Real world use of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in immunocompromised individuals: data from the OCTOPUS study. (preprint)

We report real world use over time in immunocompromised subjects receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T/C) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Observational study on participants receiving T/C PrEP stratified: never had COVID-19 (NoC), hybrids (H) and breakthrough infections (BTIs) if COVID-19 before or after PrEP, respectively. Anti-RBD IgG and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), mucosal IgG, T-cell immunity at the administration of T/C (T0), 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 9 (T3) months after, were measured. Comparison of markers in each group across timepoints, Poisson regression model for BTIs incidence rate ratios were performed. N=231 participants: median age 63 years (IQR 54.0-73.0), 84% hematological disease, median vaccine dose of three. N=72 NoC, 103 H and 56 (24%) BTIs, mostly mild/moderate, IR 4.2 (95%CI 3.2-5.4) BTIs/100 patients-months, no factors associated with. A significant increase of anti-RBD IgG at T1 was observed in all the groups, with a decline at T2. GMTs of anti-BA.5 nAbs were low at T1 for all the groups and around/below the cut off. No changes of IFN-γ. Overall, a mucosal response was observed at T1. An incidence of 24% of mild/moderate BTIs was observed. Anti-RBD IgG levels persistence was ensured, BA.5 nAbs were low/undetectable, cellular T immunity remained stable.

Limited BA.5 neutralization by pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in CAR-T treated people (preprint)

CAR T-cell recipients experience profound B-cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia, being unable to mount any humoral response and at higher risk for severe COVID-19. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab has been approved for COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in immunocompromised people. 150/150 mg of tixagevimab/cilgavimab does not adequately neutralize against Omicron BA.5 and these results support recommendations on dose increase to 300/300 mg for prophylaxis in order to enhance effectiveness probability, until the European regulatory agency makes a decision on the usability of this compound as the FDA has already done

What is the impact of post-COVID-19 syndrome on health-related quality of life and associated factors: a cross-sectional analysis (preprint)

Background. After the acute phase, symptoms or sequelae related to post-COVID-19 syndrome may persist for months. We aim to measure their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to investigate influencing factors, among patients, previously hospitalized and not, followed up to 12 months.Methods. We present the cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study, including patients referred to the post-COVID-19 service. Questionnaires and scales administered at 3, 6, 12 months were: Short-Form 36-item questionnaire (SF-36); Visual Analogue Scale of the EQ5D (EQ-VAS); in a subgroup, Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Linear regression was used to assess for the presence of a trend over time by month of evaluation after the acute infection (continuous measure in month); two different linear regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with HRQoL.Results. We considered the first assessment of each participant (n = 572): 235 (41%), 175 (31%) and 118 (21%) patients were evaluated 3 months [median 3.5 (IQR 2.9-3-9)], 6 months [5.6 (5.0-6.5)], and more than 6 months [9.6 (8.3–14.7)], after the acute infection, respectively. The mean scores in SF-36 and in EQ-VAS were significantly lower than the Italian normative values and remained stable over time, except the mental components score (MCS) of the SF-36 and EQ-VAS which resulted in lower ratings at the last observations. Female gender, presence of comorbidities, and corticosteroids treatment during acute COVID-19, were associated with lower scores in SF-36 and EQ-VAS; patients previously hospitalized (54%) reported higher MCS. Alterations in BAI, BDI-II, and PSQI, evaluated in a subgroup of 265 participants, were associated with lower ratings in SF-36 and EQ-VAS.Conclusions. This study provides evidence of a significantly bad perception of health status among persons with post-COVID-19 syndrome, associated with female gender and, indirectly, with disease severity. In case of anxious-depressive symptoms and sleep disorders, a worse HRQoL was also reported. A systematic monitoring of these aspects is recommended to properly manage the post-COVID-19 period.

In vivo virological efficacy of monoclonal antibodies and direct antiviral agents against the SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron sublineages (preprint)

Background Omicron variant questioned the efficacy of the approved therapies for the early COVID-19. In vitro data show retained neutralizing activity against BA.1 and BA.2 for remdesivir (RDV), molnupiravir (MLN), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NRM/r), while poor efficacy for Sotrovimab (STR) against BA.2. No data about the risk of clinical failure and in vivo antiviral activity are available. Material and methods Single-center observational comparison study enrolling all consecutive patients with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1 or BA.2) diagnosis and who met eligibility criteria for treatment with RDV, MLN, NRM/r, or STR. Treatment allocation was subject to drug availability, time from symptoms onset, and comorbidities. Patients were followed through day 30. Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) VL was measured on day 1 (D1) and D7 and was expressed by log2 cycle threshold (CT) scale. Comparisons between groups were made by Chi-square and Wilcoxon paired-test. Primary endpoint was D1-D7 VL variation. Potential decrease in VL and average treatment effect (ATE) were calculated from fitting marginal linear regression models weighted for calendar month of infusion, duration of symptoms, and immunodeficiency. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of D7 undetectable VL in NPS and clinical outcomes compared by treatment groups using a Chi-square test. Results A total of 521 pts received treatments (STR 202, MLN 117, NRM/r 84, and RDV 118): female 250 (48%), median age 66 yrs (IQR 55-76), 90% vaccinated; 15% with negative baseline serology. At D1, median time from symptoms onset was 3 days (2,4). 378 (73%) pts were infected with BA.1 and 143 (27%) with BA.2. D1 mean viral load was 4.12 log2 (4.16 for BA.1 and 4.01 for BA.2). The adjusted analysis showed that NRM/r significantly reduced VL compared to all the other drugs in pts infected with BA.1 while no evidence for a difference vs. MLP was seen in those infected with BA.2. MLN had comparable activity to STR against BA.1 and to NRM/r against BA.2. There was no significant difference between STR and RDV for BA.2. At D7, 35/521 (6.7%) pts had undetectable VL. Of these, 31 were infected with BA.1 [9 (9%) MLN, 7 (14%) NRM/r, 7 (8%) RDV, and 8 (5%) STR)], and only 4 with BA.2, all treated with NRM/r. After 30 days of follow-up, 9/568 pts experienced COVID-19-related clinical failure [7/226 STR (5 BA.1) and 2/87 NRM /r (2 BA.1)]. Conclusions In this analysis of in vivo early VL reductions, NRM/r appears to be the drug showing the greatest antiviral activity regardless of the VoC, together with MLN, although the latter limited to people with BA.2. In the Omicron era, due to the high prevalence of vaccinated people and the lower probability of hospital admission, VL decrease can be a valuable surrogate of drug activity.

Timing and outcomes of noninvasive ventilation in 307 ARDS COVID-19 patients: an observational study in an Italian third level COVID-19 hospital (preprint)

Purpose Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel cause of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). With the increase of ARDS cases during COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has grown significantly in the hospital ward. However, there is a lack of evidence to support its efficacy in these patients.Methods We conducted an observational cohort study including adult ARDS COVID-19 patients admitted in a third level COVID-center in Rome, Italy (Jan-Sep 2020). The study analyzed the rate of NIV failure defined by the occurrence of orotracheal intubation and/or death within 28 days from starting NIV, its effectiveness, and its relative risk of death. The factors associated with the outcomes were identified through a logistic regression analysis.Results During the study period, a total of 942 COVID-19 patients were admitted, of which 307 (32.5%) with ARDS at hospitalization. Overall, 224 (23.8%) were treated with NIV. NIV failure occurred in 84 (37.5%) patients. Moderate and severe ARDS had an increased risk of NIV failure within 28 days from starting NIV of 5- (aOR = 5.01, 95% CI 2.08–12.09) and 20-fold (aOR = 19.95, 5.31–74.94) respectively, compared to patients with mild ARDS. A total of 128 patients (13.5%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). At 28-day from ICU admission, COVID-19 patients treated with NIV without intubation had 96% lower mortality (aOR 0.04, 0.01–0.32) in comparison with patients that underwent orotracheal intubation without prior NIV.Conclusions NIV failure was independently associated with COVID-19 ARDS severity. Starting NIV in COVID-19 patients with already mild ARDS (P/F > 200 mmHg) appears to increase NIV effectiveness and reduce the risk of orotracheal intubation and/or death. Moreover, early NIV treatment seems to reduce the risk of ICU mortality within 28 days from ICU admission.

Emulation of a target trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Casirivimab/Imdevimab and Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab for early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (preprint)

Objectives Comparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta. Methods Allocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7. Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period. Results COVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharingeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p<0.001) on D7. Conclusions In a pre-Omicron epidemiologic scenario, CAS/IMD reduced risk of clinical progression of COVID-19 compared to BAM/ETE. This effect was not associated with a concomitant difference in virological response.

Retention of Neutralizing response against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Sputnik V vaccinated individuals (preprint)

The new variant Omicron (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, first identified in November 2021, is rapidly spreading all around the world. The Omicron becomes the dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2. There are many ongoing studies evaluating the effectiveness of existing vaccines. Studies on neutralizing activity of vaccinated sera against Omicron variant are currently being carried out in many laboratories. In this study, we have shown the neutralizing activity of sera against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant compared to the reference Wuhan D614G (B.1) variant in individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of Sputnik V or BNT162b2 in different time points up to 6 months after vaccination. We performed analysis on sample pools with comparable NtAb to Wuhan D614G variant. The decrease in neutralizing antibody (NtAb) to the Omicron variant was 8.1 folds for group of Sputnik V-vaccinated and 21.4 folds for group of BNT162b2-vaccinated. Analysis showed that 74.2% of Sputnik V- and 56.9% of BNT162b2-vaccinated sera had detectable NtAb to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. The decrease in NtAb to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant compared to Wuhan variant has been shown for many COVID-19 vaccines in use, with some showing no neutralization at all. Today the necessity of third booster vaccination is obvious. And the most effective approach, already shown in several studies, is the use of heterologous booster vaccination pioneered in COVID-19 vaccines by Sputnik V.

A single intramuscular injection of monoclonal antibody MAD0004J08 induces in healthy adults SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody titres exceeding those induced by infection and vaccination (preprint)

BackgroundThe emerging threat represented by SARS-CoV-2 variants, demands the development of therapies for better clinical management of COVID-19. MAD0004J08 is an extremely potent Fc-engineered monoclonal antibody (mAb) able to neutralise in vitro all current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs). This ongoing study, evaluates safety, pharmacokinetics and SARS-CoV-2 sera neutralization effect of MAD0004J08 when administered as single dose intramuscularly in healthy adults. MethodWe conducted a dose escalation study with sequential enrolment of three cohorts, each with an increasing dose level of MAD0004J08 (48mg, 100mg and 400mg). Within each cohort, 10 young healthy adults were randomized with 4:1 ratio to a single intramuscular (i.m.) injection of MAD0004J08 or placebo. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects with severe and/or serious treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) within 7 days post-treatment. Secondary endpoints reported in this paper are the proportion of subjects with solicited TEAEs up 7 days post dosing, MAD0004J08 serum concentrations and neutralising activity versus the original SARS-COV-2 Wuhan virus at different timepoints post-dosing. As post-hoc analyses, we compared the sera neutralising titres of subjects who received MAD0004J08 with those of people that had received the COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in the previous sixty days (n=10) and COVID-19 convalescent patients (n=20), and assessed serum neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta) and B.1.1.248 (gamma) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. FindingsA total of 30 subjects, 10 per cohort, were enrolled and randomized. Data up to 30 days were available and analysed in this report. No severe TEAEs were reported in any of the cohorts in the 7 days post-treatment. MAD0004J08 was detected in the sera of treated subjects within few hours post-administration and reached almost maximal levels on day 8. The geometric mean neutralising titres (GMT) assessed against the original Wuhan virus peaked on day 8 and ranged 226 - 905, 905 - 2,560, and 1,280 - 5,120 for cohort 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The sera neutralising GMT in MAD0004J08 treated subjects in all the three cohorts were found to be 1{middle dot}5-54{middle dot}5-fold higher compared to sera from convalescent patients and 1{middle dot}83- 76{middle dot}4-fold higher compared to sera from COVID-19 vaccinees. Finally, GMT in MAD0004J08 treated subjects showed high neutralising titres versus the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta) and B.1.1.248 (gamma) SARS-CoV-2 VoCs. InterpretationA single dose administration of MAD0004J08 via i.m. route is safe and well tolerated and results in a rapid systemic distribution of the MAD0004J08 and sera neutralising titres higher than COVID-19 convalescent and vaccinated subjects. A single dose administration of MAD0004J08 is also sufficient to effectively neutralise major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Based on these results, a Phase 2-3 trial is ongoing to further assess the safety, dosage, and efficacy of MAD0004J08 in asymptomatic or mild-moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients. FundingEU Malaria Fund, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero della Salute, Regione Toscana, Toscana Life Sciences Sviluppo and European Research Council. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PUBMED, MEDLINE and MedRxiv for clinical trials, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials evaluating the antibody neutralization titres vs. different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern obtained from subjects who received monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 using the following search terms: ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2") AND ("monoclonal antibody" OR "neutralising antibody") AND ("variants" OR "variants of concern"). No relevant studies were identified. Added value of this studyThis is the first human study assessing safety, PK and neutralising potential of MAD0004J08, a monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2 wild type Wuhan virus and variants of concern, administered intramuscularly at low dosages (48, 100 and 400 mg). MAD0004J08 showed to be safe and well tolerated in the tested dose range. Anti-spike antibodies were detected in the sera of tested SARS-CoV-2 negative healthy adults few hours post-injection. In addition, the sera obtained from MAD0004J08treated subjects, showed to have high neutralisation titres against the Wuhan virus, the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta) and B.1.1.248 (gamma) variants of concern. Implications of all the available evidenceA potent monoclonal antibody such as MAD0004J08, capable of neutralising multiple variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly and long lastingly when given as a single intramuscular injection. The antibody, presently tested in a phase 2-3 efficacy trial, can be a major advancement in the prophylaxis and clinical management of COVID-19, because of its broad spectrum, ease of use in non-hospital settings and economic sustainability.

GRAd-COV2, a gorilla adenovirus based candidate vaccine against COVID-19, is safe and immunogenic in young and older adults (preprint)

Safe and effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed to control the ongoing pandemic. Although impressive progress has been made with several COVID-19 vaccines already approved, it is clear that those developed so far cannot meet the global vaccine demand. We have developed a COVID-19 vaccine based on a replication-defective gorilla adenovirus expressing the stabilized pre-fusion SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, named GRAd-COV2. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a single-dose regimen of this vaccine in healthy younger and older adults to select the appropriate dose for each age group. To this purpose, a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label trial was conducted including 90 healthy subjects, (45 aged 18-55 years and 45 aged 65-85 years), who received a single intramuscular administration of GRAd-CoV2 at three escalating doses. Local and systemic adverse reactions were mostly mild or moderate and of short duration, and no serious AE was reported. Four weeks after vaccination, seroconversion to Spike/RBD was achieved in 43/44 young volunteers and in 45/45 older subjects. Consistently, neutralizing antibodies were detected in 42/44 younger age and 45/45 older age volunteers. In addition, GRAd-COV2 induced a robust and Th1-skewed T cell response against the S antigen in 89/90 subjects from both age groups. Overall, the safety and immunogenicity data from the phase 1 trial support further development of this vaccine.

Prophylactic heparin and risk of orotracheal intubation or death in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (preprint)

Prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (pLMWH) is currently recommended in COVID-19 to reduce the risk of coagulopathy.  The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antinflammatory effects of pLMWH could translate in lower rate of clinical progression in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Patients admitted to a COVID-hospital in Rome with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild/moderate pneumonia were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was the time from hospital admission to orotracheal intubation/death (OTI/death).  A total of 449 patients were included: 39% female, median age 63 (IQR, 50-77) years. The estimated probability of OTI/death for patients receiving pLMWH was: 9.5% (95%CI 3.2-26.4) by day 20 in those not receiving pLMWH vs. 10.4% (6.7-15.9) in those exposed to pLMWH;p-value=0.144. This risk associated with the use of pLMWH appeared to vary by PaO2/FiO2 ratio: aHR 1.40 (95%CI 0.51-3.79) for patients with an admission PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg and 0.27 (0.03-2.18) for those with PaO2/FiO2 >300 mmHg;p-value at interaction test 0.16. pLMWH does not seem to reduce the risk of OTI/death mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, especially when respiratory function had already significantly deteriorated. Data from clinical trials comparing the effect of prophylactic vs. therapeutic dosage of LMWH at various stages of COVID-19 disease are needed.

COVID-19 Disease - Temporal Analyses of Complete Blood Count Parameters Over Course of Illness, and Relationship to Patient Demographics and Management Outcomes in Survivors and Non-Survivors: A Longitudinal Descriptive Cohort Study (preprint)

Background: More detailed temporal analyses of complete (Full) blood count (CBC) parameters, their evolution and relationship to patient age, gender, co-morbidities and management outcomes in survivors and non-survivors with COVID-19 disease could help identify prognostic clinical biomarkers. Methods: From 29 January 2020 until 28 March 2020, we performed a longitudinal cohort study of COVID-19 inpatients at the Italian National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Rome, Italy. Nine CBC parameters as a continuous variable were studied [neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, platelets, mean platelet volume, red blood cell count, haemoglobin concentration, mean red blood cell volume and red blood cell distribution width (RDW %)]. Model-based punctual estimates and difference between survivors and non-survivors, overall, and by co-morbidities, at specific times after symptoms, with relative 95% CI and P-values were obtained by marginal prediction and ANOVA-style joint tests. All analyses were carried out by STATA 15 statistical package. Main Findings: 379 COVID-19 patients [273 (72% were male; mean age was 61.67 (SD 15.60)] were enrolled and 1,805 measures per parameter were analysed. Neutrophil counts were on average significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors (P<0.001) and lymphocytes were on average higher in survivors (P<0.001). These differences were time dependent. Reverse temporal trends were observed for lymphocyte and neutrophil counts in survivors and non-survivors. Average platelets counts (P<0.001) and median platelets volume (P<0.001) were significantly different in survivors and in non-survivors. The differences were time dependent and consistent with acute inflammation followed either by recovery or by death. Anaemia with anisocytosis were observed in the later phase of COVID-19 disease in non-survivors only. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with diabetes (p=0.005), obesity (p=0.010), chronic renal failure (p=0.001), COPD (p=0.033) cardiovascular diseases (p=0.001) and those >60 years(p=0.001). Age (p=0.042), obesity (p=0.002), chronic renal failure (p=0.002) and cardiovascular diseases (p=0.009) were independently associated with poor patient clinical outcome at 30 day after symptom onset. Interpretation: Increased neutrophil counts, reduced lymphocyte counts, higher median platelet volume, anemia with anisocytosis, in association with obesity, chronic renal failure, COPD, cardiovascular diseases and age >60 years predict poor prognosis in COVID19 patients.Funding Statement: Ricerca Corrente e Finalizzata Italy Ministry of Health, AIRC (IG2018-21880); Regione Lazio (Gruppi di ricerca, E56C18000460002).Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the IRB of Italian National Institute for Infectious Diseases “Lazzaro Spallanzani” (INMI), in Rome (Italy).