Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
N Engl J Med ; 386(19): 1834-1844, 2022 05 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1839600
2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330122

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND Bebtelovimab is a potent, fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2, with broad neutralizing activity to all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including omicron variant lineages. Specialized developmental approaches accelerated the initiation of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bebtelovimab alone (BEB) or together with bamlanivimab (BAM) and etesevimab (ETE) delivered via slow intravenous push for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS This portion of the phase 2, BLAZE-4 trial (J2X-MC-PYAH;NCT04634409 ) enrolled 714 patients (between May and July 2021) with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 within 3 days (≤3 days) of laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at low risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 (double-blinded) to placebo, BEB 175 mg, or BEB 175 mg+BAM 700 mg+ETE 1400 mg (BEB+BAM+ETE). Patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were randomized 2:1 (open-label) to BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE, and a subsequent treatment arm enrolled patients to BEB+BAM+ETE using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated criteria for High-risk. All treatments were administered intravenously over ≥30 seconds (open-label BEB) or ≥6.5 minutes (all other treatment arms). For the placebo-controlled patients (termed Low-risk), the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load (PHVL) (log viral load >5.27) on Day 7. For the open-label patients (termed High-risk), the primary endpoint was safety. In nonclinical studies, SARS-CoV-2 isolates were tested using an endpoint neutralization assay to measure BEB’s inhibitory concentration greater than 99% (IC 99 ). RESULTS Baseline viral sequencing data were available from 611 patients;90.2% (n=551) aligned with a variant of interest or concern (WHO designation), with the majority infected with delta (49.8%) or alpha (28.6%) variants. Among the Low-risk patients, PHVL occurred in 19.8% of patients treated with placebo, as compared to 12.7% (p=0.132) of patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE and 12.0% (p=0.097) of patients treated with BEB, a 36% and 40% relative risk reduction, respectively. Viral load-area under the curve analysis from baseline to Day 11 showed statistically signficant reductions for patients treated with BEB (p=0.006) and BEB+BAM+ETE (p=0.043) compared to patients who received placebo. Time to sustained symptom resolution was reduced by a median of 2 days for patients treated with BEB (6 days;p=0.003) and 1 day for patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE (7 days;p=0.289) compared to placebo (8 days). The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause deaths by day 29 were similar across treatment arms, as expected given the patients’ risk status (the Low risk cohorts had a Low risk of hospitalization, and High risk cohorts received only active therapy without placebo). Overall, safety results were consistent with previous studies investigating mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were 9.7% in Low-risk (n=37/380) and 14.7% in High-risk (n=48/326) patients treated with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE;majority of AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported in 2.1% of High-risk patients (n=7/326), including one death (a cerebrovascular accident);1 serious AE was reported among Low-risk patients. In an in vitro neutralization assay, BEB neutralized the omicron isolate (BA.1) with <2.44ng/ml estimated IC 99 . CONCLUSIONS In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, treatment with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE was associated with greater viral clearance, a reduction in time to sustained symptom resolution, and safety results consistent with mAbs that target SARS-CoV-2. Integration of clinical findings with in vitro neutralization of emerging viral variants offered a pragmatic framework for investigating the efficacy of a new antiviral mAb agent, as demonstrated by bebtelovimab.

3.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(1): 154-161, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1611483

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
4.
Front Immunol ; 12: 790469, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581320

ABSTRACT

Background: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to SARS-CoV-2 are clinically efficacious when administered early, decreasing hospitalization and mortality in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. We investigated the effects of receiving mAbs (bamlanivimab alone and bamlanivimab and etesevimab together) after SARS-CoV-2 infection on the endogenous immune response. Methods: Longitudinal serum samples were collected from patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in the BLAZE-1 trial who received placebo (n=153), bamlanivimab alone [700 mg (n=100), 2800 mg (n=106), or 7000 mg (n=98)], or bamlanivimab (2800 mg) and etesevimab (2800 mg) together (n=111). A multiplex Luminex serology assay measured antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including SARS-CoV-2 protein variants that evade bamlanivimab or etesevimab binding, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays were performed. Results: The antibody response in patients who received placebo or mAbs had a broad specificity. Titer change from baseline against a receptor-binding domain mutant (Spike-RBD E484Q), as well as N-terminal domain (Spike-NTD) and nucleocapsid protein (NCP) epitopes were 1.4 to 4.1 fold lower at day 15-85 in mAb recipients compared with placebo. Neutralizing activity of day 29 sera from bamlanivimab monotherapy cohorts against both spike E484Q and beta variant (B.1.351) were slightly reduced compared with placebo (by a factor of 3.1, p=0.001, and 2.9, p=0.002, respectively). Early viral load correlated with the subsequent antibody titers of the native, unmodified humoral response (p<0.0001 at Day 15, 29, 60 and 85 for full-length spike). Conclusions: Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 treated with mAbs develop a wide breadth of antigenic responses to SARS-CoV-2. Small reductions in titers and neutralizing activity, potentially due to a decrease in viral load following mAb treatment, suggest minimal impact of mAb treatment on the endogenous immune response.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(12): ofab546, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566043

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Given the challenges associated with timely delivery of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy to outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are most likely to benefit, it is critical to understand the effectiveness of such therapy outside the context of clinical trials. METHODS: This was a case-control study of 1257 adult outpatients with COVID-19, ≥65 years of age or with body mass index (BMI) ≥35, who were entered into a lottery for mAb therapy. RESULTS: Patients who were called to be offered mAb therapy had a statistically significant 44% reduction in the odds of hospitalization within 30 days of a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test compared with those who were not called (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P=.01). Patients who actually received bamlanivimab had a statistically significant 68% reduction in the odds of hospitalization compared with those who did not receive bamlanivimab (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.93; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the effectiveness of bamlanivimab in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalizations in patients ≥65 or with BMI ≥35.

6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493770

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Based on interim analyses and modelling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700mg/1400mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. METHODS: This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients ≥12 years old, with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, and ≥1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700mg/1400mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. RESULTS: 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients ≥65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Δ[95% CI]=-5.0 [-8.0, -2.1], p<0.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Δ[95% CI]=-0.99 [-1.33, -0.66], p<0.0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700mg/1400mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment.

7.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 110(6): 1467-1477, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372711

ABSTRACT

Therapeutics for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed during the pandemic. Bamlanivimab is a potent neutralizing monoclonal antibody that blocks severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) attachment and entry into human cells, which could potentially lead to therapeutic benefit. J2W-MC-PYAA was a randomized, double-blind, sponsor unblinded, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose first-in-human trial (NCT04411628) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A total of 24 patients received either placebo or a single dose of bamlanivimab (700 mg, 2,800 mg, or 7,000 mg). The primary objective was assessment of safety and tolerability, including adverse events and serious adverse events, with secondary objectives of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic analyses. Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were identical in the placebo and pooled bamlanivimab groups (66.7%). There were no apparent dose-related increases in the number or severity of TEAEs. There were no serious adverse events or deaths during the study, and no discontinuations due to adverse events. PKs of bamlanivimab is linear and exposure increased proportionally with dose following single i.v. administration. The half-life was ~ 17 days. These results demonstrate the favorable safety profile of bamlanivimab, and provided the initial critical evaluation of safety, tolerability, and PKs in support of the development of bamlanivimab in several ongoing clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/trends , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Fatigue/chemically induced , Female , Headache/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
8.
J Immunother Cancer ; 9(7)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318086

ABSTRACT

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , Nervous System Diseases/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Consensus , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/chemically induced , Nervous System Diseases/immunology , Neurologists/statistics & numerical data , Oncologists/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/statistics & numerical data
9.
N Engl J Med ; 385(15): 1382-1392, 2021 10 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1309482

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whereas vaccine-derived immunity develops over time, neutralizing monoclonal-antibody treatment provides immediate, passive immunity and may limit disease progression and complications. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, a cohort of ambulatory patients with mild or moderate Covid-19 who were at high risk for progression to severe disease to receive a single intravenous infusion of either a neutralizing monoclonal-antibody combination agent (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab, administered together) or placebo within 3 days after a laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The primary outcome was the overall clinical status of the patients, defined as Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1035 patients underwent randomization and received an infusion of bamlanivimab-etesevimab or placebo. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 53.8±16.8 years, and 52.0% were adolescent girls or women. By day 29, a total of 11 of 518 patients (2.1%) in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, as compared with 36 of 517 patients (7.0%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to -2.3; relative risk difference, 70%; P<0.001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab-etesevimab group; in the placebo group, 10 deaths occurred, 9 of which were designated by the trial investigators as Covid-19-related. At day 7, a greater reduction from baseline in the log viral load was observed among patients who received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab than among those who received placebo (difference from placebo in the change from baseline, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.94; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk ambulatory patients, bamlanivimab plus etesevimab led to a lower incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization and death than did placebo and accelerated the decline in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/virology , Child , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Load/drug effects , Young Adult
11.
J Infect Dis ; 223(1): 38-46, 2021 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066343

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to develop an automatable score to predict hospitalization, critical illness, or death for patients at risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting for urgent care. METHODS: We developed the COVID-19 Acuity Score (CoVA) based on a single-center study of adult outpatients seen in respiratory illness clinics or the emergency department. Data were extracted from the Partners Enterprise Data Warehouse, and split into development (n = 9381, 7 March-2 May) and prospective (n = 2205, 3-14 May) cohorts. Outcomes were hospitalization, critical illness (intensive care unit or ventilation), or death within 7 days. Calibration was assessed using the expected-to-observed event ratio (E/O). Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). RESULTS: In the prospective cohort, 26.1%, 6.3%, and 0.5% of patients experienced hospitalization, critical illness, or death, respectively. CoVA showed excellent performance in prospective validation for hospitalization (expected-to-observed ratio [E/O]: 1.01; AUC: 0.76), for critical illness (E/O: 1.03; AUC: 0.79), and for death (E/O: 1.63; AUC: 0.93). Among 30 predictors, the top 5 were age, diastolic blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation, COVID-19 testing status, and respiratory rate. CONCLUSIONS: CoVA is a prospectively validated automatable score for the outpatient setting to predict adverse events related to COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Theoretical , Outpatients , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , ROC Curve , Sensitivity and Specificity
12.
N Engl J Med ; 383(24): 2333-2344, 2020 12 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023985

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P = 0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P = 0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P = 0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Boston , COVID-19/mortality , Disease Progression , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Intubation/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Therapy , Treatment Failure , Young Adult
14.
Nat Commun ; 11(1): 5493, 2020 10 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894389

ABSTRACT

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and risk of disease progression remains largely undefined in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load from participants with a diverse range of COVID-19 disease severity, including those requiring hospitalization, outpatients with mild disease, and individuals with resolved infection. We detected SARS-CoV-2 plasma RNA in 27% of hospitalized participants, and 13% of outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. Amongst the participants hospitalized with COVID-19, we report that a higher prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 plasma viral load is associated with worse respiratory disease severity, lower absolute lymphocyte counts, and increased markers of inflammation, including C-reactive protein and IL-6. SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, especially plasma viremia, are associated with increased risk of mortality. Our data show that SARS-CoV-2 viral loads may aid in the risk stratification of patients with COVID-19, and therefore its role in disease pathogenesis should be further explored.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/genetics , Betacoronavirus/growth & development , Biomarkers/blood , C-Reactive Protein , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Inflammation/blood , Inflammation/virology , Interleukin-6/blood , Longitudinal Studies , Massachusetts/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Viral Load , Viremia/blood , Viremia/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL