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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Clearance and Evolution Varies by Extent of Immunodeficiency

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the immune defects that predispose to persistent 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 time to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in the severe hematologic malignancy/transplant group (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, which were significantly longer than clearance rates in the severe autoimmune/B-cell deficient (S-A), non-severe, and non-immunocompromised groups (P<0.001). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing antiviral treatment resistance. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral, while only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.

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.

Characterization of Virologic Rebound Following Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

We enrolled 7 individuals with recurrent symptoms or antigen test conversion following nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment. High viral loads (median 6.1 log10 copies/mL) were detected after rebound for a median of 17 days after initial diagnosis. Three had culturable virus for up to 16 days after initial diagnosis. No known resistance-associated mutations were identified.

Vaccine breakthrough infection leads to distinct profiles of neutralizing antibody responses by SARS-CoV-2 variant

Protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 vaccination may differ by variant. We enrolled vaccinated (n = 39) and unvaccinated (n = 11) individuals with acute, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron infection and performed SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification, whole-genome sequencing, and variant-specific antibody characterization at the time of acute illness and convalescence. Viral load at the time of infection was inversely correlated with antibody binding and neutralizing antibody responses. Across all variants tested, convalescent neutralization titers in unvaccinated individuals were markedly lower than in vaccinated individuals. Increases in antibody titers and neutralizing activity occurred at convalescence in a variant-specific manner. For example, among individuals infected with the Delta variant, neutralizing antibody responses were weakest against BA.2, whereas infection with Omicron BA.1 variant generated a broader response against all tested variants, including BA.2.

Vaccine Breakthrough Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron (BA.1) Variant Leads to Distinct Profiles of Neutralizing Antibody Responses

There is increasing evidence that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated individuals is variant-specific, suggesting that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may differ by variant. We enrolled vaccinated (n = 39) and unvaccinated (n = 11) individuals with acute, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron infection and performed SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification, whole-genome sequencing, and variant-specific antibody characterization at the time of acute illness and convalescence. Viral load at the time of infection was inversely correlated with antibody binding and neutralizing antibody responses. Increases in antibody titers and neutralizing activity occurred at convalescence in a variant-specific manner. Across all variants tested, convalescent neutralization titers in unvaccinated individuals were markedly lower than in vaccinated individuals. For individuals infected with the Delta variant, neutralizing antibody responses were weakest against BA.2, whereas infection with Omicron BA.1 variant generated a broader response against all tested variants, including BA.2.

Duration of viable virus shedding in SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant infection

Clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection, including incubation period and transmission rates, distinguish this variant from preceding variants. However, whether the duration of shedding of viable virus differs between omicron and previous variants is not well understood. To characterize how variant and vaccination status impact shedding of viable virus, we serially sampled symptomatic outpatients newly diagnosed with COVID-19. Anterior nasal swabs were tested for viral load, sequencing, and viral culture. Time to PCR conversion was similar between individuals infected with the Delta and the Omicron variant. Time to culture conversion was also similar, with a median time to culture conversion of 6 days (interquartile range 4-8 days) in both groups. There were also no differences in time to PCR or culture conversion by vaccination status.

CD82 controls CpG-dependent TLR9 signaling

The tetraspanin CD82 is a potent suppressor of tumor metastasis and regulates several processes including signal transduction, cell adhesion, motility, and aggregation. However, the mechanisms by which CD82 participates in innate immunity are unknown. We report that CD82 is a key regulator of TLR9 trafficking and signaling. TLR9 recognizes unmethylated cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) motifs present in viral, bacterial, and fungal DNA. We demonstrate that TLR9 and CD82 associate in macrophages, which occurs in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and post-ER. Moreover, CD82 is essential for TLR9-dependent myddosome formation in response to CpG stimulation. Finally, CD82 modulates TLR9-dependent NF-κB nuclear translocation, which is critical for inflammatory cytokine production. To our knowledge, this is the first time a tetraspanin has been implicated as a key regulator of TLR signaling. Collectively, our study demonstrates that CD82 is a specific regulator of TLR9 signaling, which may be critical in cancer immunotherapy approaches and coordinating the innate immune response to pathogens.-Khan, N. S., Lukason, D. P., Feliu, M., Ward, R. A., Lord, A. K., Reedy, J. L., Ramirez-Ortiz, Z. G., Tam, J. M., Kasperkovitz, P. V., Negoro, P. E., Vyas, T. D., Xu, S., Brinkmann, M. M., Acharaya, M., Artavanis-Tsakonas, K., Frickel, E.-M., Becker, C. E., Dagher, Z., Kim, Y.-M., Latz, E., Ploegh, H. L., Mansour, M. K., Miranti, C. K., Levitz, S. M., Vyas, J. M. CD82 controls CpG-dependent TLR9 signaling.