Tixagevimab-cilgavimab (AZD7442) for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (preprint)

Background Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442) are two monoclonal antibodies developed by AstraZeneca for the pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Its effectiveness and safety in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was not known at the outset of this trial. Methods DisCoVeRy is a phase 3, adaptive, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 63 sites in Europe. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or tixagevimab-cilgavimab in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Several clinical, virological, immunological and safety endpoints were also assessed. Findings Due to slow enrolment, recruitment was stopped on July 1st, 2022. The antigen positive modified intention-to-treat population (mITT) was composed of 173 participants randomized to tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=91) or placebo (n=82), 91.9% (159/173) with supplementary oxygen, and 47.4% (82/173) previously vaccinated at inclusion. There was no significant difference in the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale at day 15 between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95%CI [0.54-1.61]; p=0.81) nor in any clinical, virological or safety secondary endpoints. In the global mITT (n=226), neutralization antibody titers were significantly higher in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group/patients compared to placebo at day 3 (Least-square mean differences (LSMD) 1.44, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [1.20-1.68]; p < 10-23) and day 8 (LSMD 0.91, 95%CI [0.64-1.18]; p < 10-8) and it was most important for patients infected with a pre-omicron variant, both at day 3 (LSMD 1.94, 95% CI [1.67-2.20], p < 10-25) and day 8 (LSMD 1.17, 95% CI [0.87-1.47], p < 10-9), with a significant interaction (p < 10-7 and p=0.01 at days 3 and 8, respectively). Interpretation There were no significant differences between tixagevimab-cilgavimab and placebo in clinical endpoints, however the trial lacked power compared to prespecified calculations. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab was well tolerated, with low rates of treatment related events.

Rare predicted loss-of-function variants of type I IFN immunity genes are associated with critical COVID-19 (preprint)

Background We previously reported inborn errors of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I interferon (IFN) immunity in 1-5% of unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19, and autoantibodies against type I IFN in another 15-20% of cases. Methods We report here a genome-wide rare variant burden association analysis in 3,269 unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19 (1,301 previously reported and 1,968 new patients), and 1,373 unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without pneumonia. A quarter of the patients tested had antibodies against type I IFN (234 of 928) and were excluded from the analysis. Results No gene reached genome-wide significance. Under a recessive model, the most significant gene with at-risk variants was TLR7, with an OR of 27.68 (95%CI:1.5-528.7, P=1.1x10-4), in analyses restricted to biochemically loss-of-function (bLOF) variants. We replicated the enrichment in rare predicted LOF (pLOF) variants at 13 influenza susceptibility loci involved in TLR3-dependent type I IFN immunity (OR=3.70 [95%CI:1.3-8.2], P=2.1x10-4). Adding the recently reported TYK2 COVID-19 locus strengthened this enrichment, particularly under a recessive model (OR=19.65 [95%CI:2.1-2635.4]; P=3.4x10-3). When these 14 loci and TLR7 were considered, all individuals hemizygous (n=20) or homozygous (n=5) for pLOF or bLOF variants were patients (OR=39.19 [95%CI:5.2-5037.0], P=4.7x10-7), who also showed an enrichment in heterozygous variants (OR=2.36 [95%CI:1.0-5.9], P=0.02). Finally, the patients 13 with pLOF or bLOF variants at these 15 loci were significantly younger (mean age [SD]=43.3 [20.3] years) than the other patients (56.0 [17.3] years; P=1.68x10-5). Conclusions Rare variants of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I IFN immunity genes can underlie lifethreatening COVID-19, particularly with recessive inheritance, in patients under 60 years old.

Remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results from the DisCoVeRy randomised, controlled, open-label trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). Interpretation: Remdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

SARS-CoV-2 Exposures of Healthcare Workers from Primary Care, Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals: A Nationwide Matched Case-Control Study (preprint)

ABSTRACT Objectives Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) than the general population. This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on that risk for HCWs working in primary care, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) or hospitals. Methods We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April–9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) recruited by email were invited to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use. Questions covered the 10 days preceding symptom onset for cases (or testing if asymptomatic) or inclusion for controls. Results A total of 4152 matched cases and controls were included. The multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odds ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4–31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53–3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66–3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial or complete immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37–0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34–0.97]) during COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00–2.18]). N95-respirator protection was comparable to that of surgical masks. Results were consistent across healthcare-facility categories. Conclusions HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A Randomised, Controlled, Open-Label Trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418; remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study; grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France); it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

Nasopharyngeal and serological anti SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgA responses in COVID-19 patients. (preprint)

BackgroundThe systemic antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients has been extensively studied. However, much less is known about the mucosal responses in the upper airways at the site of initial SARS-CoV-2 replication. Local antibody responses in the nasopharyngeal epithelium, that are likely to determine the course of infection, have not been analysed so far nor their correlation with antibody responses in serum. MethodsThe IgG and IgA antibody responses were analysed in the plasma as well as in nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) from the first four COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-qPCR in France. Two were pauci-symptomatic while two developed severe disease. Taking advantage of a comprehensive series of plasma and nasopharyngeal samples, we characterized their antibody profiles from the second week post symptoms onset, by using an in-house ELISA to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein (N) IgG and IgA. ResultsAnti-N IgG and IgA antibodies were detected in the NPS of severe patients. Overall, the levels of IgA and IgG antibodies in plasma and NPS appeared specific to each patient. ConclusionsAnti-N IgG and IgA antibodies are detected in NPS, and their levels are related to antibody levels in plasma. The two patients with severe disease exhibited different antibody profiles that may reflect different disease outcome. For the pauci-symptomatic patients, one showed a low anti-N IgG and IgA response in the plasma only, while the other one did not exhibit overt serological response.

High-risk exposure without personal protective equipment and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers: results of the CoV-CONTACT prospective cohort (preprint)

Objective: We aimed to estimate the risk of infection in Healthcare workers (HCWs) following a high-risk exposure without personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort in HCWs who had a high-risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subject without PPE. Daily symptoms were self-reported for 30 days, nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR were performed at inclusion and at days 3, 5, 7 and 12, SARS-CoV-2 serology was assessed at inclusion and at day 30. Confirmed infection was defined by positive RT-PCR or seroconversion, and possible infection by one general and one specific symptom for two consecutive days. Results: Between February 5th and May 30th, 2020, 154 HCWs were enrolled within 14 days following one high-risk exposure to either a hospital patient (70/154; 46.1%) and/or a colleague (95/154; 62.5%). At day 30, 25.0% had a confirmed infection (37/148; 95%CI, 18.4%; 32.9%), and 43.9% (65/148; 95%CI, 35.9%; 52.3%) had a confirmed or possible infection. Factors independently associated with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection were being a pharmacist or administrative assistant rather than being from medical staff (adjusted OR (aOR)=3.8, CI95%=1.3;11.2, p=0.01), and exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected patient rather than exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected colleague (aOR=2.6, CI95%=1.2;5.9, p=0.02). Among the 26 HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab, 7 (26.9%) had no symptom at the time of the RT-PCR positivity. Conclusions: The proportion of HCWs with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. There were less occurrences of high-risk exposure with patients than with colleagues, but those were associated with an increased risk of infection.

SARS-CoV-2 N-antigenemia: A new alternative to nucleic acid amplification techniques (preprint)

Background. Molecular assays on nasopharyngeal swabs remain the cornerstone of COVID-19 diagnostic. Despite massive worldwide efforts, the high technicalities of nasopharyngeal sampling and molecular assays, as well as scarce resources of reagents, limit our testing capabilities. Several strategies failed, to date, to fully alleviate this testing process (e.g. saliva sampling or antigen testing on nasopharyngeal samples). We assessed the performances of a new ELISA microplate assay quantifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) in serum or plasma. Methods. The specificity of the assay, determined on 63 non-COVID patients, was 98.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.3 to 100). Performances were determined on 227 serum samples from 165 patients with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the French COVID and CoV-CONTACT cohorts. Findings. Sensitivity was 132/142, 93.0% (95% CI, 84.7 to 100), within the first two weeks after symptoms onset. A subset of 73 COVID-19 patients had a serum collected within 24 hours following or preceding a positive nasopharyngeal swab. Among patients with high nasopharyngeal viral loads, Ct value below 30 and 33, only 1/50 and 4/67 tested negative for N-antigenemia, respectively. Among patients with a negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, 8/12 presented positive N-antigenemia. The lower respiratory tract was explored for 6/8 patients, showing positive PCR in 5 cases. Interpretation. This is the first demonstration of the N-antigen antigenemia during COVID-19. Its detection presented a robust sensitivity, especially within the first 14 days after symptoms onset and high nasopharyngeal viral loads. These findings have to be confirmed with higher representation of outpatients. This approach could provide a valuable new option for COVID-19 diagnosis, only requiring a blood draw and easily scalable in all clinical laboratories.