ABSTRACT
Background: Benefit of early awake prone positioning (PP) for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether PP plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared with usual care alone. Methods: In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake PP plus usual care (N=135) or usual care alone (N=132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Mains secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days. Results: The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the PP group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group (odds ratio adjusted for stratification [aOR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14 to 1.35). The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was reduced in the PP versus usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95%CI 0.01 to 0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95%CI 0.01 to 0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95%CI 0.01 to 0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.27, respectively). Conclusions: Awake PP plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463. Registered 27 April 2020.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
The emergence of novel Omicron lineages, such as BA.5, may impact the therapeutic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Here, we evaluated the neutralization and ADCC activity of 6 therapeutic mAbs against Delta, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 isolates. The Omicron sub-variants escaped most of the antibodies but remained sensitive to Bebtelovimab and Cilgavimab. Consistent with their shared spike sequence, BA.4 and BA.5 displayed identical neutralization profiles. Sotrovimab was the most efficient at eliciting ADCC. We also analyzed 121 sera from 40 immunocompromised individuals up to 6 months after infusion of 1200 mg of Ronapreve (Imdevimab + Casirivimab), and 300 or 600 mg of Evusheld (Cilgavimab + Tixagevimab). Sera from Ronapreve-treated individuals did not neutralize Omicron subvariants. Evusheld-treated individuals neutralized BA.2 and BA.5, but titers were reduced by 41- and 130-fold, respectively, compared to Delta. A longitudinal evaluation of sera from Evusheld-treated patients revealed a slow decay of mAb levels and neutralization. The decline was more rapid against BA.5. Our data shed light on the antiviral activities of therapeutic mAbs and the duration of effectiveness of Evusheld pre-exposure prophylaxis.
ABSTRACT
Since early 2022, Omicron BA.1 has been eclipsed by BA.2, which was in turn outcompeted by BA.5, that displays enhanced antibody escape properties. Here, we evaluated the duration of the neutralizing antibody (Nab) response, up to 16 months after Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccination, in individuals with or without BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infection. We measured neutralization of the ancestral D614G lineage, Delta and Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.5 variants in 291 sera and 35 nasal swabs from 27 individuals. Upon vaccination, serum Nab titers were reduced by 10, 15 and 25 fold for BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5, respectively, compared with D614G. The duration of neutralization was markedly shortened, from an estimated period of 11.5 months post-boost with D614G to 5.5 months with BA.5. After breakthrough, we observed a sharp increase of Nabs against Omicron subvariants, followed by a plateau and a slow decline after 4 or 5 months. In nasal swabs, infection, but not vaccination, triggered a strong IgA response and a detectable Omicron neutralizing activity. Thus, BA.5 spread is partly due to abbreviated vaccine efficacy, particularly in individuals who were not infected with previous Omicron variants.
Subject(s)
Breakthrough PainABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant has been supplanted in many countries by the BA.2 sub-lineage. BA.2 differs from BA.1 by about 21 mutations in its spike. Human anti-spike monoclonalantibodies(mAbs)areusedforpreventionortreatmentofCOVID-19. However, the capacity of therapeutic mAbs to neutralize BA.1 and BA.2 remains poorly characterized. Here, we first compared the sensitivity of BA.1 and BA.2 to neutralization by 9 therapeutic mAbs. In contrast to BA.1, BA.2 was sensitive to Cilgavimab, partly inhibited by Imdevimab and resistant to Adintrevimab and Sotrovimab. Two combinations of mAbs, Ronapreve (Casirivimab + Imdevimab) and Evusheld (Cilgavimab + Tixagevimab), are indicated as a pre-exposure prophylaxis in immunocompromised persons at risk of severe disease. We analyzed sera from 29 such individuals, up to one month after administration of Ronapreve and/or Evusheld. After treatment, all individuals displayed elevated antibody levels in their sera and neutralized Delta with high titers. Ronapreve recipients did not neutralize BA.1 and weakly impaired BA.2. With Evusheld, neutralization of BA.1 and BA.2 was detected in 19 and 29 out of 29 patients, respectively. As compared to Delta, titers were more severely decreased against BA.1 (344-fold) than BA.2 (9-fold). We further report 4 breakthrough Omicron infections among the 29 participants. Therefore, BA.1 and BA.2 exhibit noticeable differences in their sensitivity to therapeutic mAbs. Anti-Omicron activity of Ronapreve, and to a lesser extent that of Evusheld, is reduced in patients sera, a phenomenon associated with decreased clinical efficacy.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 lineages are continuously evolving. As of December 2021, the AY.4.2 Delta sub-lineage represented 20 % of sequenced strains in UK and has been detected in dozens of countries. It has since then been supplanted by the Omicron variant. AY.4.2 displays three additional mutations (T95I, Y145H and A222V) in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike when compared to the original Delta variant (B.1.617.2) and remains poorly characterized. Here, we analyzed the fusogenicity of the AY.4.2 spike and the sensitivity of an authentic AY.4.2 isolate to neutralizing antibodies. The AY.4.2 spike exhibited similar fusogenicity and binding to ACE2 than Delta. The sensitivity of infectious AY.4.2 to a panel of monoclonal neutralizing antibodies was similar to Delta, except for the anti-RBD Imdevimab, which showed incomplete neutralization. Sensitivity of AY.4.2 to sera from individuals having received two or three doses of Pfizer or two doses of AstraZeneca vaccines was reduced by 1.7 to 2.1 fold, when compared to Delta. Our results suggest that mutations in the NTD remotely impair the efficacy of anti-RBD antibodies. The temporary spread of AY.4.2 was not associated with major changes in spike function but rather to a partially reduced neutralization sensitivity.
ABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was first identified in November 2021 in Botswana and South Africa 1,2 . It has in the meantime spread to many countries and is expected to rapidly become dominant worldwide. The lineage is characterized by the presence of about 32 mutations in the Spike, located mostly in the N-terminal domain (NTD) and the receptor binding domain (RBD), which may enhance viral fitness and allow antibody evasion. Here, we isolated an infectious Omicron virus in Belgium, from a traveller returning from Egypt. We examined its sensitivity to 9 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) clinically approved or in development 3 , and to antibodies present in 90 sera from COVID-19 vaccine recipients or convalescent individuals. Omicron was totally or partially resistant to neutralization by all mAbs tested. Sera from Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine recipients, sampled 5 months after complete vaccination, barely inhibited Omicron. Sera from COVID-19 convalescent patients collected 6 or 12 months post symptoms displayed low or no neutralizing activity against Omicron. Administration of a booster Pfizer dose as well as vaccination of previously infected individuals generated an anti-Omicron neutralizing response, with titers 5 to 31 fold lower against Omicron than against Delta. Thus, Omicron escapes most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and to a large extent vaccine-elicited antibodies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617 lineage emerged in October 2020 in India. It has since then become dominant in some indian regions and further spread to many countries. The lineage includes three main subtypes (B1.617.1, B.1617.2 and B.1.617.3), which harbour diverse Spike mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) which may increase their immune evasion potential. B.1.617.2 is believed to spread faster than the other versions. Here, we isolated infectious B.1.617.2 from a traveller returning from India. We examined its sensitivity to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and to antibodies present in sera from COVID-19 convalescent individuals or vaccine recipients, in comparison to other viral lineages. B.1.617.2 was resistant to neutralization by some anti-NTD and anti-RBD mAbs, including Bamlanivimab, which were impaired in binding to the B.1.617.2 Spike. Sera from convalescent patients collected up to 12 months post symptoms and from Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine recipients were 3 to 6 fold less potent against B.1.617.2, relative to B.1.1.7. Sera from individuals having received one dose of AstraZeneca Vaxzevria barely inhibited B.1.617.2. Thus, B.1.617.2 spread is associated with an escape to antibodies targeting non-RBD and RBD Spike epitopes.
Subject(s)
Poult Enteritis Mortality Syndrome , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Introduction The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has become a major public health issue worldwide. Developing and evaluating rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic tests is an absolute priority. The current prospective study was designed to assess diagnostic performances of an antigen-based rapid detection test (COVID-VIRO) in a real-life setting. Methods Two nasopharyngeal specimens of symptomatic or asymptomatic adult patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department or voluntarily accessing the COVID-19 Screening Department of the Regional Hospital of Orleans, France, were concurrently collected. COVID VIRO diagnostic specificity and sensitivity were assessed in comparison to real-time reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results. A subgroup of patients underwent an additional oropharyngeal and/or a saliva swab for rapid testing. Results 121 patients already having a confirmed infection and 127 patients having no evidence of recent or ongoing infection were enrolled, for a total of 248 couple of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Overall COVID-VIRO sensitivity was 96.7% (IC: 93.5%-99.9%). In asymptomatic patients, patients having symptoms for more than 4 days and those having a RT-qPCR Cycle threshold value >32, sensitivity was of 100%, 95.8% and 96.9% respectively. The concordance between RT-qPCR and COVID VIRO rapid test was 100% for the 127 patients with no SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion COVID-VIRO test had 100% specificity and above 95% sensitivity, better than WHO recommendations (specificity [≥]97-100%, sensitivity [≥]80%). These rapid tests are particularly interesting for large-scale screening in Emergency Department, low resource settings and airports.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , InfectionsABSTRACT
Background The SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a real-life study to evaluate the performance of two RDTs, COVID-PRESTO and COVID-DUO, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR. Methods RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orleans, France). Fingertip whole blood samples taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with RDTs. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated. Results Among 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with RDTs were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both RDTs. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n=238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days). Conclusion COVID-PRESTO and DUO RDTs turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with capillary blood sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.