One Week of Oral Camostat Versus Placebo in Non-Hospitalized Adults with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Camostat inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. We studied the safety and efficacy of camostat in ACTIV-2/A5401, a phase 2/3 platform trial of therapeutics for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 study in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 randomized to oral camostat for 7 days or a pooled placebo arm. Primary outcomes were time to improvement in COVID-19 symptoms through day 28, proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs through day 14, and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. RESULTS: Of 216 participants (109 randomized to camostat, 107 to placebo) who initiated study intervention, 45% reported ≤5 days of symptoms at study entry and 26% met the protocol definition of higher risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Median age was 37 years. Median time to symptom improvement was 9 days in both arms (p=0.99). There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab Administered Intramuscularly or Intravenously in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021. Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days. Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route. Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

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.

Nasal and Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA Levels are Associated with Timing of Symptom Resolution in the ACTIV-2 Trial of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19.

Acute COVID-19 symptoms limit daily activities, but little is known about its association with SARS-CoV-2 viral burden. In this exploratory analysis of placebo recipients in the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform trial, we showed that high anterior nasal (AN) RNA levels and detectable plasma RNA were associated with delayed symptom improvement.

Qualitative interviews to evaluate content validity of the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are needed to assess the impact of treatments for COVID-19 on symptoms. The ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD) is being used in the ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-2 (ACTIV-2) platform clinical trial. The purpose of the current study was to conduct qualitative interviews to assess content validity of the ACSD. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with adults who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The ACSD begins with global items, followed by a symptom checklist. Each interview began with concept elicitation focusing on participant experiences with COVID-19. Then, participants completed the ACSD, and cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate the questionnaire. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded following a qualitative content analysis. For the qualitative analysis, a coding dictionary was developed with a list of all potential codes and instructions for how the codes should be applied and combined. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 30 participants (mean age = 39 years; 57% female; 17% Latinx; 17% Black/African American; 40% meeting at least one criterion for classification as high risk of progression to severe COVID-19). Commonly reported symptoms included fatigue (reported by 100% of the sample), body pain/muscle pain/aches (87%), headaches (87%), cough (83%), loss of smell (73%), shortness of breath/difficulty breathing (70%), and chills (70%). The 13 symptoms most commonly reported in this study are included in the ACSD. After completing the ACSD, participants consistently reported that it was clear and easy to complete, and all items were generally interpreted as intended. Based on participants' input, the ACSD was edited slightly after the first 13 interviews, and the revised version was used for the final 17 interviews. Two additional items assessing "brain fog" and dizziness were recommended for addition to the ACSD in future research. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study supports the content validity of the ACSD for assessment of COVID-19 symptoms. Quantitative research with larger samples will be needed to examine the questionnaire's measurement properties.

This study focused on the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD), a questionnaire that assesses symptom severity of COVID-19. The ACSD begins with global items assessing overall symptom severity, followed by a symptom checklist focusing on individual symptoms. Interviews were conducted with 30 adults who had tested positive for COVID-19. The patients reported their experiences with COVID-19, completed the ACSD, and provided their opinions about the ACSD. Based on input from these patients, the ACSD appears to be clear and easy to complete, and it includes the most common and important symptoms of COVID-19. The ACSD was edited for clarity, and "brain fog" and dizziness were recommended additions for future research. This study suggests that the ACSD is a useful questionnaire for assessment of COVID-19 symptoms in clinical studies. Studies like this are important for ensuring that symptoms are measured appropriately and accurately in clinical trials. Future research with larger samples will be needed to further examine the questionnaire.

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.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA From Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Concordance With Other Compartments in Nonhospitalized Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19.

Background: Identifying characteristics associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA shedding may be useful to understand viral compartmentalization, disease pathogenesis, and risks for viral transmission. Methods: Participants were enrolled August 2020 to February 2021 in ACTIV-2/A5401, a placebo-controlled platform trial evaluating investigational therapies for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and underwent quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs, oral wash/saliva, and plasma at entry (day 0, pretreatment) and days 3, 7, 14, and 28. Concordance of RNA levels (copies/mL) across compartments and predictors of nasopharyngeal RNA levels were assessed at entry (n = 537). Predictors of changes over time were evaluated among placebo recipients (n = 265) with censored linear regression models. Results: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal RNA levels at study entry were highly correlated (r = 0.84); higher levels of both were associated with greater detection of RNA in plasma and oral wash/saliva. Older age, White non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower body mass index (BMI), SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seronegativity, and shorter prior symptom duration were associated with higher nasopharyngeal RNA at entry. In adjusted models, body mass index and race/ethnicity associations were attenuated, but the association with age remained (for every 10 years older, mean nasopharyngeal RNA was 0.27 log10 copies/mL higher; P < .001). Examining longitudinal viral RNA levels among placebo recipients, women had faster declines in nasopharyngeal RNA than men (mean change, -2.0 vs -1.3 log10 copies/mL, entry to day 3; P < .001). Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was concordant across compartments. Age was strongly associated with viral shedding, and men had slower viral clearance than women, which could explain sex differences in acute COVID-19 outcomes.

Bamlanivimab therapy for acute COVID-19 does not blunt SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cell responses.

Despite the widespread use of SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for the treatment of acute COVID-19, the impact of this therapy on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses has been unknown, resulting in uncertainty as to whether anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb administration may result in failure to generate immune memory. Alternatively, it has been suggested that SARS-CoV-2-specific mAb may enhance adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 via a "vaccinal effect." Bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) is a recombinant human IgG1 that was granted FDA emergency use authorization for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in those at high risk for progression to severe disease. Here, we compared SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses of 95 individuals from the ACTIV-2/A5401 clinical trial 28 days after treatment with 700 mg bamlanivimab versus placebo. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were evaluated using activation induced marker (AIM) assays in conjunction with intracellular cytokine staining. We demonstrate that most individuals with acute COVID-19 develop SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses. Overall, our findings suggest that the quantity and quality of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory was robust in individuals who received bamlanivimab for acute COVID-19. Receipt of bamlanivimab during acute COVID-19 neither diminished nor enhanced SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular immunity.

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 escape mutations during Bamlanivimab therapy in a phase II randomized clinical trial.

SARS-CoV-2 mutations that cause resistance to monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy have been reported. However, it remains unclear whether in vivo emergence of SARS-CoV-2 resistance mutations alters viral replication dynamics or therapeutic efficacy in the immune-competent population. As part of the ACTIV-2/A5401 randomized clinical trial (NCT04518410), non-hospitalized participants with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were given bamlanivimab (700 mg or 7,000 mg) or placebo treatment. Here¸ we report that treatment-emergent resistance mutations [detected through targeted Spike (S) gene next-generation sequencing] were significantly more likely to be detected after bamlanivimab 700 mg treatment compared with the placebo group (7% of 111 vs 0% of 112 participants, P = 0.003). No treatment-emergent resistance mutations among the 48 participants who received 7,000 mg bamlanivimab were recorded. Participants in which emerging mAb resistant virus mutations were identified showed significantly higher pretreatment nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal viral loads. Daily respiratory tract viral sampling through study day 14 showed the dynamic nature of in vivo SARS-CoV-2 infection and indicated a rapid and sustained viral rebound after the emergence of resistance mutations. Participants with emerging bamlanivimab resistance often accumulated additional polymorphisms found in current variants of concern/interest that are associated with immune escape. These results highlight the potential for rapid emergence of resistance during mAb monotherapy treatment that results in prolonged high-level respiratory tract viral loads. Assessment of viral resistance should be prioritized during the development and clinical implementation of antiviral treatments for COVID-19.

Recurrence of Symptoms Following a 2-Day Symptom Free Period in Patients With COVID-19.

This cohort study of US adults with untreated COVID-19 examines the types and length of symptoms experienced following symptom recurrence.

Monoclonal antibody treatment drives rapid culture conversion in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are among the treatments recommended for high-risk ambulatory persons with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we study viral culture dynamics post-treatment in a subset of participants receiving the mAb bamlanivimab in the ACTIV-2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). Viral load by qPCR and viral culture are performed from anterior nasal swabs collected on study days 0 (day of treatment), 1, 2, 3, and 7. Treatment with mAbs results in rapid clearance of culturable virus. One day after treatment, 0 of 28 (0%) participants receiving mAbs and 16 of 39 (41%) receiving placebo still have culturable virus (p < 0.0001). Recrudescence of culturable virus is detected in three participants with emerging mAb resistance and viral RNA rebound. While further studies are necessary to fully define the relationship between shed culturable virus and transmission, these results raise the possibility that mAbs may offer immediate (household) and public-health benefits by reducing onward transmission.

Antiviral and clinical activity of bamlanivimab in a randomized trial of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are mainstay COVID-19 therapeutics. Safety, antiviral, and clinical efficacy of bamlanivimab were evaluated in the randomized controlled trial ACTIV-2/A5401. Non-hospitalized adults were randomized 1:1 within 10 days of COVID-19 symptoms to bamlanivimab or blinded-placebo in two dose-cohorts (7000 mg, n = 94; 700 mg, n = 223). No differences in bamlanivimab vs placebo were observed in the primary outcomes: proportion with undetectable nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA at days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 (risk ratio = 0.82-1.05 for 7000 mg [p(overall) = 0.88] and 0.81-1.21 for 700 mg [p(overall) = 0.49]), time to symptom improvement (median 21 vs 18.5 days [p = 0.97], 7000 mg; 24 vs 20.5 days [p = 0.08], 700 mg), or grade 3+ adverse events. However, bamlanivimab was associated with lower day 3 nasopharyngeal viral levels and faster reductions in inflammatory markers and viral decay by modeling. This study provides evidence of faster reductions in nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels but not shorter symptom durations in non-hospitalized adults with early variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab (AZD7442) Administered Intravenously Versus Intramuscularly in Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

AZD7442 (Evusheld) is a combination of two human anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), tixagevimab (AZD8895) and cilgavimab (AZD1061). Route of administration is an important consideration to improve treatment access. We assessed pharmacokinetics (PKs) of AZD7442 absorption following 600 mg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) in the thigh compared with 300 mg intravenously (i.v.) in ambulatory adults with symptomatic COVID-19. PK analysis included 84 of 110 participants randomized to receive i.m. AZD7442 and 16 of 61 randomized to receive i.v. AZD7442. Serum was collected prior to AZD7442 administration and at 24 hours and 3, 7, and 14 days later. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Following 600 mg i.m., the geometric mean maximum concentration (Cmax ) was 38.19 µg/mL (range: 17.30-60.80) and 37.33 µg/mL (range: 14.90-58.90) for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Median observed time to maximum concentration (Tmax ) was 7.1 and 7.0 days for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Serum concentrations after i.m. dosing were similar to the i.v. dose (27-29 µg/mL each component) at 3 days. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)0-7d geometric mean ratio was 0.9 for i.m. vs. i.v. Participants with higher weight or body mass index were more likely to have lower concentrations with either route. Women appeared to have higher interparticipant variability in concentrations compared with men. The concentrations of tixagevimab and cilgavimab after administration i.m. to the thigh were similar to those achieved with i.v. after 3 days from dosing. Exposure in the i.m. group was 90% of i.v. over 7 days. Administration to the thigh can be considered to provide consistent mAb exposure and improve access.