Lower disease activity but higher risk of severe COVID-19 and herpes zoster in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with pre-existing autoantibodies neutralising IFN-α.

OBJECTIVES: Type-I interferons (IFNs-I) have potent antiviral effects. IFNs-I are also overproduced in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Autoantibodies (AAbs) neutralising IFN-α, IFN-ß and/or IFN-ω subtypes are strong determinants of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, but their impact on inflammation remains unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a monocentric longitudinal cohort of 609 patients with SLE. Serum AAbs against IFN-α were quantified by ELISA and functionally assessed by abolishment of Madin-Darby bovine kidney cell protection by IFN-α2 against vesicular stomatitis virus challenge. Serum-neutralising activity against IFN-α2, IFN-ß and IFN-ω was also determined with a reporter luciferase activity assay. SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were measured against wild-type spike antigen, while serum-neutralising activity was assessed against the SARS-CoV-2 historical strain and variants of concerns. RESULTS: Neutralising and non-neutralising anti-IFN-α antibodies are present at a frequency of 3.3% and 8.4%, respectively, in individuals with SLE. AAbs neutralising IFN-α, unlike non-neutralising AAbs, are associated with reduced IFN-α serum levels and a reduced likelihood to develop active disease. However, they predispose patients to an increased risk of herpes zoster and severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with SLE is mostly associated with combined neutralisation of different IFNs-I. Finally, anti-IFN-α AAbs do not interfere with COVID-19 vaccine humoral immunogenicity. CONCLUSION: The production of non-neutralising and neutralising anti-IFN-I antibodies in SLE is likely to be a consequence of SLE-associated high IFN-I serum levels, with a beneficial effect on disease activity, yet a greater viral risk. This finding reinforces the recommendations for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in SLE.

Serum neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron BA.1 sublineage has been supplanted in many countries by the BA.2 sublineage. BA.2 differs from BA.1 by about 21 mutations in its spike. In this study, we first compared the sensitivity of BA.1 and BA.2 to neutralization by nine therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In contrast to BA.1, BA.2 was sensitive to cilgavimab, partly inhibited by imdevimab and resistant to adintrevimab and sotrovimab. We then analyzed sera from 29 immunocompromised individuals up to 1 month after administration of Ronapreve (casirivimab and imdevimab) and/or Evusheld (cilgavimab and tixagevimab) antibody cocktails. All treated individuals displayed elevated antibody levels in their sera, which efficiently neutralized the Delta variant. Sera from Ronapreve recipients did not neutralize BA.1 and weakly inhibited BA.2. Neutralization of BA.1 and BA.2 was detected in 19 and 29 out of 29 Evusheld recipients, respectively. As compared to the Delta variant, neutralizing titers were more markedly decreased against BA.1 (344-fold) than BA.2 (nine-fold). We further report four breakthrough Omicron infections among the 29 individuals, indicating that antibody treatment did not fully prevent infection. Collectively, BA.1 and BA.2 exhibit noticeable differences in their sensitivity to therapeutic mAbs. Anti-Omicron neutralizing activity of Ronapreve and, to a lesser extent, that of Evusheld is reduced in patients' sera.

Coronavirus disease 2019 attack rate in HIV-infected patients and in preexposure prophylaxis users.

OBJECTIVE: A new coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) emerged in China during late 2019 and resulted in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic which peaked in France in March-April 2020. Immunodeficiency, precariousness and promiscuity could increase the risk of COVID-19 in HIV-infected patients and in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. No epidemiological data are available in these two populations. We report COVID-19 attack rate in HIV-infected patients and in PrEP users in the Rhône department, France, and compared it with the general population. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a laboratory database. METHODS: COVID-19 testing strategy in France was centered on symptomatic infections, hospitalized patients and symptomatic healthcare workers while most asymptomatic cases were not confirmed. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate on PCR assays and COVID-19 attack rate were determined in HIV-infected patients and in PrEP users. COVID-19 attack rate in the general population was estimated from health authorities' database and demographic data. A corrected attack rate taking into account the laboratory representativeness was calculated. RESULTS: From March to April 2020, 24 860 samples from 19 113 patients (HIV-infected 77, PrEP users 27, others 19 009) were assessed for SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay. The positivity rate appeared similar in HIV-infected patients (15.6%), in PrEP users (14.8%) and in other patients (19.1%). The crude/corrected COVID-19 attack rate appeared similar in HIV-infected patients (0.31/0.38%) and in PrEP users (0.38/0.42%), and of the same order as the estimated attack rate in the general population (0.24%). CONCLUSION: The risk of symptomatic COVID-19 in France appeared similar in HIV-infected patients and in PrEP users compared with the general population.

Evaluation of NGS-based approaches for SARS-CoV-2 whole genome characterisation.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has been performed at unprecedented rate worldwide with the use of very diverse Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) methods. Herein, we compare the performance of four NGS-based approaches for SARS-CoV-2 WGS. Twenty-four clinical respiratory samples with a large scale of Ct values (from 10.7 to 33.9) were sequenced with four methods. Three used Illumina sequencing: an in-house metagenomic NGS (mNGS) protocol and two newly commercialised kits including a hybridisation capture method developed by Illumina (DNA Prep with Enrichment kit and Respiratory Virus Oligo Panel, RVOP), and an amplicon sequencing method developed by Paragon Genomics (CleanPlex SARS-CoV-2 kit). We also evaluated the widely used amplicon sequencing protocol developed by ARTIC Network and combined with Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing. All four methods yielded near-complete genomes (>99%) for high viral loads samples (n = 8), with mNGS and RVOP producing the most complete genomes. For mid viral loads (Ct 20-25), amplicon-based enrichment methods led to genome coverage >99 per cent for all samples while 1/8 sample sequenced with RVOP and 2/8 samples sequenced with mNGS had a genome coverage below 99 per cent. For low viral loads (Ct ≥25), amplicon-based enrichment methods were the most sensitive techniques. All methods were highly concordant in terms of identity in complete consensus sequence. Just one mismatch in three samples was observed in CleanPlex vs the other methods, due to the dedicated bioinformatics pipeline setting a high threshold to call SNP compared to reference sequence. Importantly, all methods correctly identified a newly observed 34nt-deletion in ORF6 but required specific bioinformatic validation for RVOP. Finally, as a major warning for targeted techniques, a loss of coverage in any given region of the genome should alert to a potential rearrangement or a SNP in primer-annealing or probe-hybridizing regions and would require further validation using unbiased metagenomic sequencing.