SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants evolved to extend antibody evasion (preprint)

The Omicron subvariant BA.2 accounts for a large majority of the SARS-CoV-2 infection worldwide today. However, its recent descendants BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/5 have surged dramatically to become dominant in the United States and South Africa, respectively. That these novel Omicron subvariants carry additional mutations in their spike proteins raises concerns that they may further evade neutralizing antibodies, thereby further compromising the efficacy of our COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic monoclonals. We now report findings from a systematic antigenic analysis of these surging Omicron subvariants. BA.2.12.1 is only modestly (1.8-fold) more resistant to sera from vaccinated and boosted individuals than BA.2. On the other hand, BA.4/5 is substantially (4.2-fold) more resistant and thus more likely to lead to vaccine breakthrough infections. Mutation at spike residue L452 found in both BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/5 facilitates escape from some antibodies directed to the so-called Class 2 and Class 3 regions of the receptor-binding domain (RBD). The F486V mutation found in BA.4/5 facilitates escape from certain Class 1 and Class 2 antibodies to the RBD but compromises the spike affinity for the cellular receptor ACE2. The R493Q reversion mutation, however, restores receptor affinity and consequently the fitness of BA.4/5. Among therapeutic antibodies authorized for clinical use, only bebtelovimab (LY-COV1404) retains full potency against both BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/5. The Omicron lineage of SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, successively yielding subvariants that are not only more transmissible but also more evasive to antibodies.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 (preprint)

BACKGROUNDSarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor- monoclonal antibody) may attenuate the inflammatory response in Covid-19. METHODSWe performed an adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous sarilumab 200 mg or 400 mg in adults hospitalized with Covid-19. The phase 3 primary analysis population (cohort 1) was patients with critical Covid-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) randomized to sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The primary end point for phase 3 was the proportion of patients with [≥]1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTSFour-hundred fifty-seven (457) and 1365 patients were randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. Among phase 3 critical patients receiving MV (n=289; 34.3% on corticosteroids), the proportion with [≥]1-point improvement in clinical status (alive not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% in sarilumab 400 mg and 35.5% in placebo (risk difference [RD] +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P=0.3261), representing a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. Day 29 all-cause mortality was 36.4% in sarilumab 400 mg versus 41.9% in placebo (RD -5.5%; 95% CI, -20.2 to 8.7; relative risk reduction 13.3%). In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio (HR) for death in sarilumab 400 mg compared with placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.13) overall, improving to 0.49 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONIn hospitalized patients with Covid-19 receiving MV, numerical benefits with sarilumab did not achieve statistical significance, but benefit may be greater in patients receiving corticosteroids. A larger study is required to confirm this observed numerical benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315298)

Increased Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7 to Antibody Neutralization (preprint)

The Covid-19 pandemic has ravaged the globe, and its causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, continues to rage. Prospects of ending this pandemic rest on the development of effective interventions. Two monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics have received emergency use authorization, and more are in the pipeline. Furthermore, multiple vaccine constructs have shown promise, including two with ~95% protective efficacy against Covid-19. However, these interventions were directed toward the initial SARS-CoV-2 that emerged in 2019. Considerable viral evolution has occurred since, including variants with a D614G mutation that have become dominant. Viruses with this mutation alone do not appear to be antigenically distinct, however. Recent emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 in the UK and B.1.351 in South Africa is of concern because of their purported ease of transmission and extensive mutations in the spike protein. We now report that B.1.1.7 is refractory to neutralization by most mAbs to the N-terminal domain (NTD) of spike and relatively resistant to a number of mAbs to the receptor-binding domain (RBD). It is modestly more resistant to convalescent plasma (~3 fold) and vaccinee sera (~2 fold). Findings on B.1.351 are more worrisome in that this variant is not only refractory to neutralization by most NTD mAbs but also by multiple potent mAbs to the receptor-binding motif on RBD, largely due to an E484K mutation. Moreover, B.1.351 is markedly more resistant to neutralization by convalescent plasma (~11-33 fold) and vaccinee sera (~6.5-8.6 fold). B.1.351 and emergent variants with similar spike mutations present new challenges for mAb therapy and threaten the protective efficacy of current vaccines.

Antibody Testing Documents the Silent Spread of SARS-CoV-2in New York Prior to the First Reported Case (preprint)

We developed and validated serologic assays to determine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in select patient populations in greater New York City area early during the epidemic. We tested “discarded” serum samples from February 24 to March 29 for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike trimer and nucleocapsid protein. Using known durations for antibody development, incubation period, serial interval, and reproductive ratio for this pandemic, we determined that introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into New York likely occurred between January 23 and February 4, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 spread silently for 4–5 weeks before the first community acquired infection was reported. A novel coronavirus emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China1,2 and devasted Hubei Province in early 2020 before spreading to every province within China and nearly every country in the world3. This pathogen, now termed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a global pandemic, with ~ 10 million cases and over 500,000 deaths reported through June 30, 20203. The first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States was identified on January 19, 2020 in a man who returned to the State of Washington from Wuhan4. In the ensuing months, the U.S. has become a hotspot of the pandemic, presently accounting for almost one third of the total caseload and over one fourth of the deaths3. The first confirmed case in New York was reported on March 1 in a traveler recently returned from Iran. The first community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed on March 3 in a 50-year-old male who lived in New Rochelle and worked in New York City (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-archive.page.) In the ensuing 18 weeks, New York City has suffered a peak daily infection number of ~ 4,500 (Fig. 1a) and a cumulative caseload of ~ 400,000 to date. The time period when SARS-CoV-2 gained entry into this epicenter of the pandemic remains unclear.