De novo emergence of a remdesivir resistance mutation during treatment of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in an immunocompromised patient: A case report

SARS-CoV-2 remdesivir resistance mutations have been generated in vitro but have not been reported in patients receiving treatment with the antiviral agent. We present a case of an immunocompromised patient with acquired B-cell deficiency who developed an indolent, protracted course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remdesivir therapy alleviated symptoms and produced a transient virologic response, but her course was complicated by recrudescence of high-grade viral shedding. Whole genome sequencing identified a mutation, E802D, in the nsp12 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which was not present in pre-treatment specimens. In vitro experiments demonstrated that the mutation conferred a [~]6-fold increase in remdesivir IC50 but resulted in a fitness cost in the absence of remdesivir. Sustained clinical and virologic response was achieved after treatment with casirivimab-imdevimab. Although the fitness cost observed in vitro may limit the risk posed by E802D, this case illustrates the importance of monitoring for remdesivir resistance and the potential benefit of combinatorial therapies in immunocompromised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Longitudinal immune profiling of a SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a solid organ transplant recipient

Prior to the emergence of antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants, reinfections were reported infrequently - presumably due to the generation of durable and protective immune responses. However, case reports also suggested that rare, repeated infections may occur as soon as 48 days following initial disease onset. The underlying immunologic deficiencies enabling SARS-CoV-2 reinfections are currently unknown. Here we describe a renal transplant recipient who developed recurrent, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection - confirmed by whole virus genome sequencing - 7 months after primary infection. To elucidate the immunological mechanisms responsible for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, we performed longitudinal profiling of cellular and humoral responses during both primary and recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found that the patient responded to the primary infection with transient, poor-quality adaptive immune responses. The patients immune system was further compromised by intervening treatment for acute rejection of the renal allograft prior to reinfection. Importantly, we also identified the development of neutralizing antibodies and the formation of humoral memory responses prior to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. However, these neutralizing antibodies failed to confer protection against reinfection, suggesting that additional factors are required for efficient prevention of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Further, we found no evidence supporting viral evasion of primary adaptive immune responses, suggesting that susceptibility to reinfection may be determined by host factors rather than pathogen adaptation in this patient. In summary, our study suggests that a low neutralizing antibody presence alone is not sufficient to confer resistance against reinfection. Thus, patients with solid organ transplantation, or patients who are otherwise immunosuppressed, who recover from infection with SARS-CoV-2 may not develop sufficient protective immunity and are at risk of reinfection.

Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs

Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to be used as assay standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used (1) RNA transcript standards, (2) full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, (3) pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, and (4) clinical samples from COVID-19 patients to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of the qRT-PCR primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 virus copies per reaction, except for the RdRp-SARSr (Charite) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity. Our findings characterize the limitations of currently used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.