Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Antiviral Res ; 205: 105372, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914151

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron subvariant BA.2 has spread in many countries, replacing the earlier Omicron subvariant BA.1 and other variants. Here, using a cell culture infection assay, we quantified the intrinsic sensitivity of BA.2 and BA.1 compared with other variants of concern, Alpha, Gamma, and Delta, to five approved-neutralizing antibodies and antiviral drugs. Our assay revealed the diverse sensitivities of these variants to antibodies, including the loss of response of both BA.1 and BA.2 to casirivimab and of BA.1 to imdevimab. In contrast, EIDD-1931 and nirmatrelvir showed a more conserved activities to these variants. The viral response profile combined with mathematical analysis estimated differences in antiviral effects among variants in the clinical concentrations. These analyses provide essential evidence that gives insight into variant emergence's impact on choosing optimal drug treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans
2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329162

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron subvariant BA.2 has spread in many countries, replacing the earlier Omicron subvariant BA.1 and other variants. Here, using a cell culture infection assay, we quantified the intrinsic sensitivity of BA.2 and BA.1 compared with other variants of concern, Alpha, Gamma, and Delta, to five approved-neutralizing antibodies and antiviral drugs. Our assay revealed the diverse sensitivities of these variants to antibodies, including the loss of response of both BA.1 and BA.2 to casirivimab and of BA.1 to imdevimab. In contrast, EIDD-1931 and nirmatrelvir showed a more conserved activities to these variants. The viral response profile combined with mathematical analysis estimated differences in antiviral effects among variants in the clinical concentrations. These analyses provide essential evidence that gives insight into the impact of variant emergence on choosing optimal drug treatment.

3.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22269769

ABSTRACT

Appropriate isolation guidelines for COVID-19 patients are warranted. Currently, isolating for fixed time is adapted in most countries. However, given the variability in viral dynamics between patients, some patients may no longer be infectious by the end of isolation (thus they are redundantly isolated), whereas others may still be infectious. Utilizing viral test results to determine ending isolation would minimize both the risk of ending isolation of infectious patients and the burden due to redundant isolation of noninfectious patients. In our previous study, we proposed a computational framework using SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics models to compute the risk and the burden of different isolation guidelines with PCR tests. In this study, we extend the computational framework to design isolation guidelines for COVID-19 patients utilizing rapid antigen tests. Time interval of tests and number of consecutive negative tests to minimize the risk and the burden of isolation were explored. Furthermore, the approach was extended for asymptomatic cases. We found the guideline should be designed considering various factors: the infectiousness threshold values, the detection limit of antigen tests, symptom presence, and an acceptable level of releasing infectious patients. Especially, when detection limit is higher than the infectiousness threshold values, more consecutive negative results are needed to ascertain loss of infectiousness. To control the risk of releasing of infectious individuals under certain levels, rapid antigen tests should be designed to have lower detection limits than infectiousness threshold values to minimize the length of prolonged isolation, and the length of prolonged isolation increases when the detection limit is higher than the infectiousness threshold values, even though the guidelines are optimized for given conditions.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL