Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 30
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-337653

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background Variant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response. Methods In this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a ≥10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15. Findings The percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor ≥10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines. Interpretation Heterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. Funding French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research and Sanofi Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05124171 ;EudraCT identifier 2021-004550-33.

2.
EClinicalMedicine ; 48:101444-101444, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1842851

ABSTRACT

Background Although effective mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been deployed worldwide, their interchangeability could facilitate the scale-up of vaccination programs. The objective of the trial was to assess whether the immune response induced by a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 mRNA primo vaccination is non-inferior to that of a homologous mRNA vaccination. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in adults 18 years of age and older who received a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 28 to 49 days after the first dose. Randomization was stratified on the vaccine received at the first vaccination. The primary endpoint was the anti-spike IgG antibodies titer measured 28 days after the second vaccine dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial, NCT04900467. Findings Of the 414 randomized participants recruited from May 28 to July 2, 2021, 390 were included in the per protocol analysis: 94 participants in group 1 (BNT162b2/BNT162b2), 96 in group 2 (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), 97 in group 3 (mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273), and 103 in group 4 (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2). The geometric mean titers ratios of anti-spike IgG antibodies for each heterologous regimen relative to the corresponding homologous regimen were 1·37 (two-sided 95% CI, 1·10 to 1·72) in the groups 1 and 2 and 0·67 (two-sided 95% CI, 0·55 to 0·82) in the groups 3 and 4. Levels of neutralizing antibodies to the main circulating SARS-Cov-2 viral strains were higher with the vaccine regimen containing mRNA-1273. Participants who received mRNA-1273 as a second dose experienced a higher rate of local adverse reactions and general symptoms than those who received BNT162b2 (p < 0·0001). Interpretation The two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be used with flexibility for the second dose of COVID-19 primo vaccination. Tolerance remains good regardless of vaccine sequence although mRNA-1273 was more reactogenic. Funding French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research. BNT162b2 was provided by Pfizer/BioNTech. mRNA-1273 was provided by Moderna.

4.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 7211, 2022 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1821603

ABSTRACT

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Melanthiaceae , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pandemics , Paris/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Front Public Health ; 10: 816848, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1776012

ABSTRACT

Convalescent plasma therapy has been described as an attractive approach to treat critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019). The selection of convalescent plasma donors (CPD) is commonly based on neutralizing antibody titer. A better understanding of the quality of immune responses following COVID-19 will enable the optimization of convalescent donors' selection in convalescent plasma programs. The involvement of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in the induction and persistence of high affinity anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody is still poorly investigated. In this study, 115 CPD who presented SARS-CoV-2 and who were eligible for plasma donation were included. Comprehensive analysis of T cells together with humoral responses were performed in regards of sex, age and blood group type. High frequency of T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 related protein such as spike glycoprotein (80.0%), nucleocapsid (NCAP) (70.4%) and membrane protein (VME1) (74.8%) were detected in CPD by ex vivo IFN-γ and TNF-α ELISpot assays. Among CPD responders, most exhibited poly-specific T cell responses (75%) defined by the ability to mount responses against at least two SARS-CoV-2 antigens. We found a positive correlation between the magnitude and the poly-specificity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses in CPD. Notably, both the magnitude and poly-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses were highly correlated with neutralizing antibody titer in CPD. The present study highlights that the poly-specificity and strength of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses predicts neutralizing antibody titer following COVID-19. These observations show the interest to combine T cell assays and antibody titer for the selection of CPD and to a latter extend to assess COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in at-risk patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunization, Passive
6.
Leukemia ; 36(4): 1025-1034, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773952

ABSTRACT

Patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19 display a high mortality rate. In such patients, immunosuppression due to underlying disease and previous specific treatments impair humoral response, limiting viral clearance. Thus, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy appears as a promising approach through the transfer of neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2. We report the effect of CCP in a cohort of 112 patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19 and a propensity score analysis on subgroups of patients with B-cell lymphoid disease treated (n = 81) or not (n = 120) with CCP between May 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021. The overall survival of the whole cohort was 65% (95% CI = 56-74.9) and 77.5% (95% CI = 68.5-87.7) for patients with B-cell neoplasm. Prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy was associated with better overall survival, whereas age, high blood pressure, and COVID-19 severity were associated with a poor outcome. After an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, we observed in anti-CD20-exposed patients with B-cell lymphoid disease a decreased mortality of 63% (95% CI = 31-80) in the CCP-treated group compared to the CCP-untreated subgroup, confirmed in the other sensitivity analyses. Convalescent plasma may be beneficial in COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm who are unable to mount a humoral immune response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Propensity Score , SARS-CoV-2
7.
EClinicalMedicine ; 46: 101362, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1757291

ABSTRACT

Background: In moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. We investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX+TCZ in an open randomized clinical trial. Methods: From July 24, 2020, through May 18, 2021, patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10 mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8 mg/kg IV) at day 1, possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v. at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analysed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979. Findings: A total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analysed, of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 90% credible interval [CrI] 0·55 to 1·31). At day 14, the World health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale (CPS) was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0·69, 95% CrI, 0·49 to 0.97). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of oxygen supply independency was 82% in the TCZ+DEX arms and 72% in the DEX arm (HR 1·36, 95% CI 1·11 to 1·67). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·42-1·41). Serious adverse events were observed in 25% and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively. Interpretation: Mechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with TCZ+DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, definitive interpretation cannot be drawn. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [PHRC COVID-19-20-0151, PHRC COVID-19-20-0029], Fondation de l'Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus) and from Fédération pour la Recherche Médicale" (FRM). Tocilizumab was provided by Roche.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-304820

ABSTRACT

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 G lead 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.

9.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327725

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147;lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, n=147;hydroxychloroquine, n=150;control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36);lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08);hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

10.
SSRN;
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-325830

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe COVID-19 is associated with exaggerated complement activation. We assessed the efficacy and safety of avdoralimab (an anti-C5aR1 mAb) in severe COVID-19. Methods: FORCE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients receiving oxygen support ≥5 L/min to maintain SpO2 > 93% (WHO scale ≥ 5) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to the avdoralimab and placebo arms. Avdoralimab (500 mg loading dose followed by a 200 mg maintenance dose) or placebo (normal saline) was administered intravenously every 48 h until oxygen therapy was no longer needed, and for a maximum of 14 days. Patients received conventional oxygen therapy or high-flow oxygen (HFO)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in cohort 1;HFO, NIV or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in cohort 2 and IMV in cohort 3. The primary outcome was clinical status on the WHO ordinal scale at days 14 and 28 for cohorts 1 and 3, and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 (VFD28) for cohort 2. Findings: Between May 2020 and January 2021, we randomized 207 patients: 99 in cohort 1, 49 in cohort 2 and 59 in cohort 3. Glucocorticoids were administered to 95% of patients during hospitalization. Avdoralimab did not improve WHO clinical scale score on days 14 and 28 (between-group difference on day 28 of -0.26 (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.7, p =0.7) in cohort 1 and -0.28 (95% CI, -1.8 to 1.2, p =0.6) in cohort 3). Avdoralimab did not improve VFD28 in cohort 2 (between-group difference of -6.3 (95% CI, -13.2 to 0.7, p =0.96), or secondary outcomes in any cohort. No subgroup of interest was identified. Interpretation: In this randomized trial in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, avdoralimab did not significantly improve clinical status at days 14 or 28.

11.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261006, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1593120

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains problematic. Regular monitoring of its barriers is clinically recommended, however, patient-provider communication around adherence is often inadequate. Our team thus decided to develop a new electronically administered patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of barriers to ART adherence (the I-Score) to systematically capture this data for physician consideration in routine HIV care. To prepare for a controlled definitive trial to test the I-Score intervention, a pilot study was designed. Its primary objectives are to evaluate patient and physician perceptions of the I-Score intervention and its implementation strategy. METHODS: This one-arm, 6-month study will adopt a mixed method type 3 implementation-effectiveness hybrid design and be conducted at the Chronic Viral Illness Service of the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Canada). Four HIV physicians and 32 of their HIV patients with known or suspected adherence problems will participate. The intervention will involve having patients complete the I-Score through a smartphone application (Opal), before meeting with their physician. Both patients and physicians will have access to the I-Score results, for consideration during the clinic visits at Times 1, 2 (3 months), and 3 (6 months). The implementation strategy will focus on stakeholder involvement, education, and training; promoting the intervention's adaptability; and hiring an Application Manager to facilitate implementation. Implementation, patient, and service outcomes will be collected (Times 1-2-3). The primary outcome is the intervention's acceptability to patients and physicians. Qualitative data obtained, in part, through physician focus groups (Times 2-3) and patient interviews (Times 2-3) will help evaluate the implementation strategy and inform any methodological adaptations. DISCUSSION: This study will help plan a definitive trial to test the efficacy of the I-Score intervention. It will generate needed data on electronic PROM interventions in routine HIV care that will help improve understanding of conditions for their successful implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04702412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.


Subject(s)
Anti-Retroviral Agents/therapeutic use , Electronic Health Records , Health Services , Medication Adherence , Patient Portals , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Canada , Humans , Pilot Projects
12.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(12): 2368-2369, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1597440
13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296913

ABSTRACT

Abstract Objectives: To assess the humoral and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant after BNT162b2 vaccination in PLWHIV. Design: Multicenter cohort study of PLWHIV, with a CD4 cell count <500/mm3 and a viral load <50 copies/ml on stable antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months. Methods: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain IgG antibodies (anti-RBD IgG) were quantified and their neutralization capacity was evaluated using an ELISA (GenScript) and a virus neutralization test (VNT), against historical strain, Beta and Delta variants before vaccination (day 0) and one month after a complete vaccination schedule (M1). Results: 97 patients were enrolled in the study: 85 received 2 vaccine doses (11 previous COVID-19 and 1 premature exit). The seroconversion rate in anti-RBD IgG was 97% CI95[90%;100%] at M1. Median (IQR) anti-RBD IgG titer was 0.97 (0.97-5.3) BAU/ml at D0 and 1219 (602-1929) at M1. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) capacity improved between D0 (15% CI95[8%;23%]) and M1 (94% CI95[87%;98%]) with the GenScript assay (p<0.0001). At M1, NAbs against historical strain, Beta and Delta variants were present in 82%, 77% and 84% patients respectively. The seroconversion rate and median anti-RBD IgG were 91% and 852 BAU/ml in patients with CD4<250/mm3 (n=13) and 98% and 1270 BAU/ml in patients with CD4>250/mm3 (n=64) (p=0.3994). 73% of patients with CD4<250 had NAbs and 97% of those with CD4>250 (p=0.0130). The NAbs against Beta variant was elicited in 50% in CD4<250 and in 81% in CD4>250 (p=0.0292). No change in CD4+ or CD8+ T cells count was observed while a decrease of CD19+ B cells count was observed (208 +/-124 cells/mm3 at D0 vs 188 +/-112 cells/mm3 at M1, p<0.01). No notable adverse effects or COVID-19 were reported. Conclusions: These results show a high seroconversion rate with a Delta neutralization in PLWHIV patients after a complete BNT162b2 vaccination schedule.

14.
SSRN; 2021.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-291971

ABSTRACT

Patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 display a high mortality rate. In such patients, immunosuppression due to underlying disease and previous specific treatment impairs humoral response, limiting viral clearance. Thus, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy appears to be a promising approach through the transfer of neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2.Our study reports the effect of CCP in a cohort of patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 between 1 May 2020 and 1 April 2021. Overall, 112 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (83 B-cell neoplasm, 19 plasma cell neoplasm, and 10 myeloid neoplasm) were included. The overall survival of the whole cohort was 65% [56–74.9] and 77.5% [68.5–87.7] for patients with B-cell neoplasm. Prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies therapy was associated with better overall survival whereas age, high blood pressure, and COVID-19 severity were associated with a poor outcome after CCP transfusion. A retrospective analysis in the subgroup of COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm treated with CCP (n=81) was compared to a similar group of patients (n=120) treated only with standard of care. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach, performed to limit confusion and immortality bias, revealed a decreased mortality of 63% (95% CI=31%–80%) in the main analysis and 50% (95% CI=28%–66%) in the overall population of the CCP-treated group of patients with similar findings in the other sensitivity analyses.Convalescent plasma may be beneficial in COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm who are unable to mount a humoral immune response. Comparing CCP to other passive immunotherapy approaches such as anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies is warranted.

15.
Mucosal Immunol ; 15(2): 198-210, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493071

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, and considering the lack of efficacy of antiviral strategies to this date, and the reactive hyperinflammation leading to tissue lesions and pneumonia, effective treatments targeting the dysregulated immune response are more than ever required. Immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive drugs have been repurposed in severe COVID-19 with contrasting results. The heterogeneity in the timing of treatments administrations could be accountable for these discrepancies. Indeed, many studies included patients at different timepoints of infection, potentially hiding the beneficial effects of a time-adapted intervention. We aim to review the available data on the kinetics of the immune response in beta-coronaviruses infections, from animal models and longitudinal human studies, and propose a four-step model of severe COVID-19 timeline. Then, we discuss the results of the clinical trials of immune interventions with regards to the timing of administration, and finally suggest a time frame in order to delineate the best timepoint for each treatment.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Immunotherapy , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Animals , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Drug Administration Schedule , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
16.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-291594

ABSTRACT

Objective: With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. Methods In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years;758 [71.4%] women;321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5;16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38;8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83;18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92;18.28]);active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21;0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Conclusion The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk. Trial registration: The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

17.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(7): e1762-e1765, 2021 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455264

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a newly discovered virus for which remdesivir is the only antiviral available. We report the occurrence of a mutation in RdRP (D484Y) following treatment with remdesivir in a 76-year-old female with post-rituximab B-cell immunodeficiency and persistent SARS-CoV-2 viremia. A cure was achieved after supplementation with convalescent plasma.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , B-Lymphocytes , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother ; 65(9): e0123721, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360542

ABSTRACT

We assessed the pharmacokinetics and safety of XAV-19, a swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related moderate pneumonia. The objective was to evaluate the optimal dose and safety of XAV-19 during this first administration to patients with COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia. In this phase IIa trial, adults with COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia with a duration of ≤10 days were randomized to receive an infusion of XAV-19 at 0.5 mg/kg of body weight at day 1 and day 5 (group 1), 2 mg/kg at day 1 and day 5 (group 2), or 2 mg/kg at day 1 (group 3) or placebo. Eighteen patients (n = 7 for group 1, n = 1 for group 2, n = 5 for group 3, and n = 5 for placebo) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups; median XAV-19 serum concentrations (ranges) at the time of the maximum serum concentration of the drug (Cmax) and at day 8 were 9.1 (5.2 to 18.1) and 6.4 (2.8 to 11.9) µg/ml, 71.5 and 47.2 µg/ml, and 50.4 (29.1 to 55.0) and 20.3 (12.0 to 22.7) µg/ml for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.012). The median terminal half-life (range) was estimated at 11.4 (5.5 to 13.9) days for 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 at day 1. Serum XAV-19 concentrations were above the target concentration of 10 µg/ml (2-fold the in vitro 100% inhibitory concentration [IC100]) from the end of perfusion to more than 8 days for XAV-19 at 2 mg/kg at day 1. No hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions were reported during treatment, and there were no discontinuations for adverse events and no serious adverse events related to the study drug. A single intravenous dose of 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 demonstrated high serum concentrations, predictive of potent durable neutralizing activity with good tolerability. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04453384.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Animals , Double-Blind Method , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Swine
20.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(12): 1826-1837, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL