Towards the development of an epitope-focused vaccine for SARS-CoV-2.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 on all continents and the mortality induced by SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has motivated an unprecedented effort for vaccine development. Inactivated viruses as well as vaccines focused on the partial or total sequence of the Spike protein using different novel platforms such us RNA, DNA, proteins, and non-replicating viral vectors have been developed. The high global need for vaccines, now and in the future, and the emergence of new variants of concern still requires development of accessible vaccines that can be adapted according to the most prevalent variants in the respective regions. Here, we describe the immunogenic properties of a group of theoretically predicted RBD peptides to be used as the first step towards the development of an effective, safe and low-cost epitope-focused vaccine. One of the tested peptides named P5, proved to be safe and immunogenic. Subcutaneous administration of the peptide, formulated with alumina, induced high levels of specific IgG antibodies in mice and hamsters, as well as an increase of IFN-γ expression by CD8+ T cells in C57 and BALB/c mice upon in vitro stimulation with P5. Neutralizing titers of anti-P5 antibodies, however, were disappointingly low, a deficiency that we will attempt to resolve by the inclusion of additional immunogenic epitopes to P5. The safety and immunogenicity data reported in this study support the use of this peptide as a starting point for the design of an epitope restricted vaccine.

Efficacy and safety of camostat mesylate in early COVID-19 disease in an ambulatory setting: a randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of 300 mg camostat mesylate three times daily in a fasted state to treat early phase COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting. METHODS: We conducted a phase II randomized controlled trial in symptomatic (maximum 5 days) and asymptomatic patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either camostat mesylate or a placebo. Outcomes included change in nasopharyngeal viral load, time to clinical improvement, the presence of neutralizing antibodies, and safety. RESULTS: Of 96 participants randomized between November 2020 and June 2021, analyses were performed on the data of 90 participants who completed treatment (N = 61 camostat mesylate, N = 29 placebo). The estimated mean change in cycle threshold between day 1 and day 5 between the camostat and placebo group was 1.183 (P = 0.511). The unadjusted hazard ratio for clinical improvement in the camostat group was 0.965 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-1.942, P = 0.921 by Cox regression). The percentage distribution of the 50% neutralizing antibody titer at day 28 visit and frequency of adverse events were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Under this protocol, camostat mesylate was not found to be effective as an antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04625114; November 12, 2020.

Intranasal dexamethasone: a new clinical trial for the control of inflammation and neuroinflammation in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: By end December of 2021, COVID-19 has infected around 276 million individuals and caused over 5 million deaths worldwide. Infection results in dysregulated systemic inflammation, multi-organ dysfunction, and critical illness. Cells of the central nervous system are also affected, triggering an uncontrolled neuroinflammatory response. Low doses of glucocorticoids, administered orally or intravenously, reduce mortality among moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. However, low doses administered by these routes do not reach therapeutic levels in the CNS. In contrast, intranasally administered dexamethasone can result in therapeutic doses in the CNS even at low doses. METHODS: This is an approved open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of intranasal versus intravenous dexamethasone administered in low doses to moderate and severe COVID-19 adult patients. The protocol is conducted in five health institutions in Mexico City. A total of 120 patients will be randomized into two groups (intravenous vs. intranasal) at a 1:1 ratio. Both groups will be treated with the corresponding dexamethasone scheme for 10 days. The primary outcome of the study will be clinical improvement, defined as a statistically significant reduction in the NEWS-2 score of patients with intranasal versus intravenous dexamethasone administration. The secondary outcome will be the reduction in mortality during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol is currently in progress to improve the efficacy of the standard therapeutic dexamethasone regimen for moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04513184 . Registered November 12, 2020. Approved by La Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS) with identification number DI/20/407/04/36. People are currently being recruited.

Early high antibody titre convalescent plasma for hospitalised COVID-19 patients: DAWn-plasma.

BACKGROUND: Several randomised clinical trials have studied convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using different protocols, with different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralising antibody titres, at different time-points and severities of illness. METHODS: In the prospective multicentre DAWn-plasma trial, adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were randomised to 4 units of open-label convalescent plasma combined with standard of care (intervention group) or standard of care alone (control group). Plasma from donors with neutralising antibody titres (50% neutralisation titre (NT50)) ≥1/320 was the product of choice for the study. RESULTS: Between 2 May 2020 and 26 January 2021, 320 patients were randomised to convalescent plasma and 163 patients to the control group according to a 2:1 allocation scheme. A median (interquartile range) volume of 884 (806-906) mL) convalescent plasma was administered and 80.68% of the units came from donors with neutralising antibody titres (NT50) ≥1/320. Median time from onset of symptoms to randomisation was 7 days. The proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation on day 15 was not different between both groups (convalescent plasma 83.74% (n=267) versus control 84.05% (n=137)) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59-1.66; p=0.9772). The intervention did not change the natural course of antibody titres. The number of serious or severe adverse events was similar in both study arms and transfusion-related side-effects were reported in 19 out of 320 patients in the intervention group (5.94%). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion of 4 units of convalescent plasma with high neutralising antibody titres early in hospitalised COVID-19 patients did not result in a significant improvement of clinical status or reduced mortality.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody testing in Europe: towards harmonisation of neutralising antibody titres for better use of convalescent plasma and comparability of trial data.

We compared the performance of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody testing between 12 European laboratories involved in convalescent plasma trials. Raw titres differed almost 100-fold differences between laboratories when blind-testing 15 plasma samples. Calibration of titres in relation to the reference reagent and standard curve obtained by testing a dilution series reduced the inter-laboratory variability ca 10-fold. The harmonisation of neutralising antibody quantification is a vital step towards determining the protective and therapeutic levels of neutralising antibodies.

A randomized, multicentre, open-label phase II proof-of-concept trial investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of the addition of convalescent plasma to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the Donated Antibodies Working against nCoV (DAWn-Plasma) trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed an enormous burden on health care systems around the world. In the past, the administration of convalescent plasma of patients having recovered from SARS and severe influenza to patients actively having the disease showed promising effects on mortality and appeared safe. Whether or not this also holds true for the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus is currently unknown. METHODS: DAWn-Plasma is a multicentre nation-wide, randomized, open-label, phase II proof-of-concept clinical trial, evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of the addition of convalescent plasma to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium. Patients hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 are eligible when they are symptomatic (i.e. clinical or radiological signs) and have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the 72 h before study inclusion through a PCR (nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage) or a chest-CT scan showing features compatible with COVID-19 in the absence of an alternative diagnosis. Patients are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either standard of care and convalescent plasma (active treatment group) or standard of care only. The active treatment group receives 2 units of 200 to 250 mL of convalescent plasma within 12 h after randomization, with a second administration of 2 units 24 to 36 h after ending the first administration. The trial aims to include 483 patients and will recruit from 25 centres across Belgium. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients that require mechanical ventilation or have died at day 15. The main secondary endpoints are clinical status on day 15 and day 30 after randomization, as defined by the WHO Progression 10-point ordinal scale, and safety of the administration of convalescent plasma. DISCUSSION: This trial will either provide support or discourage the use of convalescent plasma as an early intervention for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04429854 . Registered on 12 June 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic: how have immunology societies contributed?

The COVID-19 pandemic is shining a spotlight on the field of immunology like never before. To appreciate the diverse ways in which immunologists have contributed, Nature Reviews Immunology invited the president of the International Union of Immunological Societies and the presidents of 15 other national immunology societies to discuss how they and their members responded following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).