Randomized Trial of Vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Disease.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain concerning the rapidity of immune responses and the durability and safety of vaccines used to prevent Zaire Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled trials - one involving adults and one involving children - to evaluate the safety and immune responses of three vaccine regimens against Zaire Ebola virus disease: Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo 56 days later (the Ad26-MVA group), rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by placebo 56 days later (the rVSV group), and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP 56 days later (the rVSV-booster group). The primary end point was antibody response at 12 months, defined as having both a 12-month antibody concentration of at least 200 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU) per milliliter and an increase from baseline in the antibody concentration by at least a factor of 4. RESULTS: A total of 1400 adults and 1401 children underwent randomization. Among both adults and children, the incidence of injection-site reactions and symptoms (e.g., feverishness and headache) was higher in the week after receipt of the primary and second or booster vaccinations than after receipt of placebo but not at later time points. These events were largely low-grade. At month 12, a total of 41% of adults (titer, 401 EU per milliliter) and 78% of children (titer, 828 EU per milliliter) had a response in the Ad26-MVA group; 76% (titer, 992 EU per milliliter) and 87% (titer, 1415 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV group; 81% (titer, 1037 EU per milliliter) and 93% (titer, 1745 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV-booster group; and 3% (titer, 93 EU per milliliter) and 4% (titer, 67 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons of vaccine with placebo). In both adults and children, antibody responses with vaccine differed from those with placebo beginning on day 14. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified in this trial. With all three vaccine regimens, immune responses were seen from day 14 through month 12. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PREVAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876328; EudraCT numbers, 2017-001798-18 and 2017-001798-18/3rd; and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR201712002760250.).

National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel: Perspectives and Lessons Learned.

DESCRIPTION: In March 2020, the White House Coronavirus Task Force determined that clinicians in the United States needed expert treatment guidelines to optimally manage patients with COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease caused by a new pathogen for which no specific treatments were known to be effective. METHODS: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) take the lead in expeditiously convening a panel of experts to create "living" guidelines that would be widely accessible and capable of frequent updating as important new information became available. RECOMMENDATIONS: The purpose of this article is to expand on the experiences of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) over the past 4 years, summarize the Panel's final recommendations for COVID-19, highlight some challenges and unanswered questions about COVID-19 management, and inform future responses to public health emergencies. The Panel was formed in March 2020, and the first iteration of the guidelines was released in April 2020. Now that the public health emergency has ended, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines have sunsetted. This role will now fall to professional societies and organizations, such as the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the World Health Organization, all of which have been active in this area.

Transcriptionally Active Defective HIV-1 Proviruses and Their Association With Immunological Nonresponse to Antiretroviral Therapy.

A subset of antiretroviral therapy-treated persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), referred to as immunological nonresponders (INRs), fails to normalize CD4+ T-cell numbers. In a case-control study involving 26 INRs (CD4 < 250 cells/µL) and 25 immunological responders (IRs; CD4 ≥ 250 cells/µL), we evaluated the potential contribution of transcriptionally competent defective HIV-1 proviruses to poor CD4+ T-cell recovery. Compared to the responders, the INRs had higher levels of cell-associated HIV RNA (P = .034) and higher percentages of HLA-DR+ CD4+ T cells (P < .001). While not encoding replication-competent viruses, the RNA transcripts frequently encoded HIV-1 Gag-p17 and Nef proteins. These transcripts and/or resulting proteins may activate pathway(s) leading to the immunological nonresponse phenotype.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Nucleocapsid Antigen Are Blood Biomarkers Associated With Severe Disease Outcomes That Improve in Response to Remdesivir.

BACKGROUND: Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1, which randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. METHODS: Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 patients with COVID-19 were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/mL vs 1.04 (95% CI, .76-1.42) for levels <245 pg/mL. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04280705 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Evaluation of the feasibility and efficacy of point-of-care antibody tests for biomarker guided management of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests. METHODS: COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome. RESULTS: While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard.

SARS-CoV-2 Plasma Antibody and Nucleocapsid Antigen Status Predict Outcomes in Outpatients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Reliable biomarkers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes are critically needed. We evaluated associations of spike antibody (Ab) and plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N Ag) with clinical outcomes in nonhospitalized persons with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: Participants were nonhospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 enrolled in ACTIV-2 between January and July 2021 and randomized to placebo. We used quantitative assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike Ab and N Ag in blood and determined numbers of hospitalization/death events within 28 days and time to symptom improvement. RESULTS: Of 209 participants, 77 (37%) had quantifiable spike Ab and 139 (67%) quantifiable N Ag. Median age was 50 years; 111 (53%) were female, 182 (87%) White, and 105 (50%) Hispanic/Latino. Higher risk of hospitalization/death was seen with unquantifiable (22/132 [16.7%]) versus quantifiable (1/77 [1.3%]) spike Ab (risk ratio [RR], 12.83 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.76-93.34]) and quantifiable (22/139 [15.8%]) vs unquantifiable (1/70 [1.4%]) N Ag (RR, 11.08 [95% CI, 1.52-80.51]). Increasing risk of hospitalizations/deaths was seen with increasing N Ag levels. Time to symptom improvement was longer with unquantifiable versus quantifiable spike Ab (median, 14 [interquartile range {IQR}, 8 to >27] vs 8 [IQR, 4-22] days; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66 [95% CI, .45-.96]) and with quantifiable versus unquantifiable N Ag (median, 12 [7 to >27] vs 10 [5-22] days; aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, .52-1.21]). CONCLUSIONS: Absence of spike Ab and presence of plasma N Ag predicted hospitalization/death and delayed symptom improvement in COVID-19 outpatients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04518410.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and has been reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes. Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials. METHODS: We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome was the patient's clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-point ordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 to receive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment in the trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the most frequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had a median titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to 1:3200). No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant difference was noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in the distribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P = 0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96% in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. (PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.).

Novel subtypes of severe COVID-19 respiratory failure based on biological heterogeneity: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID). METHODS: Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes. RESULTS: Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches.

DAVID: a web server for functional enrichment analysis and functional annotation of gene lists (2021 update).

DAVID is a popular bioinformatics resource system including a web server and web service for functional annotation and enrichment analyses of gene lists. It consists of a comprehensive knowledgebase and a set of functional analysis tools. Here, we report all updates made in 2021. The DAVID Gene system was rebuilt to gain coverage of more organisms, which increased the taxonomy coverage from 17 399 to 55 464. All existing annotation types have been updated, if available, based on the new DAVID Gene system. Compared with the last version, the number of gene-term records for most annotation types within the updated Knowledgebase have significantly increased. Moreover, we have incorporated new annotations in the Knowledgebase including small molecule-gene interactions from PubChem, drug-gene interactions from DrugBank, tissue expression information from the Human Protein Atlas, disease information from DisGeNET, and pathways from WikiPathways and PathBank. Eight of ten subgroups split from Uniprot Keyword annotation were assigned to specific types. Finally, we added a species parameter for uploading a list of gene symbols to minimize the ambiguity between species, which increases the efficiency of the list upload and eliminates confusion for users. These current updates have significantly expanded the Knowledgebase and enhanced the discovery power of DAVID.

Molecular Imaging of Infections: Advancing the Search for the Hidden Enemy.

Even before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, infections were a major threat to human health, as the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of morbidity among all human diseases. Although conventional imaging studies are routinely used for patients with infections, they provide structural or anatomic information only. Molecular imaging technologies enable noninvasive visualization of molecular processes at the cellular level within intact living subjects, including patients, and hold great potential for infections. We hope that this supplement will spur interest in the field and establish new collaborations to develop and translate novel molecular imaging approaches to the clinic.

Investigation of Causal Effects of Protein Biomarkers on Cardiovascular Disease in Persons With HIV.

BACKGROUND: There is an incompletely understood increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among people with HIV (PWH). We investigated if a collection of biomarkers were associated with CVD among PWH. Mendelian randomization (MR) was used to identify potentially causal associations. METHODS: Data from follow-up in 4 large trials among PWH were used to identify 131 incident CVD cases and they were matched to 259 participants without incident CVD (controls). Tests of associations between 460 baseline protein levels and case status were conducted. RESULTS: Univariate analysis found CLEC6A, HGF, IL-6, IL-10RB, and IGFBP7 as being associated with case status and a multivariate model identified 3 of these: CLEC6A (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, P = .037), HGF (OR = 1.83, P = .012), and IL-6 (OR = 1.45, P = .016). MR methods identified 5 significantly associated proteins: AXL, CHI3L1, GAS6, IL-6RA, and SCGB3A2. CONCLUSIONS: These results implicate inflammatory and fibrotic processes as contributing to CVD. While some of these biomarkers are well established in the general population and in PWH (IL-6 and its receptor), some are novel to PWH (HGF, AXL, and GAS6) and some are novel overall (CLEC6A). Further investigation into the uniqueness of these biomarkers in PWH and the role of these biomarkers as targets among PWH is warranted.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

QuasiSeq: profiling viral quasispecies via self-tuning spectral clustering with PacBio long sequencing reads.

MOTIVATION: The existence of quasispecies in the viral population causes difficulties for disease prevention and treatment. High-throughput sequencing provides opportunity to determine rare quasispecies and long sequencing reads covering full genomes reduce quasispecies determination to a clustering problem. The challenge is high similarity of quasispecies and high error rate of long sequencing reads. RESULTS: We developed QuasiSeq using a novel signature-based self-tuning clustering method, SigClust, to profile viral mixtures with high accuracy and sensitivity. QuasiSeq can correctly identify quasispecies even using low-quality sequencing reads (accuracy <80%) and produce quasispecies sequences with high accuracy (≥99.55%). Using high-quality circular consensus sequencing reads, QuasiSeq can produce quasispecies sequences with 100% accuracy. QuasiSeq has higher sensitivity and specificity than similar published software. Moreover, the requirement of the computational resource can be controlled by the size of the signature, which makes it possible to handle big sequencing data for rare quasispecies discovery. Furthermore, parallel computation is implemented to process the clusters and further reduce the runtime. Finally, we developed a web interface for the QuasiSeq workflow with simple parameter settings based on the quality of sequencing data, making it easy to use for users without advanced data science skills. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: QuasiSeq is open source and freely available at https://github.com/LHRI-Bioinformatics/QuasiSeq. The current release (v1.0.0) is archived and available at https://zenodo.org/badge/latestdoi/340494542. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Defective HIV-1 proviruses produce viral proteins.

HIV-1 proviruses persist in the CD4+ T cells of HIV-infected individuals despite years of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with suppression of HIV-1 RNA levels <40 copies/mL. Greater than 95% of these proviruses detected in circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are referred to as "defective" by virtue of having large internal deletions and lethal genetic mutations. As these defective proviruses are unable to encode intact and replication-competent viruses, they have long been thought of as biologically irrelevant "graveyard" of viruses with little significance to HIV-1 pathogenesis. Contrary to this notion, we have recently demonstrated that these defective proviruses are not silent, are capable of transcribing novel unspliced forms of HIV-RNA transcripts with competent open reading frames (ORFs), and can be found in the peripheral blood CD4+ T cells of patients at all stages of HIV-1 infection. In the present study, by an approach of combining serial dilutions of CD4+ T cells and T cell-cloning technologies, we are able to demonstrate that defective proviruses that persist in HIV-infected individuals during suppressive cART are translationally competent and produce the HIV-1 Gag and Nef proteins. The HIV-RNA transcripts expressed from these defective proviruses may trigger an element of innate immunity. Likewise, the viral proteins coded in the defective proviruses may form extracellular virus-like particles and may trigger immune responses. The persistent production of HIV-1 proteins in the absence of viral replication helps explain persistent immune activation despite HIV-1 levels below detection, and also presents new challenges to HIV-1 eradication.

A Longitudinal Study of COVID-19 Sequelae and Immunity: Baseline Findings.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of persons who develop COVID-19 report persistent symptoms after acute illness. Various pathophysiologic mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). OBJECTIVE: To characterize medical sequelae and persistent symptoms after recovery from COVID-19 in a cohort of disease survivors and controls. DESIGN: Cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04411147). SETTING: National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Self-referred adults with laboratory-documented SARS-CoV-2 infection who were at least 6 weeks from symptom onset were enrolled regardless of presence of PASC. A control group comprised persons with no history of COVID-19 or serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, recruited regardless of their current health status. Both groups were enrolled over the same period and from the same geographic area. MEASUREMENTS: All participants had the same evaluations regardless of presence of symptoms, including physical examination, laboratory tests and questionnaires, cognitive function testing, and cardiopulmonary evaluation. A subset also underwent exploratory immunologic and virologic evaluations. RESULTS: 189 persons with laboratory-documented COVID-19 (12% of whom were hospitalized during acute illness) and 120 antibody-negative control participants were enrolled. At enrollment, symptoms consistent with PASC were reported by 55% of the COVID-19 cohort and 13% of control participants. Increased risk for PASC was noted in women and those with a history of anxiety disorder. Participants with findings meeting the definition of PASC reported lower quality of life on standardized testing. Abnormal findings on physical examination and diagnostic testing were uncommon. Neutralizing antibody levels to spike protein were negative in 27% of the unvaccinated COVID-19 cohort and none of the vaccinated COVID-19 cohort. Exploratory studies found no evidence of persistent viral infection, autoimmunity, or abnormal immune activation in participants with PASC. LIMITATIONS: Most participants with COVID-19 had mild to moderate acute illness that did not require hospitalization. The prevalence of reported PASC was likely overestimated in this cohort because persons with PASC may have been more motivated to enroll. The study did not capture PASC that resolved before enrollment. CONCLUSION: A high burden of persistent symptoms was observed in persons after COVID-19. Extensive diagnostic evaluation revealed no specific cause of reported symptoms in most cases. Antibody levels were highly variable after COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

A Longitudinal Study of Ebola Sequelae in Liberia.

BACKGROUND: Multiple health problems have been reported in survivors of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Attribution of these problems to the disease without a control group for analysis is difficult. METHODS: We enrolled a cohort of EVD survivors and their close contacts and prospectively collected data on symptoms, physical examination findings, and laboratory results. A subset of participants underwent ophthalmologic examinations. Persistence of Ebola virus (EBOV) RNA in semen samples from survivors was determined. RESULTS: A total of 966 EBOV antibody-positive survivors and 2350 antibody-negative close contacts (controls) were enrolled, and 90% of these participants were followed for 12 months. At enrollment (median time to baseline visit, 358 days after symptom onset), six symptoms were reported significantly more often among survivors than among controls: urinary frequency (14.7% vs. 3.4%), headache (47.6% vs. 35.6%), fatigue (18.4% vs. 6.3%), muscle pain (23.1% vs. 10.1%), memory loss (29.2% vs. 4.8%), and joint pain (47.5% vs. 17.5%). On examination, more survivors than controls had abnormal abdominal, chest, neurologic, and musculoskeletal findings and uveitis. Other than uveitis (prevalence at enrollment, 26.4% vs. 12.1%; at year 1, 33.3% vs. 15.4%), the prevalence of these conditions declined during follow-up in both groups. The incidence of most symptoms, neurologic findings, and uveitis was greater among survivors than among controls. EBOV RNA was detected in semen samples from 30% of the survivors tested, with a maximum time from illness to detection of 40 months. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high burden of symptoms was seen in all participants, but certain symptoms and examination findings were more common among survivors. With the exception of uveitis, these conditions declined in prevalence during follow-up in both groups. Viral RNA in semen persisted for a maximum of 40 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Eye Institute; PREVAIL III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02431923.).

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P = 0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.).