Perturbations in Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Activity During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a common cause of respiratory disease in all age groups with young children and older adults experiencing the most severe illness. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in striking changes in the activity of seasonal respiratory viruses including RSV. After a period of suppression early in the pandemic, an inter-seasonal surge of RSV occurred in 2021. Viral activity was detected primarily in children and young adults after relaxation of public health measures, but without the usual proportional increases in infections and hospitalizations in older adults who were likely still adhering to stricter public health measures.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wildtype spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Clinical impact of healthcare-associated respiratory syncytial virus in hospitalized adults.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical impact of healthcare-associated (HA) respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in hospitalized adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study within a prospective, population-based, surveillance study of RSV-infected hospitalized adults during 3 respiratory seasons: October 2017-April 2018, October 2018-April 2019, and October 2019-March 2020. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 academically affiliated medical centers. PATIENTS: Each HA-RSV patient (in whom RSV was detected by PCR test ≥4 days after hospital admission) was matched (age, sex, season) with 2 community-onset (CO) RSV patients (in whom RSV was detected ≤3 days of admission). METHODS: Risk factors and outcomes were compared among HA-RSV versus CO-RSV patients using conditional logistic regression. Escalation of respiratory support associated with RSV detection (day 0) from day -2 to day +4 was explored among HA-RSV patients. RESULTS: In total, 84 HA-RSV patients were matched to 160 CO-RSV patients. In HA-RSV patients, chronic kidney disease was more common, while chronic respiratory conditions and obesity were less common. HA-RSV patients were not more likely to be admitted to an ICU or require mechanical ventilation, but they more often required a higher level of care at discharge compared with CO-RSV patients (44% vs 14%, respectively). Also, 29% of evaluable HA-RSV patients required respiratory support escalation; these patients were older and more likely to have respiratory comorbidities, to have been admitted to intensive care, and to die during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: HA-RSV in adults may be associated with escalation in respiratory support and an increased level of support in living situation at discharge. Infection prevention and control strategies and RSV vaccination of high-risk adults could mitigate the risk of HA-RSV.

Gene Expression Risk Scores for COVID-19 Illness Severity.

BACKGROUND: The correlates of COVID-19 illness severity following infection with SARS-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are incompletely understood. METHODS: We assessed peripheral blood gene expression in 53 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection clinically adjudicated as having mild, moderate or severe disease. Supervised principal components analysis was used to build a weighted gene expression risk score (WGERS) to discriminate between severe and non-severe COVID. RESULTS: Gene expression patterns in participants with mild and moderate illness were similar, but significantly different from severe illness. When comparing severe versus non-severe illness, we identified >4000 genes differentially expressed (FDR<0.05). Biological pathways increased in severe COVID-19 were associated with platelet activation and coagulation, and those significantly decreased with T cell signaling and differentiation. A WGERS based on 18 genes distinguished severe illness in our training cohort (cross-validated ROC-AUC=0.98), and need for intensive care in an independent cohort (ROC-AUC=0.85). Dichotomizing the WGERS yielded 100% sensitivity and 85% specificity for classifying severe illness in our training cohort, and 84% sensitivity and 74% specificity for defining the need for intensive care in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that gene expression classifiers may provide clinical utility as predictors of COVID-19 illness severity.

Rapid decline in vaccine-boosted neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibits reduced susceptibility to vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, requiring a boost to generate protective immunity. We assess the magnitude and short-term durability of neutralizing antibodies after homologous and heterologous boosting with mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. All prime-boost combinations substantially increase the neutralization titers to Omicron, although the boosted titers decline rapidly within 2 months from the peak response compared with boosted titers against the prototypic D614G variant. Boosted Omicron neutralization titers are substantially higher for homologous mRNA vaccine boosting, and for heterologous mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine boosting, compared with homologous Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Homologous mRNA vaccine boosting generates nearly equivalent neutralizing activity against Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 but modestly reduced neutralizing activity against BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 compared with BA.1. These results have implications for boosting requirements to protect against Omicron and future variants of SARS-CoV-2. This trial was conducted under ClincalTrials.gov: NCT04889209.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection Among Hospitalized Adults, 2017-2020.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes acute respiratory illness (ARI) and triggers exacerbations of cardiopulmonary disease. Estimates of incidence in hospitalized adults range widely, with few data on incidence in adults with comorbidities that increase the risk of severity. We conducted a prospective, population-based, surveillance study to estimate incidence of RSV hospitalization among adults overall and those with specific comorbidities. METHODS: Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years residing in the surveillance area with ≥2 ARI symptoms or exacerbation of underlying cardiopulmonary disease were screened during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 RSV seasons in 3 hospitals in Rochester, New York and New York City. Respiratory specimens were tested for RSV using polymerase chain reaction assays. RSV incidence per 100 000 was adjusted by market share. RESULTS: Active and passive surveillance identified 1099 adults hospitalized with RSV. Annual incidence during 3 seasons ranged from 44.2 to 58.9/100 000. Age-group-specific incidence ranged from 7.7 to 11.9/100 000, 33.5 to 57.5/100 000, and 136.9 to 255.6/100 000 in patients ages 18-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years, respectively. Incidence rates in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure were 3-13, 4-7, and 4-33 times, respectively, the incidence in patients without these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high burden of RSV hospitalization in this large prospective study. Notable was the high incidence among older patients and those with cardiac conditions. These data confirm the need for effective vaccines to prevent RSV infection in older and vulnerable adults.

Formation and Expansion of Memory B Cells against Coronavirus in Acutely Infected COVID-19 Individuals.

Infection with the ß-coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 typically generates strong virus-specific antibody production. Antibody responses against novel features of SARS-CoV-2 proteins require naïve B cell activation, but there is a growing appreciation that conserved regions are recognized by pre-existing memory B cells (MBCs) generated by endemic coronaviruses. The current study investigated the role of pre-existing cross-reactive coronavirus memory in the antibody response to the viral spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The breadth of reactivity of circulating antibodies, plasmablasts, and MBCs was analyzed. Acutely infected subjects generated strong IgG responses to the S protein, including the novel receptor binding domain, the conserved S2 region, and to the N protein. The response included reactivity to the S of endemic ß-coronaviruses and, interestingly, to the N of an endemic α-coronavirus. Both mild and severe infection expanded IgG MBC populations reactive to the S of SARS-CoV-2 and endemic ß-coronaviruses. Avidity of S-reactive IgG antibodies and MBCs increased after infection. Overall, findings indicate that the response to the S and N of SARS-CoV-2 involves pre-existing MBC activation and adaptation to novel features of the proteins, along with the potential of imprinting to shape the response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Homologous and Heterologous Covid-19 Booster Vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Although the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 µg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 µg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29. RESULTS: Of the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).

Performance Analysis of the National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial Cohort.

We sought to validate prognostic scores in coronavirus disease 2019 including National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and age-based modifications, and define their performance characteristics. DESIGN: We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. National Early Warning Score was collected daily during the trial, Modified Early Warning Score was calculated, and age applied to both scores. We assessed prognostic value for the end points of recovery, mechanical ventilation, and death for score at enrollment, average, and slope of score over the first 48 hours. SETTING: A multisite international inpatient trial. PATIENTS: A total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 randomized participants to receive remdesivir or placebo. The prognostic value of predictive scores was evaluated in both groups separately to assess for differential performance in the setting of remdesivir treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For mortality, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.60-0.68), and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.66-0.74). For recovery, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated somewhat better prognostic ability (c-index, 0.65-0.69); however, National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age further improved performance (c-index, 0.68-0.71). For deterioration, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.59-0.69) and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.63-0.70). All prognostic performance improvements due to addition of age were significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 cohort, National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated moderate prognostic performance in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, with improvement in predictive ability for National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age. Area under receiver operating curve for National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score improved in patients receiving remdesivir versus placebo early in the pandemic for recovery and mortality. Although these scores are simple and readily obtainable in myriad settings, in our data set, they were insufficiently predictive to completely replace clinical judgment in coronavirus disease 2019 and may serve best as an adjunct to triage, disposition, and resourcing decisions.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

S Protein-Reactive IgG and Memory B Cell Production after Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection Includes Broad Reactivity to the S2 Subunit.

The high susceptibility of humans to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), reflects the novelty of the virus and limited preexisting B cell immunity. IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, which carries the novel receptor binding domain (RBD), is absent or at low levels in unexposed individuals. To better understand the B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, we asked whether virus-reactive memory B cells (MBCs) were present in unexposed subjects and whether MBC generation accompanied virus-specific IgG production in infected subjects. We analyzed sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from non-SARS-CoV-2-exposed healthy donors and COVID-19 convalescent subjects. Serum IgG levels specific for SARS-CoV-2 proteins (S, including the RBD and S2 subunit, and nucleocapsid [N]) and non-SARS-CoV-2 proteins were related to measurements of circulating IgG MBC levels. Anti-RBD IgG was absent in unexposed subjects. Most unexposed subjects had anti-S2 IgG, and a minority had anti-N IgG, but IgG MBCs with these specificities were not detected, perhaps reflecting low frequencies. Convalescent subjects had high levels of IgG against the RBD, S2, and N, together with large populations of RBD- and S2-reactive IgG MBCs. Notably, IgG titers against the S protein of the human coronavirus OC43 were higher in convalescent subjects than in unexposed subjects and correlated strongly with anti-S2 titers. Our findings indicate cross-reactive B cell responses against the S2 subunit that might enhance broad coronavirus protection. Importantly, our demonstration of MBC induction by SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests that a durable form of B cell immunity is maintained even if circulating antibody levels wane.IMPORTANCE The recent rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 has established a pandemic of potentially serious disease in the highly susceptible human population. Key issues are whether humans have preexisting immune memory that provides some protection against SARS-CoV-2 and whether SARS-CoV-2 infection generates lasting immune protection against reinfection. Our analysis focused on pre- and postinfection IgG and IgG memory B cells (MBCs) reactive to SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Most importantly, we demonstrate that infection generates both IgG and IgG MBCs against the novel receptor binding domain and the conserved S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Thus, even if antibody levels wane, long-lived MBCs remain to mediate rapid antibody production. Our study results also suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection strengthens preexisting broad coronavirus protection through S2-reactive antibody and MBC formation.