Noninvasive diagnosis of secondary infections in COVID-19 by sequencing of plasma microbial cell-free DNA.

BackgroundSecondary infection (SI) diagnosis in COVID-19 is challenging, due to overlapping clinical presentations, practical limitations in obtaining samples from the lower respiratory tract (LRT), and low sensitivity of microbiologic cultures. Research QuestionCan metagenomic sequencing of plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA-Seq) help diagnose SIs complicating COVID-19? Study Design and MethodsWe enrolled 42 inpatients with COVID-19 classified as microbiologically-confirmed SI (Micro-SI, n=8), clinically-diagnosed SI (Clinical-SI, n=13, i.e. empiric antimicrobials), or no clinical suspicion for SI (No-Suspected-SI, n=21) at time of enrollment. From baseline and follow-up plasma samples (days 5 and 10 post-enrollment), we quantified mcfDNA for all detected microbes by mcfDNA sequencing and measured nine host-response biomarkers. From LRT samples among intubated subjects, we quantified bacterial burden with 16S rRNA gene quantitative PCR. ResultsWe performed mcfDNA-Seq in 82 plasma samples. Sequencing was successful in 60/82 (73.2%) samples, which had significantly lower levels of human cfDNA than failed samples (p<0.0001). McfDNA detection was significantly higher in Micro-SI (15/16 [94%]) compared to Clinical-SI samples (8/14 [57%], p=0.03), and unexpectedly common in No-Suspected-SI samples (25/30 [83%]), similar to detection rate in Micro-SI. We detected culture-concordant mcfDNA species in 13/16 Micro-SI samples (81%) and mcfDNA levels tracked with SI outcome (resolution or persistence) under antibiotic therapy. McfDNA levels correlated significantly with LRT bacterial burden (r=0.74, p=0.02) as well as plasma biomarkers of host response (white blood cell count, IL-6, IL-8, and SPD, all p<0.05). Baseline mcfDNA levels were predictive of worse 90-day survival (hazard ratio 1.30 [1.02-1.64] for each log10 mcfDNA, p=0.03). InterpretationHigh circulating levels of mcfDNA in a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 without clinical suspicion for SI suggest that SIs may often remain undiagnosed. McfDNA-Seq, when clinically available, can offer a non-invasive diagnostic tool for pathogen identification, with prognostic value on host inflammatory response and clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab during Delta variant surge: a prospective cohort study and comparative effectiveness randomized trial

IMPORTANCEThe effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab, for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from the Delta variant is unknown. OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs for the Delta variant compared to no treatment, and the comparative effectiveness between mAbs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSTwo parallel studies among patients who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria for mAbs from July 14, 2021 to September 29, 2021: i.) prospective observational cohort study comparing mAb treatment to no mAb treatment and, ii.) Bayesian adaptive randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab versus sotrovimab. In the observational study, we compared eligible patients who received mAb at an outpatient infusion center at UPMC, to nontreated patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly allocated casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab to patients presenting to infusion centers and emergency departments, per system therapeutic interchange policy. EXPOSUREIntravenous mAb per their EUA criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFor the observational study, risk ratio estimates for hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment to no mAb treatment using propensity matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day) in a Bayesian cumulative logistic model, adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio <1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. RESULTSAmong 3,558 patients receiving mAb, the mean age was 54 (SD 18 years), 1,511 (43%) were treated in an infusion center, and 450 (13%) were hospitalized or died by day 28. In propensity matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR)=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). Both casirivimab and imdevimab (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.50), and sotrovimab (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00) reduced hospitalization or death compared to no mAb treatment. Among patients allocated randomly to casirivimab and imdevimab (n=2,454) or sotrovimab (n=1,104), the median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28-28) for both groups, 28-day mortality was 0.5% (n=12) and 0.6% (n=7), and hospitalization by day 28 was 12% (n=291) and 12% (n=140), respectively. Compared to casirivimab and imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab. This odds ratio yielded 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were both associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04790786 Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, what is the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to no treatment, and what is the comparative effectiveness between mAb? FindingsAmong 3,069 patients, mAb treatment (casirivimab and imdevimab or sotrovimab) was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 28 days compared to no treatment (risk ratio=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). In a Bayesian randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab and imdevimab vs. sotrovimab in 3,558 patients, the median hospital-free days were 28 days for both groups. Compared to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab, an 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. MeaningIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.

A Learning Health System Randomized Trial of Monoclonal Antibodies for Covid-19

BackgroundNeutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. Yet, their clinical use is limited, and comparative effectiveness is unknown. MethodsWe present the first results of an ongoing, learning health system adaptive platform trial to expand mAb treatment to all eligible patients and evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available mAbs. The trial launched March 10, 2021. Results are reported as of June 25, 2021 due to the U.S. federal decision to pause distribution of bamlanivimab-etesevimab; patient follow-up concluded on July 23, 2021. Patients referred for mAb who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria were provided a random mAb allocation of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, or casirivimab-imdevimab with a therapeutic interchange policy. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model of all patients treated at an infusion center or emergency department, adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. ResultsPrior to trial launch, 3.1% (502) of 16,345 patients who were potentially eligible by an automated electronic health record (EHR) screen received mAb. During the trial period, 23.2% (1,201) of 5,173 EHR-screen eligible patients were treated, a 7.5-fold increase. After including additional referred patients from outside the health system, a total of 1,935 study patients received mAb therapy (128 bamlanivimab, 885 bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 922 casirivimab-imdevimab). Mean age ranged from 55 to 57 years, half were female (range, 53% to 54%), and 17% were Black (range, 12% to 19%). Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR, 28 to 28) for each mAb group. Hospitalization varied between groups (bamlanivimab, 12.5%; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 14.7%, casirivimab-imdevimab, 14.3%). Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval (CI), 0.30 to 1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.24) for the bamlanivimab and bamlanivimab-etesevimab groups, respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab respectively, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, at the prespecified odds ratio bound of 0.25. Twenty-one infusion-related adverse events occurred in 0% (0/128), 1.4% (12/885), and 1.0% (9/922) of patients treated with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. ConclusionIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, bamlanivimab, compared to bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, resulted in 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority with regards to odds of improvement in hospital-free days within 28 days. There was an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab at an odds ratio bound of 0.25. However, the trial was unblinded early due to federal distribution decisions, and no mAb met prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786).

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Immunocompromised Patients: An Observational, Prospective Cohort Study Interim Analysis

ObjectivesImmunocompromised patients were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to measure antibody responses, levels, and neutralization capability after COVID-19 vaccination among immunocompromised patients and compare these variables to those of immunocompetent healthcare workers. MethodsThis is an interim analysis of an ongoing observational, prospective cohort study which launched on April 14, 2021 across Western Pennsylvania. Participants were healthy healthcare workers (HCW) and immunocompromised patients who had completed their COVID-19 vaccination series. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 were not eligible. Serum was collected to measure for the presence of IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein using a semi-quantitative assay; antibody levels were available for comparisons. A quasi-random subset of patients was selected for pseudovirus neutralization assays. Seropositivity with 95% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence intervals and distribution of antibody levels were measured. To identify risk factors for seronegativity, clinical characteristics were univariately compared between antibody reactive and non-reactive individuals within the immunocompromised group. Results107 HCW and 489 immunocompromised patients were enrolled. Compared to HCWs, seropositivity was significantly lower (p<.001) among immunocompromised patients with Solid organ transplant (SOT), autoimmune, hematological malignancies, and solid tumors (HCW=98.1%; SOT=37.2%; autoimmune=83.8%; hematological malignancies=54.7%; and solid tumor=82.4%, p < 0.05). Over 94% of patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus were seropositive. Among seropositive patients, antibody levels were much lower among SOT (4.5 [2.1,13.1], p=.020). Neutralization titers tightly correlated with antibody levels (Spearman r = 0.91, p < 0.0001). ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccines based on underlying immunosuppressive condition and highlight an urgent need to optimize and individualize COVID-19 prevention in these patients. These findings also have implications on public health guidance, particularly given revised Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations permitting vaccinated individuals to abandon masking and social distancing in most settings. Future studies are warranted to determine assessment of cellular immunity, longitudinal measurement of immune responses, and the safety and efficacy of revaccination.

Suboptimal response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in hematologic malignancies patients

Studies describing SARS-CoV-2 immune responses following mRNA vaccination in hematology malignancy (HM) patients are virtually non-existent. We measured SARS-CoV-2 IgG production in 67 HM patients who received 2 mRNA vaccine doses. We found that 46% of HM patients did not produce antibodies and were therefore vaccine non-responders. Patients with B-cell CLL were at a particularly high risk, as only 23% had detectable antibodies despite the fact that nearly 70% of these patients were not undergoing cancer therapy. HM patients should be counseled about the ongoing risk of COVID-19 despite vaccination. Routine measurement of post-vaccine antibodies in HM patients should be considered. Novel strategies are needed to prevent COVID-19 in these individuals.

Impact of monoclonal antibody treatment on hospitalization and mortality among non-hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection

BackgroundMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment may prevent complications of COVID-19. We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monotherapy on hospitalizations and mortality, as well as Emergency Department (ED) visits without hospitalization, among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. MethodsWe compared patients receiving mAb to patients who met criteria but did not receive mAb from December 2020 through March 2021. The study population selection used propensity scores to match 1:1 by likelihood to receive mAb. The primary outcome was hospitalization or all-cause mortality within 28 days; the secondary outcome was hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization within 28 days. Odds ratios (OR) calculation used logistic regression modeling including propensity score and mAb receipt predictors. ResultsThe study population included 234 patients receiving mAb and 234 matched comparator patients not receiving mAb. Patients receiving mAb were less likely to experience hospitalization or mortality (OR 0.31, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.17-0.56, p=0.00001) and hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.43-0.83, p=0.007). The impact of mAb was more pronounced in prevention of hospitalization (among all age groups, OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.19-0.66, p=0.001) than mortality or ED visit without hospitalization, and most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older (primary outcome OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.14-0.56, p=0.0003). ConclusionsBamlanivimab monotherapy was associated with reduction in the composite outcome of hospitalizations and mortality in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. The benefit may be strongest in preventing hospitalization in patients ages 65 years or older.

Natural deletions in the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein drive antibody escape

Zoonotic pandemics, like that caused by SARS-CoV-2, can follow the spillover of animal viruses into highly susceptible human populations. Their descendants have adapted to the human host and evolved to evade immune pressure. Coronaviruses acquire substitutions more slowly than other RNA viruses, due to a proofreading polymerase. In the spike glycoprotein, we find recurrent deletions overcome this slow substitution rate. Deletion variants arise in diverse genetic and geographic backgrounds, transmit efficiently, and are present in novel lineages, including those of current global concern. They frequently occupy recurrent deletion regions (RDRs), which map to defined antibody epitopes. Deletions in RDRs confer resistance to neutralizing antibodies. By altering stretches of amino acids, deletions appear to accelerate SARS-CoV-2 antigenic evolution and may, more generally, drive adaptive evolution.