Exploring the Use of Monoclonal Antibodies and Antiviral Therapies for Early Treatment of COVID-19 Outpatients in a Real-World Setting: A Nationwide Study from England and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients with newly approved therapies are sparse. AIM: To explore the pattern of use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)/antiviral therapies approved for early COVID-19 treatment in non-hospitalized patients from England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. METHODS: Public national dashboards on weekly mAb/antiviral use and/or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnoses from the Italian Medicines Agency, the Italian National Institute of Health, National Health Service in England and the UK Government were explored. Prevalence of antiviral use in outpatients during the entire study period and every two weeks was calculated, as a whole and by class and compounds. An interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was carried out to assess the impact of predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants over time on the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals in England and Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 77,469 and 195,604 doses of mAbs/antivirals were respectively administered to a total of 10,630,903 (7.3 per 1000) and 18,168,365 (10.8 per 1000) patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Italy. Prevalence of use every two weeks increased from 0.07% to 3.1% in England and 0.9% to 2.3% in Italy during the study period. Regarding individual compounds, sotrovimab (prevalence of use, 1.6%) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.6%) in England, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.7%) and molnupiravir (0.5%) in Italy, reported the highest prevalence during a 2-week period. In the ITS analysis, the transition from Delta to Omicron variant predominance was associated with a significant increase in the use of sotrovimab, molnupiravir, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in both England and Italy, with a reduction of other marketed mAbs. The extent of the increase was higher in England than in Italy for all these drugs except for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: In this dual nationwide study, the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 for early outpatients' treatment increased slowly up to 2.0-3.0% of all patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. The trend of individual drug use varied in relation to predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants with some differences across countries. In line with scientific societies' guidelines, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral in both countries in the most recent period.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Prospective Cohort and Implementation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Detection strategies in vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness (PEH) need to be explored to promptly recognize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in PEH during two pandemic waves compared with gold standard real-time multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). METHODS: All PEH ≥ 18 years requesting residence at the available shelters in Verona, Italy, across two cold-weather emergency periods (November 2020-May 2021 and December 2021-April 2022) were prospectively screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by means of a naso-pharyingeal swab. A lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (Biocredit® COVID-19 Ag) was used as antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). The rtRT-PCR was performed with Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay kit (Seegene). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated as measures for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Overall, 503 participants were enrolled during the two intervention periods for a total of 732 paired swabs collected: 541 swabs in the first period and 191 in the second. No significant differences in demographic and infection-related characteristics were observed in tested subjects in the study periods, except for the rate of previous infection (0.8% versus 8%; p < 0.001) and vaccination (6% versus 73%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the cohort was 8% (58/732 swabs positive with rtRT-PCR). Seventeen swabs were collected from symptomatic patients (7%). Among them, the concordance between rtRT-PCR and Ag-RDT was 100%, 7 (41.2%) positive and 10 negative pairs. The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 63.8% (95% CI 60.3-67.3) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-100). PPV and NPV were 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity did not change substantially across the two periods (65.1% and 99.8% in 2020-2021 vs. 60% and 100% in 2021-2022). CONCLUSIONS: A periodic Ag-RDT-based screening approach for PEH at point of care could guide preventive measures, including prompt isolation, without referral to hospital-based laboratories for molecular test confirmation in case of positive detection even in individuals asymptomatic for COVID-19. This could help reduce the risk of outbreaks in shelter facilities.

Host immunological responses facilitate development of SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments.

BackgroundThe role of host immunity in emergence of evasive SARS-CoV-2 Spike mutations under therapeutic monoclonal antibody (mAb) pressure remains to be explored.MethodsIn a prospective, observational, monocentric ORCHESTRA cohort study, conducted between March 2021 and November 2022, mild-to-moderately ill COVID-19 patients (n = 204) receiving bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab were longitudinally studied over 28 days for viral loads, de novo Spike mutations, mAb kinetics, seroneutralization against infecting variants of concern, and T cell immunity. Additionally, a machine learning-based circulating immune-related biomarker (CIB) profile predictive of evasive Spike mutations was constructed and confirmed in an independent data set (n = 19) that included patients receiving sotrovimab or tixagevimab/cilgavimab.ResultsPatients treated with various mAbs developed evasive Spike mutations with remarkable speed and high specificity to the targeted mAb-binding sites. Immunocompromised patients receiving mAb therapy not only continued to display significantly higher viral loads, but also showed higher likelihood of developing de novo Spike mutations. Development of escape mutants also strongly correlated with neutralizing capacity of the therapeutic mAbs and T cell immunity, suggesting immune pressure as an important driver of escape mutations. Lastly, we showed that an antiinflammatory and healing-promoting host milieu facilitates Spike mutations, where 4 CIBs identified patients at high risk of developing escape mutations against therapeutic mAbs with high accuracy.ConclusionsOur data demonstrate that host-driven immune and nonimmune responses are essential for development of mutant SARS-CoV-2. These data also support point-of-care decision making in reducing the risk of mAb treatment failure and improving mitigation strategies for possible dissemination of escape SARS-CoV-2 mutants.FundingThe ORCHESTRA project/European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.

Exploratory data on the clinical efficacy of monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern.

Background: Recent in-vitro data have shown that the activity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) varies according to the variant of concern (VOC). No studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different mAbs against Omicron VOC. Methods: The MANTICO trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacy of early treatments with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and sotrovimab in outpatients aged 50 or older with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. As the patient enrolment was interrupted for possible futility after the onset of the Omicron wave, the analysis was performed according to the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The primary outcome was coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression (hospitalisation, need of supplemental oxygen therapy, or death through day 14). Secondary outcomes included the time to symptom resolution, assessed using the product-limit method. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model were used to assess the association with predictors. Log rank test was used to compare survival functions. Results: Overall, 319 patients were included. Among 141 patients infected with Delta, no COVID-19 progression was recorded, and the time to symptom resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups (Log-rank Chi-square 0.22, p 0.90). Among 170 patients infected with Omicron (80.6% BA.1 and 19.4% BA.1.1), two COVID-19 progressions were recorded, both in the bamlanivimab/etesevimab group, and the median time to symptom resolution was 5 days shorter in the sotrovimab group compared with the bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups (HR 0.53 and HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.77 and 95% CI 0.30-0.67, p<0.01). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, among adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection due to Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1, early treatment with sotrovimab reduces the time to recovery compared with casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab/etesevimab. In the same population, early treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab may maintain a role in preventing COVID-19 progression. The generalisability of trial results is substantially limited by the early discontinuation of the trial and firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Funding: This trial was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA). The VOC identification was funded by the ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic) project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 101016167. Clinical trial number: NCT05205759.

Clinical Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections: The ORCHESTRA Prospective Cohort Study.

The clinical impact of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough infections is unclear. We present the results of an observational prospective cohort study assessing and comparing COVID-19 progression in high-risk outpatients receiving mAb according to primary or breakthrough infection. Clinical, serological and virological predictors associated with 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalization were identified using multivariate logistic regression and summarized with odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 847 COVID-19 outpatients were included: 414 with primary and 433 with breakthrough infection. Hospitalization was observed in 42/414 (10.1%) patients with primary and 8/433 (1.8%) patients with breakthrough infection (p < 0.001). aOR for hospitalization was significantly lower for breakthrough infection (aOR 0.12, 95%CI: 0.05-0.27, p < 0.001) and higher for immunocompromised status (aOR:2.35, 95%CI:1.08-5.08, p = 0.003), advanced age (aOR:1.06, 95%CI: 1.03-1.08, p < 0.001), and male gender (aOR:1.97, 95%CI: 1.04-3.73, p = 0.037). Among the breakthrough infection group, the median SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgGs was lower (p < 0.001) in immunocompromised and elderly patients >75 years compared with that in the immunocompetent patients. Our findings suggest that, among mAb patients, those with breakthrough infection have significantly lower hospitalization risk compared with patients with primary infection. Prognostic algorithms combining clinical and immune-virological characteristics are needed to ensure appropriate and up-to-date clinical protocols targeting high-risk categories.

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study.

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700-1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200-1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests in acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests could be essential in differentiating bacterial and viral acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and driving antibiotic stewardship in the community. OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care tests in community settings for acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Open Gray) from inception to 31 May 2021, without language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic test accuracy studies involving patients at primary care, outpatient clinic, emergency department and long-term care facilities with a clinical suspicion of acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. The comparator was any test used as a comparison to the index test. In order not to limit the study inclusion, the comparator was not defined a priori. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Four investigators independently extracted data, rated risk of bias, and assessed the quality using QUADAS-2. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The measures of diagnostic test accuracy were calculated with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 421 studies addressed at least one point-of-care test. The diagnostic performance of molecular tests was higher compared with that of rapid diagnostic tests for all the pathogens studied. The accuracy of stand-alone signs and symptoms or biomarkers was poor. Lung ultrasound showed high sensitivity and specificity (90% for both) for the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae had sub-optimal sensitivity (range 49%-84%) but high specificity (>80%). DISCUSSION: Physical examination and host biomarkers are not sufficiently reliable as stand-alone tests to differentiate between bacterial and viral pneumonia. Lung ultrasound shows higher accuracy than chest X-ray for bacterial pneumonia at emergency department. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests cannot be considered fully reliable because of high false-negative rates. Overall, molecular tests for all the pathogens considered were found to be the most accurate.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibody detection with a lateral flow immunoassay test.

The dramatic impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the worldwide public health has elicited the rapid assessment of molecular and serological diagnostic methods. Notwithstanding the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on molecular biology approaches including multiplex or singleplex real time RT-PCR, there is a real need for affordable and rapid serological methods to support diagnostics, and surveillance of infection spreading. In this study, we performed a diagnostic accuracy analysis of COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test cassette lateral flow immunoassay test (LFIA) assay. To do so, we analyzed different cohorts of blood samples obtained from 151 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay positive patients (group 1) and 51 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay negative patients (group 2) in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and likelihood ratios. In addition, we challenged LFIA with plasma from 99 patients stored during 2015-2017 period. Our results showed that this LFIA detected SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG in 103 out of 151 (68.21%) samples of group 1, whereas no IgM and/or IgG detection was displayed both in the group 2 and in pre-pandemic samples. Interestingly, IgM and/or IgG positivity was detected in 86 out of 94 (91.49%) group 1 samples collected after 10 days from symptoms onset whereas only 17 out of 57 of group 1 samples obtained before day 10 were positive to SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. We also compared the performance of this LFIA test with respect to other four different LFIA assays in 40 serum samples from multiplex RT-PCR positive individuals. Within the limits of the study size, the results demonstrated that COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test cassette LFIA assay displayed valid performance in IgM and IgG detection when compared with the other four LFIA assays. Hence, this approach might be considered as an alternative point-of-care procedure for SARS-CoV-2 serological investigation.

Assessment of COVID-19 progression on day 5 from symptoms onset.

BACKGROUND: A major limitation of current predictive prognostic models in patients with COVID-19 is the heterogeneity of population in terms of disease stage and duration. This study aims at identifying a panel of clinical and laboratory parameters that at day-5 of symptoms onset could predict disease progression in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patient-level epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at fixed time-points: day 5, 10, and 15 from symptoms onset. COVID-19 progression was defined as in-hospital death and/or transfer to ICU and/or respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) within day-11 of symptoms onset. Multivariate regression was performed to identify predictors of COVID-19 progression. A model assessed at day-5 of symptoms onset including male sex, age > 65 years, dyspnoea, cardiovascular disease, and at least three abnormal laboratory parameters among CRP (> 80 U/L), ALT (> 40 U/L), NLR (> 4.5), LDH (> 250 U/L), and CK (> 80 U/L) was proposed. Discrimination power was assessed by computing area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) values. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively included in a 3-month period. The majority of patients were male (148, 63%) and the mean age was 71 (SD 15.9). One hundred and ninety patients (81%) suffered from at least one underlying illness, most frequently cardiovascular disease (47%), neurological/psychiatric disorders (35%), and diabetes (21%). Among them 88 (37%) experienced COVID-19 progression. The proposed model showed an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) for predicting disease progression by day-11. CONCLUSION: An easy-to-use panel of laboratory/clinical parameters computed at day-5 of symptoms onset predicts, with fair discrimination ability, COVID-19 progression. Assessment of these features at day-5 of symptoms onset could facilitate clinicians' decision making. The model can also play a role as a tool to increase homogeneity of population in clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment in hospitalized patients.

Deciphering the state of immune silence in fatal COVID-19 patients.

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, COVID-19 appeared as a unique disease with unconventional tissue and systemic immune features. Here we show a COVID-19 immune signature associated with severity by integrating single-cell RNA-seq analysis from blood samples and broncho-alveolar lavage fluids with clinical, immunological and functional ex vivo data. This signature is characterized by lung accumulation of naïve lymphoid cells associated with a systemic expansion and activation of myeloid cells. Myeloid-driven immune suppression is a hallmark of COVID-19 evolution, highlighting arginase-1 expression with immune regulatory features of monocytes. Monocyte-dependent and neutrophil-dependent immune suppression loss is associated with fatal clinical outcome in severe patients. Additionally, our analysis shows a lung CXCR6+ effector memory T cell subset is associated with better prognosis in patients with severe COVID-19. In summary, COVID-19-induced myeloid dysregulation and lymphoid impairment establish a condition of 'immune silence' in patients with critical COVID-19.

Nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory samples for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection. METHODS: The new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to prioritize hospital admission of patients affected by COVID-19 in low-resource settings with hospital-bed shortage.

OBJECTIVE: To use Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to determine weights for eleven criteria in order to prioritize COVID-19 non-critical patients for admission to hospital in healthcare settings with limited resources. METHODS: The MCDA was applied in two main steps: specification of criteria for prioritizing COVID-19 patients (and levels within each criterion); and determination of weights for the criteria based on experts' knowledge and experience in managing COVID-19 patients, via an online survey. Criteria were selected based on available COVID-19 evidence with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). RESULTS: The most important criteria (mean weights, summing to 100%) are: PaO2 (16.3%); peripheral O2 saturation (15.9%); chest X-ray (14.1%); Modified Early Warning Score-MEWS (11.4%); respiratory rate (9.5%); comorbidities (6.5%); living with vulnerable people (6.4%); body mass index (5.6%); duration of symptoms before hospital evaluation (5.4%); CRP (5.1%); and age (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: At the beginning of a new pandemic, when evidence for disease predictors is limited or unavailable and effective national contingency plans are difficult to establish, the MCDA prioritization model could play a pivotal role in improving the response of health systems.