Modeling the emergence of viral resistance for SARS-CoV-2 during treatment with an anti-spike monoclonal antibody.

To mitigate the loss of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with variants susceptible to mAb therapy. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3-4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response antiviral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection.

Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only. CONCLUSIONS: SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment followed by vaccination shifts human memory B cell epitope recognition suggesting antibody feedback.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been studied in humans, but the impact on immune memory of mAb treatment during an ongoing infection has remained unclear. We evaluated the effect of infusion of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (RBD) mAb bamlanivimab on memory B cells (MBCs) in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Bamlanivimab treatment skewed the repertoire of memory B cells targeting Spike towards non-RBD epitopes. Furthermore, the relative affinity of RBD memory B cells was weaker in mAb-treated individuals compared to placebo-treated individuals over time. Subsequently, after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, memory B cell differences persisted and mapped to a specific reduction in recognition of the class II RBD site, the same RBD epitope recognized by bamlanivimab. These findings indicate a substantial role of antibody feedback in regulating memory B cell responses to infection, and single mAb administration can continue to impact memory B cell responses to additional antigen exposures months later.

Characterization of Treatment Resistance and Viral Kinetics in the Setting of Single-Active Versus Dual-Active Monoclonal Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is unclear whether combination mAbs offer a benefit over single-active mAb treatment. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab significantly reduced the risk of hospitalizations or death in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Certain SARS-CoV-2 variants are intrinsically resistant against romlusevimab, leading to only single-active mAb therapy with amubarvimab in these variants. We evaluated virologic outcomes in individuals treated with single- versus dual-active mAbs. METHODS: Participants were nonhospitalized adults at higher risk of clinical progression randomized to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and targeted S-gene next-generation sequencing was performed on anterior nasal samples. We compared viral load kinetics and resistance emergence between individuals treated with effective single- versus dual-active mAbs depending on the infecting variant. RESULTS: Study participants receiving single- or dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared with single-active mAb treatment, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study days 3 (P < .001) and 7 (P < .01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than with placebo (2.6% vs 0%; P < .001) and were more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared with dual-active mAb treatment (7.3% vs 1.1%; P < .01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with single-active mAb therapy, dual-active mAbs led to similar clinical outcomes but significantly faster viral load decline and a lower risk of emergent resistance.

Viral and symptom rebound following anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

We explored viral and symptom rebound after COVID-19 amubarvimab/romlusevimab monoclonal antibody therapy vs placebo in the randomized ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Participants underwent nasal SARS-CoV-2 PCR at study days 3, 7, 14, and 28. Viral rebound was defined as RNA ≥3 and ≥0.5 log10 copies/mL increase from day 3 or 7, and symptom rebound as hospitalization or any moderate/severe symptom for ≥2 days after initial symptom improvement. There was no difference in viral rebound (∼5%/arm) (analysis population n=713) or symptom rebound among participants who initially improved (hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.52, 1.75, analysis population) n=574); <1% had both viral/symptom rebound.

Ebola Virus-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Persists at High Levels in Survivors 2 Years After Resolution of Disease in a Sierra Leonean Cohort.

Ebola virus (EBOV) infection results in Ebola virus disease (EVD), an often severe disease with a nonspecific presentation. Since its recognition, periodic outbreaks of EVD continue to occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The 2013-2016 West African EVD outbreak was the largest recorded, resulting in a substantial cohort of EVD survivors with persistent health complaints and variable immune responses. In this study, we characterize humoral immune responses in EVD survivors and their contacts in Eastern Sierra Leone. We found high levels of EBOV IgG in EVD survivors and lower yet substantial antibody levels in household contacts, suggesting subclinical transmission. Neutralizing antibody function was prevalent but variable in EVD survivors, raising questions about the durability of immune responses from natural infection with EBOV. Additionally, we found that certain discrete symptoms-ophthalmologic and auditory-are associated with EBOV IgG seropositivity, while an array of symptoms are associated with the presence of neutralizing antibody.

Expert Consensus Statement on an Updated Definition of Unintended Weight Loss Among Persons With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Modern Treatment Era.

The era of modern antiretroviral therapy (ART) has markedly improved health and survival among persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH). In the pre-ART era, wasting was associated with HIV disease progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and death. Effective ART has reduced the prevalence and incidence of this pre-ART form of HIV-associated wasting. However, a subgroup of ART-treated virally suppressed PWH continue to lose weight, often accompanied by aging-related comorbidities and/or functional deficits. For this subgroup of patients, the older definition of HIV-associated wasting (HIVAW) cannot and should not be applied. An expert panel comprising the authors of this white paper convened to review the existing definition of HIVAW and to create an updated definition that they termed HIV-associated weight loss, based on clinically defined parameters among contemporary PWH receiving ART. Here, clinical features and laboratory biomarkers associated with HIV-associated weight loss are reviewed and approaches to screening and treatment are considered. Available management approaches, including the use of current US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for HIVAW and other available therapies are discussed. The expert panel also identified knowledge gaps and provided recommendations for clinicians, payers, and researchers.

Antiretrovirals and Weight Change: Weighing the Evidence.

Body weight is influenced by an interplay of individual and environmental factors. In people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), weight is also influenced by disease status with loss accompanying disease progression that is reversed with effective antiretroviral therapy. Weight changes in comparative antiretroviral therapy trials differ by regimen, with greater gains observed with the integrase strand transfer inhibitors dolutegravir and bictegravir, particularly when coadministered with tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, compared with regimens that include agents such as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate that attenuate weight gain. We review weight changes in major randomized trials of preexposure prophylaxis and initial and switch HIV therapy, highlighting the challenges to assessing the role of antiretroviral therapy in weight change. This examination forms the basis for a model that questions assumptions regarding an association between integrase strand transfer inhibitors and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate and excessive weight gain and calls for more careful consideration of these data when making HIV treatment decisions.

Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-TNF in Combination With Low-Dose Methotrexate vs Anti-TNF Monotherapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected. RESULTS: Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02772965.

High Body Mass Index and Response to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is common among patients with pediatric Crohn's disease (PCD). Some adult studies suggest obese patients respond less well to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment. This study sought compares anti-TNF response and anti-TNF levels between pediatric patients with normal and high body mass index (BMI). METHODS: The COMBINE trial compared anti-TNF monotherapy with combination therapy with methotrexate in patients with PCD. In this secondary analysis, a comparison of time-to-treatment failure among patients with normal BMI vs BMI Z -score >1, adjusting for prescribed anti-TNF (infliximab [IFX] or adalimumab [ADA]), trial treatment assignment (combination vs monotherapy), and relevant covariates. Median anti-TNF levels across BMI category was also examined. RESULTS: Of 224 participants (162 IFX initiators and 62 ADA initiators), 111 (81%) had a normal BMI and 43 (19%) had a high BMI. High BMI was associated with treatment failure among ADA initiators (7/10 [70%] vs 12/52 [23%], hazard ratio 0.29, P = 0.007) but not IFX initiators. In addition, ADA-treated patients with a high BMI had lower ADA levels compared with those with normal BMI (median 5.8 vs 12.8 µg/mL, P = 0.02). IFX trough levels did not differ between BMI groups. DISCUSSION: Overweight and obese patients with PCD are more likely to experience ADA treatment failure than those with normal BMI. Higher BMI was associated with lower drug trough levels. Standard ADA dosing may be insufficient for overweight children with PCD. Among IFX initiators, there was no observed difference in clinical outcomes or drug levels, perhaps due to weight-based dosing and/or greater use of proactive drug monitoring.

COVID-19 hospitalization risk after outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, January to August 2022, North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods. RESULTS: Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.

Symptom and Viral Rebound in Untreated SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Although symptom and viral rebound have been reported after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, the trajectories of symptoms and viral load during the natural course of COVID-19 have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize symptom and viral rebound in untreated outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of participants in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: 563 participants receiving placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 (Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients With COVID-19) platform trial. MEASUREMENTS: Participants recorded the severity of 13 symptoms daily between days 0 and 28. Nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on days 0 to 14, 21, and 28. Symptom rebound was defined as a 4-point increase in total symptom score after improvement any time after study entry. Viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from the immediately preceding time point to a viral load of 3.0 log10 copies/mL or higher. High-level viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL to a viral load of 5.0 log10 copies/mL or higher. RESULTS: Symptom rebound was identified in 26% of participants at a median of 11 days after initial symptom onset. Viral rebound was detected in 31% and high-level viral rebound in 13% of participants. Most symptom and viral rebound events were transient, because 89% of symptom rebound and 95% of viral rebound events occurred at only a single time point before improving. The combination of symptom and high-level viral rebound was observed in 3% of participants. LIMITATION: A largely unvaccinated population infected with pre-Omicron variants was evaluated. CONCLUSION: Symptom or viral relapse in the absence of antiviral treatment is common, but the combination of symptom and viral rebound is rare. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). SETTING: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines. PATIENTS: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression. INTERVENTION: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death. RESULTS: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events. LIMITATION: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants. CONCLUSION: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

ACTIV-2: A Platform Trial for the Evaluation of Novel Therapeutics for the Treatment of Early COVID-19 in Outpatients.

Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Pooling Different Placebos as a Control Group in a Randomized Platform Trial: Benefits and Challenges From Experience in the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Trial.

Adaptive platform trials were implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to rapidly evaluate therapeutics, including the placebo-controlled phase 2/3 ACTIV-2 trial, which studied 7 investigational agents with diverse routes of administration. For each agent, safety and efficacy outcomes were compared to a pooled placebo control group, which included participants who received a placebo for that agent or for other agents in concurrent evaluation. A 2-step randomization framework was implemented to facilitate this. Over the study duration, the pooled placebo design achieved a reduction in sample size of 6% versus a trial involving distinct placebo control groups for evaluating each agent. However, a 26% reduction was achieved during the period when multiple agents were in parallel phase 2 evaluation. We discuss some of the complexities implementing the pooled placebo design versus a design involving nonoverlapping control groups, with the aim of informing the design of future platform trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Validity and Characterization of Time to Symptom Resolution Outcome Measures in the ACTIV-2/A5401 Outpatient COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: Time to symptom resolution measures were used in outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trials without prior validation. METHODS: ACTIV-2/A5401 trial participants completed a COVID-19 diary assessing 13 targeted symptoms and global experience (overall COVID-19 symptoms, return to pre-COVID-19 health) daily for 29 days. We evaluated concordance of time to sustained (2 days) resolution of all targeted symptoms (TSR) with resolution of overall symptoms and return to health in participants receiving placebo. RESULTS: The analysis included 77 high-risk and 81 standard-risk participants with overall median 6 days of symptoms at entry and median age 47 years, 50% female, 82% white, and 31% Hispanic/Latino. Correlation between TSR and resolution of overall symptoms was 0.80 and 0.68, and TSR and return to health, 0.66 and 0.57 for high- and standard-risk groups, respectively. Of the high- and standard-risk participants, 61% and 79%, respectively, achieved targeted symptom resolution, of which 47% and 43%, respectively, reported symptom recurrence. Requiring >2 days to define sustained resolution reduced the frequency of recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: There was good internal consistency between TSR and COVID-19-specific global outcomes, supporting TSR as a trial end point. Requiring >2 days of symptom resolution better addresses natural symptom fluctuations but must be balanced against the potential influence of non-COVID-19 symptoms. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04518410.

Phase 2 Safety and Antiviral Activity of SAB-185, a Novel Polyclonal Antibody Therapy for Nonhospitalized Adults With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SAB-185, a novel fully human IgG polyclonal immunoglobulin product, underwent phase 2 evaluation for nonhospitalized adults with mild-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Participants received intravenous SAB-185 3840 units/kg (low-dose) or placebo, or 10 240 units/kg (high-dose) or placebo. Primary outcome measures were nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at study days 3, 7, and 14, time to symptomatic improvement, and safety through day 28. RESULTS: Two-hundred thirteen participants received low-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 107/106) and 215 high-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 110/105). The proportions with SARS-CoV-2 RNA < LLOQ were higher for SAB-185 versus placebo at days 3 and 7 and similar at day 14, and significantly higher at day 7 for high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo only, relative risk 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.49). At day 3, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels were lower with low-dose and high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo: differences in medians of -0.78 log10 copies/mL (P = .08) and -0.71 log10 copies/mL (P = .10), respectively. No difference was observed in time to symptom improvement: median 11/10 days (P = .24) for low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 8/10 days (P = .50) for high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 5%/13% of low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 9%/12% of high-dose SAB-185/placebo. CONCLUSIONS: SAB-185 was safe and generally well tolerated and demonstrated modest antiviral activity in predominantly low-risk nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Association Between Anterior Nasal and Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA Levels and Hospitalization or Death in Nonhospitalized Adults With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There is little information regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA as a predictor for clinical outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Anterior nasal (AN) and plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA data from 2115 nonhospitalized adults who received monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial were analyzed for associations with hospitalization or death. RESULTS: One hundred two participants were hospitalized or died through 28 days of follow-up. Higher day 0 (pretreatment) AN RNA was associated with increasing risk of hospitalization/death (risk ratio [RR], 1.24 per log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.04-1.49]) among placebo recipients, ranging from 3% to 16% for <2 to ≥6 log10 copies/mL. Although only 1% had quantifiable levels, there was a similar trend across day 0 plasma RNA categories. Higher day 3 AN RNA was associated with subsequent hospitalization/death among placebo recipients (RR, 1.42 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 1.00-2.03]), but not mAb recipients (RR, 1.02 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 0.68-1.56]). The proportion of treatment effect (reduction in hospitalizations/deaths after day 3 for mAb vs placebo) explained by day 3 AN RNA was 8%. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels are predictive of hospitalization/death in the natural history setting, but AN RNA levels may not be a reliable surrogate marker of mAb treatment effect in COVID-19 trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Variant-Specific Viral Kinetics in Acute COVID-19.

Understanding variant-specific differences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics may explain differences in transmission efficiency and provide insights on pathogenesis and prevention. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 kinetics from nasal swabs across multiple variants (Alpha, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma) in placebo recipients of the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Delta variant infection led to the highest maximum viral load and shortest time from symptom onset to viral load peak. There were no significant differences in time to viral clearance across the variants. Viral decline was biphasic with first- and second-phase decays having half-lives of 11 hours and 2.5 days, respectively, with differences among variants, especially in the second phase. These results suggest that while variant-specific differences in viral kinetics exist, post-peak viral load all variants appeared to be efficiently cleared by the host. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Immune Status and SARS-CoV-2 Viral Dynamics.

Immunocompromised individuals are disproportionately affected by severe coronavirus disease 2019, but immune compromise is heterogenous, and viral dynamics may vary by the degree of immunosuppression. In this study, we categorized ACTIV-2/A5401 participants based on the extent of immunocompromise into none, mild, moderate, and severe immunocompromise. Moderate/severe immunocompromise was associated with higher nasal viral load at enrollment (adjusted difference in means: 0.47 95% confidence interval, .12-.83 log10 copies/mL) and showed a trend toward higher cumulative nasal RNA levels and plasma viremia compared to nonimmunocompromised individuals. Immunosuppression leads to greater viral shedding and altered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral decay kinetics. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.