SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Post-COVID syndrome in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a longitudinal prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: While the leading symptoms during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are acute and the majority of patients fully recover, a significant fraction of patients now increasingly experience long-term health consequences. However, most data available focus on health-related events after severe infection and hospitalisation. We present a longitudinal, prospective analysis of health consequences in patients who initially presented with no or minor symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Hence, we focus on mild COVID-19 in non-hospitalised patients. METHODS: 958 Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were observed from April 6th to December 2nd 2020 for long-term symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We identified anosmia, ageusia, fatigue or shortness of breath as most common, persisting symptoms at month 4 and 7 and summarised presence of such long-term health consequences as post-COVID syndrome (PCS). Predictors of long-term symptoms were assessed using an uni- and multivariable logistic regression model. FINDINGS: We observed 442 and 353 patients over four and seven months after symptom onset, respectively. Four months post SARS-CoV-2 infection, 8•6% (38/442) of patients presented with shortness of breath, 12•4% (55/442) with anosmia, 11•1% (49/442) with ageusia and 9•7% (43/442) with fatigue. At least one of these characteristic symptoms was present in 27•8% (123/442) and 34•8% (123/353) at month 4 and 7 post-infection, respectively. A lower baseline level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, anosmia and diarrhoea during acute COVID-19 were associated with higher risk to develop long-term symptoms. INTERPRETATION: The on-going presence of either shortness of breath, anosmia, ageusia or fatigue as long-lasting symptoms even in non-hospitalised patients was observed at four and seven months post-infection and summarised as post-COVID syndrome (PCS). The continued assessment of patients with PCS will become a major task to define and mitigate the socioeconomic and medical long-term effects of COVID-19. FUNDING: COVIM:"NaFoUniMedCovid19"(FKZ: 01KX2021).

Kinetics and correlates of the neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans.

Understanding antibody-based SARS-CoV-2 immunity is critical for overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic and informing vaccination strategies. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics over 10 months in 963 individuals who predominantly experienced mild COVID-19. Investigating 2,146 samples, we initially detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 94.4% of individuals, with 82% and 79% exhibiting serum and IgG neutralization, respectively. Approximately 3% of individuals demonstrated exceptional SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, with these "elite neutralizers" also possessing SARS-CoV-1 cross-neutralizing IgG. Multivariate statistical modeling revealed age, symptomatic infection, disease severity, and gender as key factors predicting SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing activity. A loss of reactivity to the virus spike protein was observed in 13% of individuals 10 months after infection. Neutralizing activity had half-lives of 14.7 weeks in serum versus 31.4 weeks in purified IgG, indicating a rather long-term IgG antibody response. Our results demonstrate a broad spectrum in the initial SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody response, with sustained antibodies in most individuals for 10 months after mild COVID-19.

Temporal Ordering in Endocytic Clathrin-Coated Vesicle Formation via AP2 Phosphorylation.

Clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) is key to maintaining the transmembrane protein composition of cells' limiting membranes. During mammalian CME, a reversible phosphorylation event occurs on Thr156 of the µ2 subunit of the main endocytic clathrin adaptor, AP2. We show that this phosphorylation event starts during clathrin-coated pit (CCP) initiation and increases throughout CCP lifetime. µ2Thr156 phosphorylation favors a new, cargo-bound conformation of AP2 and simultaneously creates a binding platform for the endocytic NECAP proteins but without significantly altering AP2's cargo affinity in vitro. We describe the structural bases of both. NECAP arrival at CCPs parallels that of clathrin and increases with µ2Thr156 phosphorylation. In turn, NECAP recruits drivers of late stages of CCP formation, including SNX9, via a site distinct from where NECAP binds AP2. Disruption of the different modules of this phosphorylation-based temporal regulatory system results in CCP maturation being delayed and/or stalled, hence impairing global rates of CME.

ESCRT-I mediates FLS2 endosomal sorting and plant immunity.

The plant immune receptor FLAGELLIN SENSING 2 (FLS2) is present at the plasma membrane and is internalized following activation of its ligand flagellin (flg22). We show that ENDOSOMAL SORTING COMPLEX REQUIRED FOR TRANSPORT (ESCRT)-I subunits play roles in FLS2 endocytosis in Arabidopsis. VPS37-1 co-localizes with FLS2 at endosomes and immunoprecipitates with the receptor upon flg22 elicitation. Vps37-1 mutants are reduced in flg22-induced FLS2 endosomes but not in endosomes labeled by Rab5 GTPases suggesting a defect in FLS2 trafficking rather than formation of endosomes. FLS2 localizes to the lumen of multivesicular bodies, but this is altered in vps37-1 mutants indicating compromised endosomal sorting of FLS2 by ESCRT-I loss-of-function. VPS37-1 and VPS28-2 are critical for immunity against bacterial infection through a role in stomatal closure. Our findings identify that VPS37-1, and likewise VPS28-2, regulate late FLS2 endosomal sorting and reveals that ESCRT-I is critical for flg22-activated stomatal defenses involved in plant immunity.

High-throughput confocal imaging of intact live tissue enables quantification of membrane trafficking in Arabidopsis.

Membrane compartmentalization and trafficking within and between cells is considered an essential cellular property of higher eukaryotes. We established a high-throughput imaging method suitable for the quantitative detection of membrane compartments at subcellular resolution in intact epidermal tissue. Whole Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) cotyledon leaves were subjected to quantitative confocal laser microscopy using automated image acquisition, computational pattern recognition, and quantification of membrane compartments. This revealed that our method is sensitive and reliable to detect distinct endomembrane compartments. We applied quantitative confocal laser microscopy to a transgenic line expressing GFP-2xFYVE as a marker for endosomal compartments during biotic or abiotic stresses, and detected markedly quantitative adaptations in response to changing environments. Using a transgenic line expressing the plasma membrane-resident syntaxin GFP-PEN1, we quantified the pathogen-inducible extracellular accumulation of this fusion protein at fungal entry sites. Our protocol provides a platform to study the quantitative and dynamic changes of endomembrane trafficking, and potential adaptations of this machinery to physiological stress.

Pattern recognition receptors require N-glycosylation to mediate plant immunity.

N-Glycans attached to the ectodomains of plasma membrane pattern recognition receptors constitute likely initial contact sites between plant cells and invading pathogens. To assess the role of N-glycans in receptor-mediated immune responses, we investigated the functionality of Arabidopsis receptor kinases EFR and FLS2, sensing bacterial translation elongation factor Tu (elf18) and flagellin (flg22), respectively, in N-glycosylation mutants. As revealed by binding and responses to elf18 or flg22, both receptors tolerated immature N-glycans induced by mutations in various Golgi modification steps. EFR was specifically impaired by loss-of-function mutations in STT3A, a subunit of the endoplasmic reticulum resident oligosaccharyltransferase complex. FLS2 tolerated mild underglycosylation occurring in stt3a but was sensitive to severe underglycosylation induced by tunicamycin treatment. EFR accumulation was significantly reduced when synthesized without N-glycans but to lesser extent when underglycosylated in stt3a or mutated in single amino acid positions. Interestingly, EFR(N143Q) lacking a single conserved N-glycosylation site from the EFR ectodomain accumulated to reduced levels and lost the ability to bind its ligand and to mediate elf18-elicited oxidative burst. However, EFR-YFP protein localization and peptide:N-glycosidase F digestion assays support that both EFR produced in stt3a and EFR(N143Q) in wild type cells correctly targeted to the plasma membrane via the Golgi apparatus. These results indicate that a single N-glycan plays a critical role for receptor abundance and ligand recognition during plant-pathogen interactions at the cell surface.

Induced Endocytosis of the Receptor Kinase FLS2.

Receptor-like kinases (RLKs) that function as pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs) play a key role in plant immune responses. The receptor recognizing flagellin in Arabidopsis, FLS2, is encoded by a membrane resident RLK. FLS2 is involved in preinvasive immunity against bacterial infection. Recent observations revealed that upon flagellin perception FLS2 accumulates in intracellular mobile vesicles and is then degraded. Reminiscent of ligand-induced receptor endocytosis in animals, FLS2 internalization is Wortmannin-sensitive. Mutation of the potentially phosphorylated residue threonine-867 impaired FLS2 endocytosis and flagellin-triggered responses. Furthermore, mutation of a PEST-motif abolished FLS2 endocytosis and downstream flagellin-elicited responses were affected. Thus, FLS2 endocytosis likely involves phosphorylation and ubiquitination events and appears to be interconnected with flagellin signaling. Similarly, TLR4, the mammalian PRR recognizing bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS) is internalized in a ligand specific manner. In this addendum, we discuss endocytic processes of plant RLKs focussing on FLS2 and provide a brief comparison with TLR4 endocytosis.