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 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.

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.