Neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.5 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration comparable to those after Omicron BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infections

Introduction The effect of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld™;AstraZeneca, UK) should be evaluated in the context of concurrent outbreak situations. Methods For serologic investigation of tixagevimab/cilgavimab during the BA.5 outbreak period, sera of immunocompromised (IC) hosts sampled before and one month after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration and those of healthcare workers (HCWs) sampled one month after a 3rd shot of COVID-19 vaccines, five months after BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infection (BI), and one month after BA.5 BI were investigated. Semi-quantitative anti-spike protein antibody (Sab) test and plaque reduction neutralizing test (PRNT) against BA.5 were performed. Results A total of 19 IC hosts (five received tixagevimab/cilgavimab 300 mg and 14 received 600 mg) and 41 HCWs (21 experienced BA.1/BA.2 BI and 20 experienced BA.5 BI) were evaluated. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between IC hosts and HCWs except for age and hypertension. Sab significantly increased after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration (median 130.2 BAU/mL before tixagevimab/cilgavimab, 5,665.8 BAU/mL after 300 mg, and 10,217 BAU/mL after 600 mg;both P < 0.001). Sab of one month after the 3rd shot (12,144.2 BAU/mL) or five months after BA.1/BA.2 BI (10,455.8 BAU/mL) were comparable with that of tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg, while Sab of one month after BA.5 BI were significantly higher (22,216.0 BAU/mL;P < 0.001). BA.5 PRNT ND50 significantly increased after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration (median ND50 29.6 before tixagevimab/cilgavimab, 170.8 after 300 mg, and 298.5 after 600 mg;both P < 0.001). The ND50 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg was comparable to those of five months after BA.1 BI (ND50 200.9) while ND50 of one month after the 3rd shot was significantly lower (ND50 107.6;P = 0.019). The ND50 of one month after BA.5 BI (ND50 1,272.5) was highest among tested groups, but statistical difference was not noticed with tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg. Conclusion Tixagevimab/cilgavimab provided a comparable neutralizing activity against the BA.5 with a healthy adult population who were vaccinated with a 3rd shot and experienced BA.1/BA.2 BI.

Neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.5 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration comparable to those after Omicron BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infections.

Introduction: The effect of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld™; AstraZeneca, UK) should be evaluated in the context of concurrent outbreak situations. Methods: For serologic investigation of tixagevimab/cilgavimab during the BA.5 outbreak period, sera of immunocompromised (IC) hosts sampled before and one month after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration and those of healthcare workers (HCWs) sampled one month after a 3rd shot of COVID-19 vaccines, five months after BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infection (BI), and one month after BA.5 BI were investigated. Semi-quantitative anti-spike protein antibody (Sab) test and plaque reduction neutralizing test (PRNT) against BA.5 were performed. Results: A total of 19 IC hosts (five received tixagevimab/cilgavimab 300 mg and 14 received 600 mg) and 41 HCWs (21 experienced BA.1/BA.2 BI and 20 experienced BA.5 BI) were evaluated. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between IC hosts and HCWs except for age and hypertension. Sab significantly increased after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration (median 130.2 BAU/mL before tixagevimab/cilgavimab, 5,665.8 BAU/mL after 300 mg, and 10,217 BAU/mL after 600 mg; both P < 0.001). Sab of one month after the 3rd shot (12,144.2 BAU/mL) or five months after BA.1/BA.2 BI (10,455.8 BAU/mL) were comparable with that of tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg, while Sab of one month after BA.5 BI were significantly higher (22,216.0 BAU/mL; P < 0.001). BA.5 PRNT ND50 significantly increased after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration (median ND50 29.6 before tixagevimab/cilgavimab, 170.8 after 300 mg, and 298.5 after 600 mg; both P < 0.001). The ND50 after tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg was comparable to those of five months after BA.1 BI (ND50 200.9) while ND50 of one month after the 3rd shot was significantly lower (ND50 107.6; P = 0.019). The ND50 of one month after BA.5 BI (ND50 1,272.5) was highest among tested groups, but statistical difference was not noticed with tixagevimab/cilgavimab 600 mg. Conclusion: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab provided a comparable neutralizing activity against the BA.5 with a healthy adult population who were vaccinated with a 3rd shot and experienced BA.1/BA.2 BI.

Can nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment shorten the duration of COVID-19 isolation?

Background: The impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment on shedding of viable virus in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. Methods: A prospective cohort study evaluating mildly ill COVID-19 patients was conducted. Virologic responses were compared between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treatment and supportive care groups. Risk factors and relevant clinical factors for shedding of viable virus were investigated. Results: A total of 80 COVID-19 patients were enrolled and 222 sputum specimens were collected. Ten patients were dropped during follow-up, and 33 patients in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 37 in the supportive care groups were compared. The median age was 67 years, and 67% were male. Clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Viral loads decreased significantly faster in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group compared with the supportive care group (P < 0.001), and the slope was significantly steeper (-2.99 ± 1.54 vs. -1.44 ± 1.52; P < 0.001). The duration of viable virus shedding was not statistically different between groups. In the multivariable analyses evaluating all collected specimens, male gender (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25-5.03, P = 0.010), symptom score (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, P = 0.015), days from symptom onset (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.002), complete vaccination (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.87, P = 0.038), and BA.2 subtype (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = 0.025) were independently associated with viable viral shedding, while nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was not. Conclusion: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment effectively reduced viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants but did not decrease the duration of viable virus shedding.

Augmented humoral and cellular immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 after breakthrough infection in kidney transplant recipients who received 3 doses of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine.

Diminished immune response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and breakthrough infection (BI) is a major concern for solid organ transplant recipients. Humoral and cellular immune responses of kidney transplant (KT) recipients after a third COVID-19 vaccination were investigated compared to matched health care workers. Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein antibody and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 specific interferon-gamma releasing assay (IGRA) were assessed. A total of 38 KT recipients, including 20 BI and 18 noninfection, were evaluated. In the KT BI group, antibody titers were significantly increased (median 5 to 724, binding antibody units/mL (P = 0.002) after the third vaccination, but IGRA responses were negligible. After BI, antibody titers increased (median 11 355 binding antibody unit/mL; P < 0.001) and there was a significant increase of IGRA responses to spike proteins (Spike1-Nil, median 0.05 to 0.41 IU/mL; P = 0.009). Antibody titers and IGRA responses were significantly higher in the BI than in the noninfection group after 6 months. Immune responses were stronger in the health care worker than in the KT cohort, but the gap became narrower after BI. In conclusion, KT recipients who experienced BI after 3 COVID-19 vaccinations acquired augmented humoral and cellular immune responses.

Bean Extract-Based Gargle for Efficient Diagnosis of Active COVID-19 Infection Using Rapid Antigen Tests.

The antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using saliva specimens is fast, noninvasive, and suitable for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing, unlike nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) testing. We evaluated a novel Beanguard gargle (BG)-based virus collection method that can be applied to Ag-RDT as an alternative to the current RT-PCR with an NPS for early diagnosis of COVID-19. This clinical trial comprised 102 COVID-19-positive patients hospitalized after a governmental screening process and 100 healthy individuals. Paired NPS and BG-based saliva specimens from COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals were analyzed using NPS-RT-PCR, BG-RT-PCR, and BG-Ag-RDTs, whose diagnostic performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2 was compared. BG-Ag-RDTs showed high sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (100%) in 45 patients within 6 days of illness and detected all cases of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta variants. In 11 asymptomatic active COVID-19 cases, both BG-Ag-RDTs and BG-RT-PCR showed sensitivities and specificities of 100%. Sensitivities of BG-Ag-RDT and BG-RT-PCR toward salivary viral detection were highly concordant, with no discrimination between symptomatic (97.0%), asymptomatic (100%), or SARS-CoV-2 variant (100%) cases. The intermolecular interactions between SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins and truncated canavalin, an active ingredient from the bean extract (BE), were observed in terms of physicochemical properties. The detachment of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain from hACE2 increased as the BE concentration increased, allowing the release of the virus from hACE2 for early diagnosis. Using BG-based saliva specimens remarkably enhances the Ag-RDT diagnostic performance as an alternative to NPS and enables noninvasive, rapid, and accurate COVID-19 self-testing and mass screening, supporting efficient COVID-19 management. IMPORTANCE An Ag-RDT is less likely to be accepted as an initial test method for early diagnosis owing to its low sensitivity. However, our self-collection method, Ag-RDT using BG-based saliva specimens, showed significantly enhanced detection sensitivity and specificity toward SARS-CoV-2 including the Alpha and Delta variants in all patients tested within 6 days of illness. The method represents an attractive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the early diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. The evidence suggests that the method could have a potential for mass screening and monitoring of COVID-19 cases.

Nocebo responses in randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and magnitude of nocebo responses in -COVID-19 vaccine trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of adverse effects (AEs), severe adverse effects (SAEs), withdrawal due to AEs, death, and immune-mediated SAEs observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Four RCTs with a total of 119,110 participants (65,254 from the vaccine group and 53,856 from the placebo group) were considered. The pooled estimate of AEs in the placebo and vaccine groups was 16.4% (95% confidence interval (CI), 9.1 - 27.7%) and 25.3% (95% CI, 22.7 - 28.1%), respectively. The pooled SAE rate in the placebo and vaccine groups was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5 - 1.0%) and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4 - 0.9%), respectively. The pooled estimate of participants who withdrew from treatment due to AEs in the placebo and vaccine groups was 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1 - 1.0%) and 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 - 0.5%), respectively. The pooled death rate in the placebo and vaccine groups was 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01 - 0.04%) and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.01 - 0.03%), respectively. The pooled estimate of immune-mediated SAEs in the placebo and vaccine groups was 0.01% (95% CI, 0.01 - 0.04%) and 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01 - 0.05%), respectively. There were no differences observed in the pooled risk of AEs, SAEs, withdrawal due to AEs, death, and immune-mediated SAEs between placebo and vaccine groups. CONCLUSION: The frequency and magnitude of nocebo responses were 16.4% and 0.3%, respectively. Therefore, the incidence of nocebo responses was high, but their magnitude was low in COVID-19 vaccine trials.