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.

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.

Comparison Study of the Bio-Plex and Meso Scale Multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays Reveals Evidence of Diminished Host Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 after Monoclonal Antibody Treatment.

Background: Assessing the breadth and duration of antigen-specific binding antibodies provides valuable information for evaluating interventions to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiplex immunoassays are a convenient method for rapid measurement of antibody responses but can sometimes provide discordant results, and antibody positive percent agreement for COVID-19 diagnosis can vary depending on assay type, disease severity, and population sampled. Therefore, we compared two assays marked for research applications, MSD and Bio-Plex Pro, to evaluate qualitative interpretation of serostatus and quantitative detection of antibodies of varying isotypes (IgG, IgM, and IgA) against receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (N) antigens. Methods: Specimens from ACTIV-2/A5401, a placebo-controlled clinical trial of the SARSCoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) bamlanivimab to prevent COVID-19 disease progression, were used to evaluate the concordance of the Bio-Rad Bio-Plex Pro Human SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay and the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) V-PLEX COVID-19 Panel 1 serology assay in detecting and quantifying IgG, IgA, and IgM binding anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses against the RBD and N antigens. Data were disaggregated by study arm, bamlanivimab dose, days post-enrollment, and presence of emerging resistance. Results: We observed 90.5% (412 of 455 tests) concordance for anti-RBD IgG and 87% (396 of 455) concordance for anti-N IgG in classifying samples as negative or positive based on assay-defined cutoffs. Antibody levels converted to the WHO standard BAU/mL were significantly correlated for all isotypes (IgG, IgM, and IgA) and SARS-CoV-2 antigen targets (RBD and N) tested that were common between the two assays (Spearman r 0.65 to 0.92, P < 0.0001). Both assays uncovered evidence of diminished host-derived IgG immune responses in participants treated with bamlanivimab compared to placebo. Assessment of immune responses in the four individuals treated with the 700 mg of bamlanivimab with emerging mAb resistance demonstrated a stronger anti-N IgG response (MSD) at day 28 (median 2.18 log BAU/mL) compared to participants treated with bamlanivimab who did not develop resistance (median 1.55 log BAU/mL). Conclusions: These data demonstrate the utility in using multiplex immunoassays for characterizing the immune responses with and without treatment in a study population and provide evidence that monoclonal antibody treatment in acute COVID-19 may have a modest negative impact on development of host IgG responses.

SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and evolution varies by type and severity of immunodeficiency.

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but the immune defects that predispose an individual to persistent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain incompletely understood. In this study, we performed detailed viro-immunologic analyses of a prospective cohort of participants with COVID-19. The median times to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to hematologic malignancy or transplant (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, both of which were significantly longer than clearance rates in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to autoimmunity or B cell deficiency (S-A), individuals with nonsevere immunodeficiency, and nonimmunocompromised groups (P < 0.01). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing resistance against therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses, whereas only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across distinct immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.