/Omicron enrollment periods of EPIC-SR. Viral RNA rebound after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was not associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or death. Data from randomized trials demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 rebound can occur with or without antiviral treatment, supporting the Food and Drug Administration's determination of safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in eligible patients at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Persistence of an infectious form of SARS-CoV-2 post protease inhibitor treatment of permissive cells in vitro

Reports have described SARS-CoV-2 rebound in COVID-19 patients treated with nirmatrelvir, a 3CL protease inhibitor. The cause remains a mystery, although drug resistance, re-infection, and lack of adequate immune responses have been excluded. We now present virologic findings that provide a clue to the cause of viral rebound, which occurs in ~20% of the treated cases. The persistence of an intermediary form of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was experimentally documented in vitro after treatment with nirmatrelvir or another 3CL protease inhibitor, but not with a polymerase inhibitor, remdesivir. This infectious intermediate decayed slowly with a half-life of ~1 day, suggesting that its persistence could outlive the treatment course to re-ignited SARS-CoV-2 infection as the drug is eliminated. Additional studies are needed to define the nature of this viral intermediate, but our findings point to a particular direction for future investigation and offer a specific treatment recommendation that should be tested clinically.

SARS-CoV-2 Virologic Rebound With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Therapy : An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Data are conflicting regarding an association between treatment of acute COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (N-R) and virologic rebound (VR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the frequency of VR in patients with and without N-R treatment for acute COVID-19.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Multicenter health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS

Ambulatory adults with acute COVID-19 with and without use of N-R.

INTERVENTION

Receipt of 5 days of N-R treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was VR, defined as either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture result after a prior negative result or 2 consecutive viral loads above 4.0 log10 copies/mL that were also at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL higher than a prior viral load below 4.0 log10 copies/mL.

RESULTS

Compared with untreated persons (n = 55), those taking N-R (n = 72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and more commonly had immunosuppression. Fifteen participants (20.8%) taking N-R had VR versus 1 (1.8%) who was untreated (absolute difference, 19.0 percentage points [95% CI, 9.0 to 29.0 percentage points]; P = 0.001). All persons with VR had a positive viral culture result after a prior negative result. In multivariable models, only N-R use was associated with VR (adjusted odds ratio, 10.02 [CI, 1.13 to 88.74]; P = 0.038). Virologic rebound was more common among those who started therapy within 2 days of symptom onset (26.3%) than among those who started 2 or more days after symptom onset (0%) (P = 0.030). Among participants receiving N-R, those who had VR had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared with those who did not have VR (median, 14 vs. 3 days). Eight of 16 participants (50% [CI, 25% to 75%]) with VR also reported symptom rebound; 2 were completely asymptomatic. No post-VR resistance mutations were detected.

LIMITATIONS

Observational study design with differences between the treated and untreated groups; positive viral culture result was used as a surrogate marker for risk for ongoing viral transmission.

CONCLUSION

Virologic rebound occurred in approximately 1 in 5 people taking N-R, often without symptom rebound, and was associated with shedding of replication-competent virus.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Safety Profile and Clinical and Virological Outcomes of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronavirus Disease 2019

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is currently not recommended in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2.

METHODS

To determine the safety profile and clinical and virological outcomes of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use at a modified dosage in adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a prospective, single-arm, interventional trial recruited patients with eGFR <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2 and on dialysis. Primary outcomes included safety profile, adverse/serious adverse events, and events leading to drug discontinuation. Disease symptoms, virological outcomes by serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, rapid antigen tests, and virological and symptomatic rebound were also recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine (69.4%) of the 85 participants had stage 5 CKD and were on dialysis. Eighty (94.1%) completed the full treatment course; 9.4% and 5.9% had adverse and serious adverse events, and these were comparable between those with eGFR < or >30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. The viral load significantly decreased on days 5, 15, and 30 (P < .001 for all), and the reduction was consistent in the subgroup with eGFR <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Ten patients had virological rebound, which was transient and asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CKD, a modified dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is a well-tolerated therapy in mild COVID-19 as it can effectively suppress the SARS-CoV-2 viral load with a favorable safety profile. Virological and symptomatic rebound, although transient with low infectivity, may occur after treatment. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir should be considered for use in patients with CKD, including stage 5 CKD on dialysis. Clinical Trials Registration. Clinical Trials.gov; identifier: NCT05624840.

COVID-19 Therapeutics for Nonhospitalized Patients-Updates and Future Directions

In this Viewpoint, the authors summarize the therapeutic landscape for COVID-19, discuss who is most likely to benefit from treatment, provide an update on managing illness in immunocompromised individuals, and highlight how to improve COVID-19 treatment.

Does Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Influence the Immune Response against SARS-CoV-2, Independently from Rebound?

Recurrence of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 viral load relapse have been reported in people treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NM/r). However, little is understood about the etiology of this phenomenon. Our aim was to investigate the relation between the host's immune response and viral rebound. We described three cases of COVID-19 rebound that occurred after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (group A). In addition, we compared spike-specific antibody response and plasma cytokine/chemokine patterns of the rebound cases with those of (i) control patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir who did not show rebound (group B), and (ii) subjects not treated with any anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug (group C). The anti-spike antibodies and plasma cytokines/chemokines were similar in groups A and B. However, we observed a higher anti-BA.2 spike IgG response in patients without antiviral treatment (group C) [geometric mean titer 210,807, 5.1- and 8.2-fold higher compared to group A (p = 0.039) and group B (p = 0.032)]. Moreover, the patients receiving antiviral treatment (groups A-B) showed higher circulating levels of platelet-derived growth factor subunit B (PDGF-BB) and vascular endothelial growth Factors (VEGF) and lower levels of interleukin-9 (IL-9), interleukine-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1 RA), and regulated upon activation normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted chemokine (RANTES) when compared to group C. In conclusion, we observed lower anti-spike IgG levels and different cytokine patterns in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients compared to those not treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs. This suggests that early antiviral treatment, by reducing viral load and antigen presentation, could mitigate the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. The clinical relevance of such observation should be further investigated in larger populations.

In Vitro Antiviral Activity of a New Indol-3-carboxylic Acid Derivative Against SARS-CoV-2

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought into sharp relief the threat posed by coronaviruses and laid the foundation for a fundamental analysis of this viral family, as well as a search for effective anti-COVID drugs. Work is underway to update existent vaccines against COVID-19, and screening for low-molecular-weight anti-COVID drug candidates for outpatient medicine continues. The opportunities and ways to accelerate the development of antiviral drugs against other pathogens are being discussed in the context of preparing for the next pandemic. In 2012-2015, Tsyshkova et al. synthesized a group of water-soluble low-molecular-weight compounds exhibiting an antiviral activity, whose chemical structure was similar to that of arbidol. Among those, there were a number of water-soluble compounds based on 5-methoxyindole-3-carboxylic acid aminoalkyl esters. Only one member of this rather extensive group of compounds, dihydrochloride of 6-bromo-5-methoxy-1-methyl-2-(1-piperidinomethyl)-3-(2-diethylaminoethoxy) carbonylindole, exhibited a reliable antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. At a concentration of 52.0 μM, this compound completely inhibited the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus with an infectious activity of 106 TCID50/mL. The concentration curves of the analyzed compound indicate the specificity of its action. Interferon-inducing activity, as well as suppression of syncytium formation induced by the spike protein (S-glycoprotein) of SARS-CoV-2 by 89%, were also revealed. In view of its synthetic accessibility - high activity (IC50 = 1.06 μg/mL) and high selectivity index (SI = 78.6) - this compound appears to meets the requirements for the development of antiviral drugs for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir therapy: A prospective cohort study

The clinical characteristics of the rebound phenomenon after antiviral therapy in patients with Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) are largely unknown. There are few data comparing the rebound phenomenon after molnupiravir therapy to that after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy. We investigated the incidence and risk factors associated with COVID-19 rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir therapy during the Omicron era. This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir. We conducted weekly questionnaires of symptom scores from day 0 to day 28, with an additional day when patients experienced reappearing symptoms. We defined COVID-19 rebound as when patients experienced a 50% increase in symptom scores compared to the lowest symptom score between days 0 and 14. Among the 150 patients, 93 (62%) and 57 (38%) received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy and molnupiravir, respectively. Of these, 11 patients (7.3%; 95% CI, 3.1-11.5) experienced COVID-19 rebound. The median duration from antiviral therapy to rebound was 12 days. Patients with clinical rebound had a higher symptom score at antiviral therapy initiation than those without (median, 5 vs 4; P = .02). There was no significant difference in the clinical rebounds associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir therapy (5.4% vs 10.5%; P = .39). Approximately one-tenth of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received antiviral therapy experienced rebound phenomena after treatment. Regardless of antiviral therapy type, high initial symptom scores were associated with a more frequent rebound phenomenon.

Variant-Specific Viral Kinetics in Acute COVID-19

Understanding variant-specific differences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics may explain differences in transmission efficiency and provide insights on pathogenesis and prevention. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 kinetics from nasal swabs across multiple variants (Alpha, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma) in placebo recipients of the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Delta variant infection led to the highest maximum viral load and shortest time from symptom onset to viral load peak. There were no significant differences in time to viral clearance across the variants. Viral decline was biphasic with first- and second-phase decays having half-lives of 11 hours and 2.5 days, respectively, with differences among variants, especially in the second phase. These results suggest that while variant-specific differences in viral kinetics exist, post-peak viral load all variants appeared to be efficiently cleared by the host. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

SARS-CoV-2 virologic rebound with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy

Objective

To compare the frequency of replication-competent virologic rebound with and without nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19. Secondary aims were to estimate the validity of symptoms to detect rebound and the incidence of emergent nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations after rebound.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting

Multicenter healthcare system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Participants

We enrolled ambulatory adults with a positive COVID-19 test and/or a prescription for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Exposures

Receipt of 5 days of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was COVID-19 virologic rebound, defined as either (1) a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture following a prior negative culture or (2) two consecutive viral loads ≥4.0 log10 copies/milliliter after a prior reduction in viral load to <4.0 log10 copies/milliliter.

Results

Compared with untreated individuals (n=55), those taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n=72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and were more commonly immunosuppressed. Fifteen individuals (20.8%) taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir experienced virologic rebound versus one (1.8%) of the untreated (absolute difference 19.0% [95%CI 9.0-29.0%], P=0.001). In multivariable models, only N-R was associated with VR (AOR 10.02, 95%CI 1.13-88.74). VR occurred more commonly among those with earlier nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiation (29.0%, 16.7% and 0% when initiated days 0, 1, and ≥2 after diagnosis, respectively, P=0.089). Among participants on N-R, those experiencing rebound had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared to those that did not rebound (median: 14 vs 3 days). Only 8/16 with virologic rebound reported worsening symptoms (50%, 95%CI 25%-75%); 2 were completely asymptomatic. We detected no post-rebound nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations in the NSP5 protease gene.

Conclusions and Relevance

Virologic rebound occurred in approximately one in five people taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and often occurred without worsening symptoms. Because it is associated with replication-competent viral shedding, close monitoring and potential isolation of those who rebound should be considered.

Therapeutics for COVID-19

Vaccines and monoclonal antibody treatments to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness were available within a year of the pandemic being declared but there remained an urgent need for therapeutics to treat patients who were not vaccinated, were immunocompromised or whose vaccine immunity had waned. Initial results for investigational therapies were mixed. AT-527, a repurposed nucleoside inhibitor for hepatitis C virus, enabled viral load reduction in a hospitalized cohort but did not reduce viral load in outpatients. The nucleoside inhibitor molnupiravir prevented death but failed to prevent hospitalization. Nirmatrelvir, an inhibitor of the main protease (Mpro), co-dosed with the pharmacokinetic booster ritonavir, reduced hospitalization and death. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir received an Emergency Use Authorization in the United States at the end of 2021. Immunomodulatory drugs such as baricitinib, tocilizumab and corticosteroid, which target host-driven COVID-19 symptoms, are also in use. We highlight the development of COVID-19 therapies and the challenges that remain for anticoronavirals.