SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Neutralization After Heterologous Vaccine Boosting (preprint)

As part of an ongoing study assessing homologous and heterologous booster vaccines, following primary EUA series, we assessed neutralization of D614G and Omicron variants prior to and 28 days after boost. Subset analysis was done in six combinations (N = 10/group): four homologous primary-booster combinations included mRNA-1273 two-dose priming followed by boosting with 100-g or 50-g mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S single-dose priming followed by Ad26.COV2.S booster and BNT162b2 two-dose priming followed by BNT162b2 boosting; and two heterologous primary-booster combinations: BNT162b2 followed by Ad26.COV2.S and Ad26.COV2.S followed by BNT162b2. Neutralizing antibody (Nab) titers to D614G on the day of boost (baseline) were detected in 85-100% of participants, with geometric mean titers (GMT) of 71-343 in participants who received an mRNA vaccine series versus GMTs of 35-41 in participants primed with Ad26.OV2.S. Baseline NAb titers to Omicron were detected in 50-90% of participants who received an mRNA vaccine series (GMT range 12.8-24.5) versus 20-25% among participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S. The booster dose increased the neutralizing GMT in most combinations to above 1000 for D614G and above 250 for Omicron by Day 29. Homologous prime-boost Ad26.COV2.S had the lowest NAb on Day 29 (D614G GMT 128 and Omicron GMT 45). Results were similar between age groups. Most homologous and heterologous boost combinations examined will increase humoral immunity to the Omicron variant.

Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations: Preliminary Report (preprint)

Background: While Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Booster vaccinations have recently received emergency use authorization (EUA) for certain populations but are restricted to homologous mRNA vaccines. We evaluated homologous and heterologous booster vaccination in persons who had received an EUA Covid-19 vaccine regimen. Methods: In this phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial conducted at ten U.S. sites, adults who received one of three EUA Covid-19 vaccines at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment and had no reported history of SARS-CoV-2 infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines (Moderna mRNA-1273 100-mcg, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S 5x1010 virus particles, or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 30-mcg; nine combinations). The primary outcomes were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on study days 15 and 29. Results: 458 individuals were enrolled: 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.CoV2.S, and 154 received BNT162b2 booster vaccines. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. Injection site pain, malaise, headache, and myalgia occurred in more than half the participants. Booster vaccines increased the neutralizing activity against a D614G pseudovirus (4.2-76-fold) and binding antibody titers (4.6-56-fold) for all combinations; homologous boost increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2-20-fold whereas heterologous boost increased titers 6.2-76-fold. Day 15 neutralizing and binding antibody titers varied by 28.7-fold and 20.9-fold, respectively, across the nine prime-boost combinations. Conclusion: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccinations were well-tolerated and immunogenic in adults who completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier.

Trajectory of viral load in a prospective population-based cohort with incident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection (preprint)

ImportanceSARS-CoV-2 viral trajectory has not been well-characterized in documented incident infections. These data will inform SARS-CoV-2 natural history, transmission dynamics, prevention practices, and therapeutic development. ObjectiveTo prospectively characterize early SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in persons with incident infection. DesignProspective cohort study. SettingSecondary data analysis from a multicenter study in the U.S. ParticipantsThe samples derived from a randomized controlled trial of 829 community-based asymptomatic participants recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with SARS-CoV-2. Participants collected daily mid-turbinate swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection by polymerase-chain-reaction and symptom diaries for 14-days. Persons with negative swab for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline who developed infection during the study were included in the analysis. ExposureLaboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcomes and measuresThe observed SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding characteristics were summarized and shedding trajectories were examined using a piece-wise linear mixed-effects modeling. Whole viral genome sequencing was performed on samples with cycle threshold (Ct)<34. ResultsNinety-seven persons (57% women, median age 37-years) developed incident infections during 14-days of follow-up. Two-hundred fifteen sequenced samples were assigned to 15 lineages that belonged to the G614 variant. Forty-two (43%), 18(19%), and 31(32%) participants had viral shedding for 1 day, 2-6 days, and [≥]7 days, with median peak viral load Ct of 38.5, 36.7, and 18.3, respectively. Six (6%) participants had 1-6 days of observed viral shedding with censored duration. The peak average viral load was observed on day 3 of viral shedding. The average Ct value was lower, indicating higher viral load, in persons reporting COVID-19 symptoms than asymptomatic. Using the statistical model, the median time from shedding onset to peak viral load was 1.4 days followed by a median of 9.7 days before clearance. Conclusions and RelevanceIncident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection resulted in a rapid viral load peak followed by slower decay and positive correlation between peak viral load and shedding duration; duration of shedding was heterogeneous. This longitudinal evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 G614 variant with frequent molecular testing may serve as a reference for comparing emergent viral lineages to inform clinical trial designs and public health strategies to contain the spread of the virus. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSWhat are the early SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding characteristics in persons with incident infection? FindingsIn this prospective cohort of 97 community-based participants who collected daily mid-turbinate swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection after recent exposure to SARS-CoV-2, viral trajectory was characterized by a rapid peak followed by slower decay. Peak viral load correlated positively with symptoms. The duration of shedding was heterogeneous. MeaningA detailed description of the SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding trajectory serves as baseline for comparison to new viral variants of concern and inform models for the planning of clinical trials and transmission dynamics to end this pandemic.

Hydroxychloroquine with or Without Azithromycin for Treatment of Early SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among High-Risk Outpatient Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial (preprint)

Background: Treatment options for outpatients with COVID-19 could reduce morbidity and prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, three-arm (1:1:1) placebo-equivalent control trial conducted remotely throughout the United States, adult outpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to receive HCQ (400mg BID x1day, followed by 200mg BID x9days) or placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid) and AZ (500mg, then 250mg daily x4days) or placebo-equivalent (folic acid), stratified by risk for progression to severe COVID-19 (high-risk vs. low-risk). Self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, FLUPro symptom surveys, EKGs and vital signs collected daily. Primary endpoints were: (a) 14-day progression to lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalization, or death; (b) 14-day time to viral clearance; secondary endpoints included time to symptom resolution (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04354428). Due to the low rate of clinical outcomes, the study was terminated for operational futility.Findings: Between 15th April and 27th July 2020, 231 participants were enrolled and 219 initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset. Incident LRTI occurred in six participants (two control, four HCQ/AZ) and COVID-19 related hospitalization in nine (four control, two HCQ, three HCQ/AZ). There were no deaths. Median time to clearance was 5 days (95% CI=4-6) in HCQ, 6 days (95% CI=4-8) in HCQ/AZ, and 8 days (95% CI=6-10) in control. HCQ but not HCQ/AZ had faster time to viral clearance (HR=1.62, 95% CI=1.01-2.60, p=0.047 & HR=1.25, 95% CI=0.75-2.07, p=0.39) compared to control. Among 197 participants who met the COVID-19 definition at enrollment, time to symptom resolution did not differ by group.Interpretation: Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection.Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04354428Funding: The COVID-19 Early Treatment Study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-017062) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS) grant support (UL1 TR002319), KL2 TR002317, and TL1 TR002318 from NCATS/NIH funded REDCap. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. PAN and MJA were supported by the Mayo Clinic Windland Smith Rice Comprehensive Sudden Cardiac Death Program. Conflict of Interest: Declaration of interests: CJ reports grants from BMGF for conduct of the study, and grants from CDC and NIH outside of the submitted work. HSK reports funding from NIH. PAN and MJA have a potential financial relationship with AliveCor related to QT assessment using the device, however the investigators would receive no financial benefit for use of the technology for patients at Mayo Clinic or for its use in the current study. AB reports consulting for Gates Ventures and grants from BMGF and NIH outside of the submitted work. HYC reports consulting for BMGF, Pfizer, Ellume, and Merck, and grants from Gates Ventures, NIH, CDC, BMGF, DARPA, Apple Inc., Sanofi-Pasteur, and Roche-Genentech, outside of the submitted work. Ethical Approval: Study visits were conducted via Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant telemedicine. The Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) approved this study with reliance agreements with collaborating institutions.

Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Clinical outcomes, inflammatory marker kinetics, safety, and a review of the literature (preprint)

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes substantial morbidity. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, might improve outcomes by mitigating inflammation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to the University of Washington Hospital system with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen. Outcomes included clinical improvement, defined as a two-point reduction in severity on a 6-point ordinal scale or discharge, and mortality within 28 days. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with propensity score inverse probability weighting to compare outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Results We evaluated 43 patients who received tocilizumab and 45 who did not. Patients receiving tocilizumab were younger with fewer comorbidities but higher baseline oxygen requirements. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with reduced CRP, fibrinogen, and temperature, but there were no meaningful differences in Cox models of time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.38-2.22) or mortality (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.21-1.52). A numerically higher proportion of tocilizumab-treated patients had subsequent infections, transaminitis, and cytopenias. Conclusions Tocilizumab did not improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, this study was not powered to detect small differences, and there remains the possibility for a survival benefit.