Antibody Response After Third Vaccination With mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2: Extension of a Randomized Controlled SARS-CoV-2 Noninferiority Vaccine Trial in Patients With Different Levels of Immunosuppression (COVERALL-2).

Extension of the COVERALL (COrona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform) randomized trial showed noninferiority in antibody response of the third dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine (95.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 91.9%-98.7%]) compared to Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (98.1% [95% CI, 95.9%-100.0%]) in individuals with different levels of immunosuppression (difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -6.8% to 1.3%]).

Changes in mental and sexual health among MSM using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: longitudinal analysis of the SwissPrEPared cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Changes in mental and sexual health among men having sex with men (MSM) due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic remain unclear. METHODS: Design: Longitudinal analysis of an ongoing, multicentre, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) cohort (NCT03893188) in Switzerland. Participants: HIV-negative MSM aged ≥18 who completed at least one questionnaire before and one after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Outcomes: Primary: mental health, defined as anxiety and depression scores assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Secondary: sexual behaviour, well-being, PrEP use and disruption of care. Outcomes were assessed over seven periods corresponding to different SARS-CoV-2 prevention measures in Switzerland. We performed pairwise comparisons between periods (Wilcoxon signed rank test). RESULTS: Data from 1,043 participants were included. Whilst anxiety scores remained stable over time, depression scores worsened in the second wave and the second lockdown period compared to pre-pandemic scores. This was confirmed by pairwise comparisons (pre-SARS-CoV-2/second wave and pre-SARS-CoV-2/second lockdown: p <0.001). Downward trends in sexual activity,sexualized substance use, and a switch from daily to "event-driven" PrEP were found. Disruption of care affected 42.6% (790/1856) of daily PrEP users' follow-up visits. CONCLUSION: In this longitudinal analysis of a PrEP cohort enrolling MSM, depression scores worsened in the second wave and the second lockdown compared to the pre-pandemic period.

Antibodies from convalescent plasma promote SARS-CoV-2 clearance in individuals with and without endogenous antibody response.

BACKGROUNDNeutralizing antibodies are considered a key correlate of protection by current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The manner in which human infections respond to therapeutic SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including convalescent plasma therapy, remains to be fully elucidated.METHODSWe conducted a proof-of-principle study of convalescent plasma therapy based on a phase I trial in 30 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a median interval between onset of symptoms and first transfusion of 9 days (IQR, 7-11.8 days). Comprehensive longitudinal monitoring of the virological, serological, and disease status of recipients allowed deciphering of parameters on which plasma therapy efficacy depends.RESULTSIn this trial, convalescent plasma therapy was safe as evidenced by the absence of transfusion-related adverse events and low mortality (3.3%). Treatment with highly neutralizing plasma was significantly associated with faster virus clearance, as demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.034) and confirmed in a parametric survival model including viral load and comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1; P = 0.026). The onset of endogenous neutralization affected viral clearance, but even after adjustment for their pretransfusion endogenous neutralization status, recipients benefitted from plasma therapy with high neutralizing antibodies (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-11; P = 0.034).CONCLUSIONOur data demonstrate a clear impact of exogenous antibody therapy on the rapid clearance of viremia before and after onset of the endogenous neutralizing response, and point beyond antibody-based interventions to critical laboratory parameters for improved evaluation of current and future SARS-CoV-2 therapies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04869072.FUNDINGThis study was funded via an Innovation Pool project by the University Hospital Zurich; the Swiss Red Cross Glückskette Corona Funding; Pandemiefonds of the UZH Foundation; and the Clinical Research Priority Program "Comprehensive Genomic Pathogen Detection" of the University of Zurich.

Canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes - A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity have chronic activation of the innate immune system possibly contributing to the higher risk of hyperinflammatory response to SARS-CoV2 and severe COVID-19 observed in this population. We tested whether interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) blockade using canakinumab improves clinical outcome. Methods: CanCovDia was a multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of canakinumab plus standard-of-care compared with placebo plus standard-of-care in patients with type 2 diabetes and a BMI > 25 kg/m2 hospitalised with SARS-CoV2 infection in seven tertiary-hospitals in Switzerland. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single intravenous dose of canakinumab (body weight adapted dose of 450-750 mg) or placebo. Canakinumab and placebo were compared based on an unmatched win-ratio approach based on length of survival, ventilation, ICU stay and hospitalization at day 29. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510493. Findings: Between October 17, 2020, and May 12, 2021, 116 patients were randomly assigned with 58 in each group. One participant dropped out in each group for the primary analysis. At the time of randomization, 85 patients (74·6 %) were treated with dexamethasone. The win-ratio of canakinumab vs placebo was 1·08 (95 % CI 0·69-1·69; p = 0·72). During four weeks, in the canakinumab vs placebo group 4 (7·0%) vs 7 (12·3%) participants died, 11 (20·0 %) vs 16 (28·1%) patients were on ICU, 12 (23·5 %) vs 11 (21·6%) were hospitalised for more than 3 weeks, respectively. Median ventilation time at four weeks in the canakinumab vs placebo group was 10 [IQR 6.0, 16.5] and 16 days [IQR 14.0, 23.0], respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c after four weeks despite a lower number of anti-diabetes drug administered in patients treated with canakinumab. Finally, high-sensitive CRP and IL-6 was lowered by canakinumab. Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (11·4%) in each group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with canakinumab in addition to standard-of-care did not result in a statistically significant improvement of the primary composite outcome. Patients treated with canakinumab required significantly less anti-diabetes drugs to achieve similar glycaemic control. Canakinumab was associated with a prolonged reduction of systemic inflammation. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation grant #198415 and University of Basel. Novartis supplied study medication.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Determinants of antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mRNA vaccines in people with HIV.

We identified determinants of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine antibody response in people with HIV (PWH). Antibody response was higher among PWH less than 60 years, with CD4+ cell count superior to 350 cells/µl and vaccinated with mRNA-1273 by Moderna compared with BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech. Preinfection with SARS-CoV-2 boosted the antibody response and smokers had an overall lower antibody response. Elderly PWH and those with low CD4+ cell count should be prioritized for booster vaccinations.

Antibody Response in Immunocompromised Patients After the Administration of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 by Moderna are the most commonly used vaccines to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines in immunocompromised patients is lacking. METHODS: Parallel, 2-arm (allocation 1:1), open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial nested into the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) or solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR; ie, lung and kidney) from these cohorts were randomized to mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. The primary endpoint was antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, Roche; cutoff ≥0.8 units/mL) 12 weeks after first vaccination (ie, 8 weeks after second vaccination). In addition, antibody response was measured with the Antibody Coronavirus Assay 2 (ABCORA 2). RESULTS: A total of 430 patients were randomized and 412 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (341 PLWH and 71 SOTR). The percentage of patients showing an immune response was 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.4-95.8; 186/202) for mRNA-1273 and 94.3% (95% CI: 91.2-97.4; 198/210) for BNT162b2 (difference: -2.2%; 95% CI: -7.1 to 2.7), fulfilling noninferiority of mRNA-1273. With the ABCORA 2 test, 89.1% had an immune response to mRNA-1273 (95% CI: 84.8-93.4; 180/202) and 89.5% to BNT162b2 (95% CI: 85.4-93.7; 188/210). Based on the Elecsys test, all PLWH had an antibody response (100.0%; 341/341), whereas for SOTR, only 60.6% (95% CI: 49.2-71.9; 43/71) had titers above the cutoff level. CONCLUSIONS: In immunocompromised patients, the antibody response of mRNA-1273 was noninferior to BNT162b2. PLWH had in general an antibody response, whereas a high proportion of SOTR had no antibody response.

An Approach to Quantifying the Interaction between Behavioral and Transmission Clusters.

We hypothesize that patterns of sexual behavior play a role in the conformation of transmission networks, i.e., the way you behave might influence whom you have sex with. If that was the case, behavioral grouping might in turn correlate with, and potentially predict transmission networking, e.g., proximity in a viral phylogeny. We rigorously present an intuitive approach to address this hypothesis by quantifying mapped interactions between groups defined by similarities in sexual behavior along a virus phylogeny while discussing power and sample size considerations. Data from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study on condom use and hepatitis C virus (HCV) sequences served as proof-of-concept. In this case, a strict inclusion criteria contrasting with low HCV prevalence hindered our possibilities to identify significant relationships. This manuscript serves as guide for studies aimed at characterizing interactions between behavioral patterns and transmission networks. Large transmission networks such as those of HIV or COVID-19 are prime candidates for applying this methodological approach.

Multifactorial seroprofiling dissects the contribution of pre-existing human coronaviruses responses to SARS-CoV-2 immunity.

Determination of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in the context of pre-existing immunity to circulating human coronavirus (HCoV) is critical for understanding protective immunity. Here we perform a multifactorial analysis of SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV antibody responses in pre-pandemic (N = 825) and SARS-CoV-2-infected donors (N = 389) using a custom-designed multiplex ABCORA assay. ABCORA seroprofiling, when combined with computational modeling, enables accurate definition of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and prediction of neutralization activity, and reveals intriguing interrelations with HCoV immunity. Specifically, higher HCoV antibody levels in SARS-CoV-2-negative donors suggest that pre-existing HCoV immunity may provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 acquisition. In those infected, higher HCoV activity is associated with elevated SARS-CoV-2 responses, indicating cross-stimulation. Most importantly, HCoV immunity may impact disease severity, as patients with high HCoV reactivity are less likely to require hospitalization. Collectively, our results suggest that HCoV immunity may promote rapid development of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity, thereby underscoring the importance of exploring cross-protective responses for comprehensive coronavirus prevention.

Reduced Relative Sensitivity of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Saliva Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Early identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is central to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) serve as a specimen for detection by RT-PCR and rapid antigen screening tests. Saliva has been confirmed as a reliable alternative specimen for RT-PCR and has been shown to be valuable for diagnosing children and in repetitive mass testing due to its non-invasive collection. Combining the advantages of saliva with those of antigen tests would be highly attractive to further increase test capacities. Here, we evaluated the performance of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche) in RT-PCR-positive paired NPS and saliva samples (N = 87) and unpaired NPS (N = 100) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 IVD test). We observed a high positive percent agreement (PPA) of the antigen assay with RT-PCR in NPS, reaching 87.2% across the entire cohort, whereas the overall PPA for saliva was insufficient (40.2%). At Ct values ≤ 28, PPA were 100% and 91.2% for NPS and saliva, respectively. At lower viral loads, the sensitivity loss of the antigen assay in saliva was striking. At Ct values ≤ 35, the PPA for NPS remained satisfactory (91.5%), whereas the PPA for saliva dropped to 46.6%. In conclusion, saliva cannot be recommended as a reliable alternative to NPS for testing with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay. As saliva is successfully used broadly in combination with RT-PCR testing, it is critical to create awareness that suitability for RT-PCR cannot be translated to implementation in antigen assays without thorough evaluation of each individual test system.

High Efficacy of Saliva in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in Adults and Children.

Rising demands for repetitive SARS-CoV-2 screens and mass testing necessitate additional test strategies. Saliva may serve as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) as its collection is simple, non-invasive and amenable for mass- and home testing, but its rigorous validation, particularly in children, is missing. We conducted a large-scale head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR in saliva and NPS of 1270 adults and children reporting to outpatient test centers and an emergency unit. In total, 273 individuals were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in either NPS or saliva. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results in the two specimens showed a high agreement (overall percent agreement = 97.8%). Despite lower viral loads in the saliva of both adults and children, detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva fared well compared to NPS (positive percent agreement = 92.5%). Importantly, in children, SARS-CoV-2 infections were more often detected in saliva than NPS (positive predictive value = 84.8%), underlining that NPS sampling in children can be challenging. The comprehensive parallel analysis reported here establishes saliva as a generally reliable specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, with particular advantages for testing children, that is readily applicable to increase and facilitate repetitive and mass testing in adults and children.