Ibrexafungerp is efficacious in a neutropenic murine model of pulmonary mucormycosis as monotherapy and combined with liposomal amphotericin B.

Ibrexafungerp (formerly SCY-078) is the first member of the triterpenoid class that prevents the synthesis of the fungal cell wall polymer ß-(1,3)-D-glucan by inhibiting the enzyme glucan synthase. We evaluated the in vivo efficacy of ibrexafungerp against pulmonary mucormycosis using an established murine model. Neutropenic mice were intratracheally infected with either Rhizopus delemar or Mucor circinelloides. Treatment with placebo (diluent control), ibrexafungerp (30 mg/kg, PO BID), liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB 10 mg/kg IV QD), posaconazole (PSC 30 mg/kg PO QD), or a combination of ibrexafungerp plus LAMB or ibrexafungerp plus PSC began 16 h post-infection and continued for 7 days for ibrexafungerp or PSC and through day 4 for LAMB. Ibrexafungerp was as effective as LAMB or PSC in prolonging median survival (range: 15 days to >21 days) and enhancing overall survival (30%-65%) vs placebo (9 days and 0%; P < 0.001) in mice infected with R. delemar. Furthermore, median survival and overall percent survival resulting from the combination of ibrexafungerp plus LAMB were significantly greater compared to all monotherapies (P ≤ 0.03). Similar survival results were observed in mice infected with M. circinelloides. Monotherapies also reduce the lung and brain fungal burden by ~0.5-1.0log10 conidial equivalents (CE)/g of tissue vs placebo in mice infected with R. delemar (P < 0.05), while a combination of ibrexafungerp plus LAMB lowered the fungal burden by ~0.5-1.5log10 CE/g compared to placebo or any of the monotherapy groups (P < 0.03). These results are promising and warrant continued investigation of ibrexafungerp as a novel treatment option against mucormycosis.

Modeling Invasive Aspergillosis Risk for the Application of Prophylaxis Strategies.

The epidemiology of invasive aspergillosis (IA) is evolving. To define the patient groups who will most likely benefit from primary or secondary Aspergillus prophylaxis, particularly those whose medical conditions and IA risk change over time, it is helpful to depict patient populations and their risk periods in a temporal visual model. The Sankey approach provides a dynamic figure to understand the risk of IA for various patient populations. While the figure depicted within this article is static, an internet-based version could provide pop-up highlights of any given flow's origin and destination nodes. A future version could highlight links to publications that support the color-coded incidence rates or other actionable items, such as bundles of applicable pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions. The figure, as part of the upcoming Infectious Diseases Society of America's aspergillosis clinical practice guidelines, can guide decision-making in clinical settings.

Tuning sterol extraction kinetics yields a renal-sparing polyene antifungal.

Decades of previous efforts to develop renal-sparing polyene antifungals were misguided by the classic membrane permeabilization model1. Recently, the clinically vital but also highly renal-toxic small-molecule natural product amphotericin B was instead found to kill fungi primarily by forming extramembraneous sponge-like aggregates that extract ergosterol from lipid bilayers2-6. Here we show that rapid and selective extraction of fungal ergosterol can yield potent and renal-sparing polyene antifungals. Cholesterol extraction was found to drive the toxicity of amphotericin B to human renal cells. Our examination of high-resolution structures of amphotericin B sponges in sterol-free and sterol-bound states guided us to a promising structural derivative that does not bind cholesterol and is thus renal sparing. This derivative was also less potent because it extracts ergosterol more slowly. Selective acceleration of ergosterol extraction with a second structural modification yielded a new polyene, AM-2-19, that is renal sparing in mice and primary human renal cells, potent against hundreds of pathogenic fungal strains, resistance evasive following serial passage in vitro and highly efficacious in animal models of invasive fungal infections. Thus, rational tuning of the dynamics of interactions between small molecules may lead to better treatments for fungal infections that still kill millions of people annually7,8 and potentially other resistance-evasive antimicrobials, including those that have recently been shown to operate through supramolecular structures that target specific lipids9.

High-Throughput Screening of the Repurposing Hub Library to Identify Drugs with Novel Inhibitory Activity against Candida albicans and Candida auris Biofilms.

Candidiasis is one of the most frequent nosocomial infections affecting an increasing number of at-risk patients. Candida albicans remains the most frequent causative agent of candidiasis, but, in the last decade, C. auris has emerged as a formidable multi-drug-resistant pathogen. Both species are fully capable of forming biofilms, which contribute to resistance, increasing the urgency for new effective antifungal therapies. Repurposing existing drugs could significantly accelerate the development of novel therapies against candidiasis. Here, we have screened the Repurposing Hub library from the Broad Institute, containing over 6000 compounds, in search for inhibitors of C. albicans and C. auris biofilm formation. The primary screen identified 57 initial hits against C. albicans and 33 against C. auris. Confirmatory concentration-dependent assays were used to validate the activity of the initial hits and, at the same time, establish their anti-biofilm potency. Based on these results, ebselen, temsirolimus, and compound BAY 11-7082 emerged as the leading repositionable compounds. Subsequent experiments established their spectrum of antifungal activity against yeasts and filamentous fungi. In addition, their in vivo activity was examined in the murine models of hematogenously disseminated C. albicans and C. auris infections. Although promising, further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to confirm their potential use for the therapy of candidiasis and possibly other fungal infections.

Update on Outbreak of Fungal Meningitis among U.S. Residents who Received Epidural Anesthesia at Two Clinics in Matamoros, Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Public health officials are responding to an outbreak of fungal meningitis among patients who received procedures under epidural anesthesia at two clinics (River Side Surgical Center and Clinica K-3) in Matamoros, Mexico, during January 1-May 13, 2023. This report describes outbreak epidemiology and outlines interim diagnostic and treatment recommendations. METHODS: Interim recommendations for diagnosis and management were developed by the Mycoses Study Group Research Education and Consortium (MSGERC) based on the clinical experience of clinicians caring for patients during the current outbreak or during previous outbreaks of healthcare-associated fungal meningitis in Durango, Mexico, and the United States. RESULTS: As of July 7, 2023, the situation has evolved into a multistate and multinational fungal meningitis outbreak. A total of 185 residents in 22 U.S. states and jurisdictions have been identified who might be at risk of fungal meningitis because they received epidural anesthesia at the clinics of interest in 2023. Among these patients, 11 suspected, 10 probable, and 10 confirmed U.S. cases have been diagnosed, with severe vascular complications and eight deaths occurring. Fusarium solani species complex has been identified as the causative agent, with antifungal susceptibility testing of a single isolate demonstrating poor in vitro activity for most available antifungals. Currently, triple therapy with intravenous voriconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, and fosmanogepix is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to understand the source of this outbreak and optimal treatment approaches are ongoing, but infectious diseases physicians should be aware of available treatment recommendations. New information will be available on CDC's website.

Fungal Endocarditis: Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management.

Fungal endocarditis accounts for 1% to 3% of all infective endocarditis cases, is associated with high morbidity and mortality (>70%), and presents numerous challenges during clinical care. Candida spp. are the most common causes of fungal endocarditis, implicated in over 50% of cases, followed by Aspergillus and Histoplasma spp. Important risk factors for fungal endocarditis include prosthetic valves, prior heart surgery, and injection drug use. The signs and symptoms of fungal endocarditis are nonspecific, and a high degree of clinical suspicion coupled with the judicious use of diagnostic tests is required for diagnosis. In addition to microbiological diagnostics (e.g., blood culture for Candida spp. or galactomannan testing and PCR for Aspergillus spp.), echocardiography remains critical for evaluation of potential infective endocarditis, although radionuclide imaging modalities such as 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography are increasingly being used. A multimodal treatment approach is necessary: surgery is usually required and should be accompanied by long-term systemic antifungal therapy, such as echinocandin therapy for Candida endocarditis or voriconazole therapy for Aspergillus endocarditis.

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Screening the medicine for malaria venture's Pandemic Response Box to identify novel inhibitors of Candida albicans and Candida auris biofilm formation.

Candida spp. are opportunistic yeasts capable of forming biofilms, which contribute to resistance, increasing the urgency for new effective antifungal therapies. Repurposing existing drugs could significantly accelerate the development of novel therapies against candidiasis. We screened the Pandemic Response Box containing 400 diverse drug-like molecules active against bacteria, viruses or fungi, for inhibitors of Candida albicans and Candida auris biofilm formation. Initial hits were identified based on the demonstration of >70% inhibitory activity. Dose-response assays were used to confirm the antifungal activity of initial hits and establish their potency. The spectrum of antifungal activity of the leading compounds was determined against a panel of medically important fungi, and the in vivo activity of the leading repositionable agent was evaluated in murine models of C. albicans and C. auris systemic candidiasis. The primary screening identified 20 hit compounds, and their antifungal activity and potency against C. albicans and C. auris were validated using dose-response measurements. From these experiments, the rapalog everolimus, emerged as the leading repositionable candidate. Everolimus displayed potent antifungal activity against different Candida spp., but more moderate levels of activity against filamentous fungi. Treatment with everolimus increased survival of mice infected with C. albicans, but not those with C. auris. The screening of the Pandemic Response Box resulted in the identification of several drugs with novel antifungal activity, with everolimus emerging as the main repositionable candidate. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to confirm its potential therapeutic use.

Therapeutic trials for long COVID-19: A call to action from the interventions taskforce of the RECOVER initiative.

Although most individuals recover from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, a significant number continue to suffer from Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), including the unexplained symptoms that are frequently referred to as long COVID, which could last for weeks, months, or even years after the acute phase of illness. The National Institutes of Health is currently funding large multi-center research programs as part of its Researching COVID to Enhance Recover (RECOVER) initiative to understand why some individuals do not recover fully from COVID-19. Several ongoing pathobiology studies have provided clues to potential mechanisms contributing to this condition. These include persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and/or genetic material, immune dysregulation, reactivation of other latent viral infections, microvascular dysfunction, and gut dysbiosis, among others. Although our understanding of the causes of long COVID remains incomplete, these early pathophysiologic studies suggest biological pathways that could be targeted in therapeutic trials that aim to ameliorate symptoms. Repurposed medicines and novel therapeutics deserve formal testing in clinical trial settings prior to adoption. While we endorse clinical trials, especially those that prioritize inclusion of the diverse populations most affected by COVID-19 and long COVID, we discourage off-label experimentation in uncontrolled and/or unsupervised settings. Here, we review ongoing, planned, and potential future therapeutic interventions for long COVID based on the current understanding of the pathobiological processes underlying this condition. We focus on clinical, pharmacological, and feasibility data, with the goal of informing future interventional research studies.

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. Methods: We conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. Results: A total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. Conclusions: Infliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

The Antifungal and Anti-Pneumocystis Activities of the Novel Compound A3IS (Mycosinate).

A3IS (Mycosinate) is a synthetic product which only contains ingredients found naturally within honey. A3IS is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial product which produces a sustained release of hydrogen peroxide at low but therapeutic levels. The product elicits this release through an enzymatic reaction between glucose oxidase and the substrate glucose once the product is hydrated. As medical uses for different honeys are being re-evaluated, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of A3IS against a comprehensive panel of human pathogens, including Pneumocystis species, providing a unique assessment against a panel of eukaryotic pathogens. Without exception, A3IS exhibited significant efficacy at 50% and 100% inhibitory concentrations against a broad spectrum of human pathogens including yeasts, molds (both hyaline and dematiaceous), and dimorphic fungi. Notably, A3IS was effective against fungal strains with a high level of resistance to fluconazole or voriconazole. The 50% inhibitory concentrations for Pneumocystis carinii and P. murina (surrogates for P. jirovecii) were considered "Marked" and "Moderate" on an established rank scale, and would be considered for in vivo studies, based on an established in vitro-in vivo pipeline. These results indicate that A3IS is a novel anti-fungal agent against an extensive range of human fungal pathogens.

Noninvasive Testing and Surrogate Markers in Invasive Fungal Diseases.

Invasive fungal infections continue to increase as at-risk populations expand. The high associated morbidity and mortality with fungal diseases mandate the continued investigation of novel antifungal agents and diagnostic strategies that include surrogate biomarkers. Biologic markers of disease are useful prognostic indicators during clinical care, and their use in place of traditional survival end points may allow for more rapid conduct of clinical trials requiring fewer participants, decreased trial expense, and limited need for long-term follow-up. A number of fungal biomarkers have been developed and extensively evaluated in prospective clinical trials and small series. We examine the evidence for these surrogate biomarkers in this review and provide recommendations for clinicians and regulatory authorities.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Invasive Fungal Infection.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19-associated fungal infections.

SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific memory B cells express higher levels of T-bet and FcRL5 after non-severe COVID-19 as compared to severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits a robust B cell response, resulting in the generation of long-lived plasma cells and memory B cells. Here, we aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 severity on the memory B cell response and characterize changes in the memory B cell compartment between recovery and five months post-symptom onset. Using high-parameter spectral flow cytometry, we analyzed the phenotype of memory B cells with reactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) in recovered individuals who had been hospitalized with non-severe (n = 8) or severe (n = 5) COVID-19. One month after symptom onset, a substantial proportion of spike-specific IgG+ B cells showed an activated phenotype. In individuals who experienced non-severe disease, spike-specific IgG+ B cells showed increased expression of markers associated with durable B cell memory, including T-bet and FcRL5, as compared to individuals who experienced severe disease. While the frequency of T-bet+ spike-specific IgG+ B cells differed between the two groups, these cells predominantly showed an activated switched memory B cell phenotype in both groups. Five months post-symptom onset, the majority of spike-specific memory B cells had a resting phenotype and the percentage of spike-specific T-bet+ IgG+ memory B cells decreased to baseline levels. Collectively, our results highlight subtle differences in the B cells response after non-severe and severe COVID-19 and suggest that the memory B cell response elicited during non-severe COVID-19 may be of higher quality than the response after severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific memory B cells express markers of durable immunity after non-severe COVID-19 but not after severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits a robust B cell response, resulting in the generation of long-lived plasma cells and memory B cells. Here, we aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 severity on the memory B cell response and characterize changes in the memory B cell compartment between recovery and five months post-symptom onset. Using high-parameter spectral flow cytometry, we analyzed the phenotype of memory B cells with reactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) in recovered individuals who had been hospitalized with non-severe (n=8) or severe (n=5) COVID-19. One month after symptom onset, a substantial proportion of spike-specific IgG + B cells showed an activated phenotype. In individuals who experienced non-severe disease, spike-specific IgG + B cells showed increased expression of markers associated with durable B cell memory, including T-bet, FcRL5, and CD11c, which was not observed after severe disease. Five months post-symptom onset, the majority of spike-specific memory B cells had a resting phenotype and the percentage of spike-specific T-bet + IgG + memory B cells decreased to baseline levels. Collectively, our results suggest that the memory B cell response elicited during non-severe COVID-19 may be of higher quality than the response after severe disease.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).