Characterization of treatment resistance and viral kinetics in the setting of single- versus dual-active monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for 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 non-hospitalized 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- and dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared to single-active mAb, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study day 3 (p < 0.001) and day 7 (p < 0.01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than placebo (2.6% vs 0%, P < 0.001), and more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared to dual-active mAb treatment (7.2% vs 1.1%, p < 0.01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death. CONCLUSION: Compared to 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.

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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Virologic Rebound With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Therapy : An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Data are conflicting regarding an association between treatment of acute COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (N-R) and virologic rebound (VR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of VR in patients with and without N-R treatment for acute COVID-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter health care system in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory adults with acute COVID-19 with and without use of N-R. INTERVENTION: Receipt of 5 days of N-R treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was VR, defined as either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture result after a prior negative result or 2 consecutive viral loads above 4.0 log10 copies/mL that were also at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL higher than a prior viral load below 4.0 log10 copies/mL. RESULTS: Compared with untreated persons (n = 55), those taking N-R (n = 72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and more commonly had immunosuppression. Fifteen participants (20.8%) taking N-R had VR versus 1 (1.8%) who was untreated (absolute difference, 19.0 percentage points [95% CI, 9.0 to 29.0 percentage points]; P = 0.001). All persons with VR had a positive viral culture result after a prior negative result. In multivariable models, only N-R use was associated with VR (adjusted odds ratio, 10.02 [CI, 1.13 to 88.74]; P = 0.038). Virologic rebound was more common among those who started therapy within 2 days of symptom onset (26.3%) than among those who started 2 or more days after symptom onset (0%) (P = 0.030). Among participants receiving N-R, those who had VR had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared with those who did not have VR (median, 14 vs. 3 days). Eight of 16 participants (50% [CI, 25% to 75%]) with VR also reported symptom rebound; 2 were completely asymptomatic. No post-VR resistance mutations were detected. LIMITATIONS: Observational study design with differences between the treated and untreated groups; positive viral culture result was used as a surrogate marker for risk for ongoing viral transmission. CONCLUSION: Virologic rebound occurred in approximately 1 in 5 people taking N-R, often without symptom rebound, and was associated with shedding of replication-competent virus. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 760 million cases and 6.9 million deaths worldwide. To mitigate the loss of lives, 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 susceptible variants. 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 anti-viral 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.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Clearance and Evolution Varies by Extent of Immunodeficiency.

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the immune defects that predispose to persistent 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 time to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in the severe hematologic malignancy/transplant group (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, which were significantly longer than clearance rates in the severe autoimmune/B-cell deficient (S-A), non-severe, and non-immunocompromised groups (P<0.001). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing antiviral treatment resistance. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral, while only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.

Variant-Specific Viral Kinetics in Acute COVID-19.

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

SARS-CoV-2 virologic rebound with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy.

Objective: To compare the frequency of replication-competent virologic rebound with and without nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19. Secondary aims were to estimate the validity of symptoms to detect rebound and the incidence of emergent nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations after rebound. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Multicenter healthcare system in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants: We enrolled ambulatory adults with a positive COVID-19 test and/or a prescription for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Exposures: Receipt of 5 days of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was COVID-19 virologic rebound, defined as either (1) a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture following a prior negative culture or (2) two consecutive viral loads ≥4.0 log10 copies/milliliter after a prior reduction in viral load to <4.0 log10 copies/milliliter. Results: Compared with untreated individuals (n=55), those taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n=72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and were more commonly immunosuppressed. Fifteen individuals (20.8%) taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir experienced virologic rebound versus one (1.8%) of the untreated (absolute difference 19.0% [95%CI 9.0-29.0%], P=0.001). In multivariable models, only N-R was associated with VR (AOR 10.02, 95%CI 1.13-88.74). VR occurred more commonly among those with earlier nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiation (29.0%, 16.7% and 0% when initiated days 0, 1, and ≥2 after diagnosis, respectively, P=0.089). Among participants on N-R, those experiencing rebound had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared to those that did not rebound (median: 14 vs 3 days). Only 8/16 with virologic rebound reported worsening symptoms (50%, 95%CI 25%-75%); 2 were completely asymptomatic. We detected no post-rebound nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations in the NSP5 protease gene. Conclusions and Relevance: Virologic rebound occurred in approximately one in five people taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and often occurred without worsening symptoms. Because it is associated with replication-competent viral shedding, close monitoring and potential isolation of those who rebound should be considered.

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.

S:D614G and S:H655Y are gateway mutations that act epistatically to promote SARS-CoV-2 variant fitness.

SARS-CoV-2 variants bearing complex combinations of mutations that confer increased transmissibility, COVID-19 severity, and immune escape, were first detected after S:D614G had gone to fixation, and likely originated during persistent infection of immunocompromised hosts. To test the hypothesis that S:D614G facilitated emergence of such variants, S:D614G was reverted to the ancestral sequence in the context of sequential Spike sequences from an immunocompromised individual, and within each of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In all cases, infectivity of the S:D614G revertants was severely compromised. The infectivity of atypical SARS-CoV-2 lineages that propagated in the absence of S:D614G was found to be dependent upon either S:Q613H or S:H655Y. Notably, Gamma and Omicron variants possess both S:D614G and S:H655Y, each of which contributed to infectivity of these variants. Among sarbecoviruses, S:Q613H, S:D614G, and S:H655Y are only detected in SARS-CoV-2, which is also distinguished by a polybasic S1/S2 cleavage site. Genetic and biochemical experiments here showed that S:Q613H, S:D614G, and S:H655Y each stabilize Spike on virions, and that they are dispensable in the absence of S1/S2 cleavage, consistent with selection of these mutations by the S1/S2 cleavage site. CryoEM revealed that either S:D614G or S:H655Y shift the Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) towards the open conformation required for ACE2-binding and therefore on pathway for infection. Consistent with this, an smFRET reporter for RBD conformation showed that both S:D614G and S:H655Y spontaneously adopt the conformation that ACE2 induces in the parental Spike. Data from these orthogonal experiments demonstrate that S:D614G and S:H655Y are convergent adaptations to the polybasic S1/S2 cleavage site which stabilize S1 on the virion in the open RBD conformation and act epistatically to promote the fitness of variants bearing complex combinations of clinically significant mutations.

Cell culture systems for isolation of SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolates and generation of recombinant virus.

A simple and robust cell culture system is essential for generating authentic SARS-CoV-2 stocks for evaluation of viral pathogenicity, screening of antiviral compounds, and preparation of inactivated vaccines. Evidence suggests that Vero E6, a cell line commonly used in the field to grow SARS-CoV-2, does not support efficient propagation of new viral variants and triggers rapid cell culture adaptation of the virus. We generated a panel of 17 human cell lines overexpressing SARS-CoV-2 entry factors and tested their ability to support viral infection. Two cell lines, Caco-2/AT and HuH-6/AT, demonstrated exceptional susceptibility, yielding highly concentrated virus stocks. Notably, these cell lines were more sensitive than Vero E6 cells in recovering SARS-CoV-2 from clinical specimens. Further, Caco-2/AT cells provided a robust platform for producing genetically reliable recombinant SARS-CoV-2 through a reverse genetics system. These cellular models are a valuable tool for the study of SARS-CoV-2 and its continuously emerging variants.

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.

Spike and nsp6 are key determinants of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 attenuation.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is more immune evasive and less virulent than other major viral variants that have so far been recognized1-12. The Omicron spike (S) protein, which has an unusually large number of mutations, is considered to be the main driver of these phenotypes. Here we generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron (BA.1 lineage) in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate, and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escaped vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly owing to mutations in the receptor-binding motif; however, unlike naturally occurring Omicron, it efficiently replicated in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. Similarly, in K18-hACE2 mice, although virus bearing Omicron S caused less severe disease than the ancestral virus, its virulence was not attenuated to the level of Omicron. Further investigation showed that mutating non-structural protein 6 (nsp6) in addition to the S protein was sufficient to recapitulate the attenuated phenotype of Omicron. This indicates that although the vaccine escape of Omicron is driven by mutations in S, the pathogenicity of Omicron is determined by mutations both in and outside of the S protein.

Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron.

The recently identified, globally predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease compared with other major viral variants recognized to date. The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor binding motif (RBM), yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.

Characterization of Virologic Rebound Following Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

We enrolled 7 individuals with recurrent symptoms or antigen test conversion following nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment. High viral loads (median 6.1 log10 copies/mL) were detected after rebound for a median of 17 days after initial diagnosis. Three had culturable virus for up to 16 days after initial diagnosis. No known resistance-associated mutations were identified.

Vaccine breakthrough infection leads to distinct profiles of neutralizing antibody responses by SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 vaccination may differ by variant. We enrolled vaccinated (n = 39) and unvaccinated (n = 11) individuals with acute, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron infection and performed SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification, whole-genome sequencing, and variant-specific antibody characterization at the time of acute illness and convalescence. Viral load at the time of infection was inversely correlated with antibody binding and neutralizing antibody responses. Across all variants tested, convalescent neutralization titers in unvaccinated individuals were markedly lower than in vaccinated individuals. Increases in antibody titers and neutralizing activity occurred at convalescence in a variant-specific manner. For example, among individuals infected with the Delta variant, neutralizing antibody responses were weakest against BA.2, whereas infection with Omicron BA.1 variant generated a broader response against all tested variants, including BA.2.

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.

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.

Viral and Symptom Rebound in Untreated COVID-19 Infection.

Background: There are reports of viral RNA and symptom rebound in people with COVID-19 treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Since the natural course of viral and symptom trajectories of COVID-19 has not been well described, we evaluated the incidence of viral and symptom rebound in untreated outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19. Methods: The study population included 568 participants enrolled in the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform trial who received placebo. Anterior nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on days 0-14, 21 and 28. Participants recorded the severity of 13 targeted symptoms daily from day 0 to 28. Viral rebound was defined as ≥0.5 log10 viral RNA copies/mL increase and symptom rebound was defined as a 4-point total symptom score increase from baseline. Baseline was defined as study day 4 (primary analysis) or 8 days from symptom onset (secondary analysis). Findings: In both the primary and secondary analyses, 12% of participants had viral rebound. Viral rebounders were older than non-rebounders (median 54 vs 47 years, P=0.04). Symptom rebound occurred in 27% of participants after initial symptom improvement and in 10% of participants after initial symptom resolution. The combination of high-level viral rebound to ≥5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL and symptom rebound after initial improvement was observed in 1-2% of participants. Interpretation: Viral RNA rebound or symptom relapse in the absence of antiviral treatment is common, but the combination of high-level viral and symptom rebound is rare.