Effect of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Early Trajectories of Virologic and Immunologic Biomarkers in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) failed to show clear benefit for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Dynamics of virologic and immunologic biomarkers remain poorly understood. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 trials were randomized to nmAb versus placebo. Longitudinal differences between treatment and placebo groups in levels of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag), anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and D-dimer at enrollment, day 1, 3, and 5 were estimated using linear mixed models. A 7-point pulmonary ordinal scale assessed at day 5 was compared using proportional odds models. RESULTS: Analysis included 2149 participants enrolled between August 2020 and September 2021. Treatment resulted in 20% lower levels of plasma N-Ag compared with placebo (95% confidence interval, 12%-27%; P \u3c .001), and a steeper rate of decline through the first 5 days (P \u3c .001). The treatment difference did not vary between subgroups, and no difference was observed in trajectories of other biomarkers or the day 5 pulmonary ordinal scale. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that nmAb has an antiviral effect assessed by plasma N-Ag among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with no blunting of the endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response. No effect on systemic inflammation or day 5 clinical status was observed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04501978

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health

Characterizing Emerging Canine H3 Influenza Viruses.

The continual emergence of novel influenza A strains from non-human hosts requires constant vigilance and the need for ongoing research to identify strains that may pose a human public health risk. Since 1999, canine H3 influenza A viruses (CIVs) have caused many thousands or millions of respiratory infections in dogs in the United States. While no human infections with CIVs have been reported to date, these viruses could pose a zoonotic risk. In these studies, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) network collaboratively demonstrated that CIVs replicated in some primary human cells and transmitted effectively in mammalian models. While people born after 1970 had little or no pre-existing humoral immunity against CIVs, the viruses were sensitive to existing antivirals and we identified a panel of H3 cross-reactive human monoclonal antibodies (hmAbs) that could have prophylactic and/or therapeutic value. Our data predict these CIVs posed a low risk to humans. Importantly, we showed that the CEIRS network could work together to provide basic research information important for characterizing emerging influenza viruses, although there were valuable lessons learned

Intravenous peramivir vs oral oseltamivir in high-risk emergency department patients with influenza: Results from a pilot randomized controlled study

Background Peramivir offers a single-dose intravenous (IV) treatment option for influenza (vs 5-day oral dosing for oseltamivir). We sought to compare outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients at high risk for influenza complications treated with IV peramivir vs oral oseltamivir. Methods During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 influenza seasons, adult patients in two US EDs were randomized to either oral oseltamivir or IV peramivir treatment group. Eligibility included positive molecular influenza test; met CDC criteria for antiviral treatment; able to provide informed consent and agree to follow-up assessment. Outcomes were measured by clinical end-point indicators, including FLU-PRO Score, Ordinal Scale, Patient Global Impression on Severity Score, and Karnofsky Performance Scale for 14 days. Non-inferiorttest was performed to assess comparative outcomes between the two groups. Results Five hundred and seventy-five (68%) of 847 influenza-positive patients were approached. Two hundred and eighty-four met enrollment criteria and 179 were enrolled; of these 95 (53%) were randomized to peramivir, and 84 to oseltamivir. Average FLU-PRO score at baseline was similar (peramivir: 2.67 vs oseltamivir: 2.52); the score decreased over time for both groups (day 5: peramivir: 1.71 vs oseltamivir: 1.62; day 10: peramivir: 1.48 vs oseltamivir: 1.37; day 14: peramivir: 1.40 vs oseltamivir: 1.33; allP .05; pneumonia: peramivir: 11% vs oseltamivir: 14%,P > .05). Conclusions Clinical outcomes of influenza-infected patients treated with single-dose IV peramivir were comparable to those treated with oral oseltamivir, suggesting potential utility of peramivir for influenza-infected patients in the ED.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity among Emergency Department Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Center in Baltimore

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July 2020 in Baltimore), emergency department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) were considered to be at greater risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Limited data existed, however, on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its impact in this workforce population. We enrolled 191 ED HCWs from a tertiary academic center, administered baseline and weekly surveys, and tested them twice (July and December 2020) for serum antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Approximately 6% (11 of 191, 5.8%) of ED HCWs had spike antibodies in July, a prevalence that doubled by December (21 of 174, 12.1%). A positive PCR test was self-reported by 15 of 21 (71%) seropositive and 6 of 153 (4%) seronegative HCWs (p < 0.001). Of the total 27 HCWs who had antibodies and/or were PCR positive, none required hospitalization, 18 (67%) had a self-perceived COVID-19 illness, and 12 of the 18 reported symptoms. The median number of missed workdays was 8.5 (ranging from 2 to 21). While most seropositive ED HCWs who reported symptoms took work absences, none required hospitalization, indicating that COVID-19’s impact on staffing prior to vaccination was not as great as feared

Insights into an Optimization of Plasmodium vivax Sal-1 In Vitro Culture: The Aotus Primate Model

Malaria is one of the most significant tropical diseases, and of the Plasmodium species that cause human malaria, P. vivax is the most geographically widespread. However, P. vivax remains a relatively neglected human parasite since research is typically limited to laboratories with direct access to parasite isolates from endemic field settings or from non-human primate models. This restricted research capacity is in large part due to the lack of a continuous P. vivax in vitro culture system, which has hampered the ability for experimental research needed to gain biological knowledge and develop new therapies. Consequently, efforts to establish a long-term P. vivax culture system are confounded by our poor knowledge of the preferred host cell and essential nutrients needed for in vitro propagation. Reliance on very heterogeneous P. vivax field isolates makes it difficult to benchmark parasite characteristics and further complicates development of a robust and reliable culture method. In an effort to eliminate parasite variability as a complication, we used a well-defined Aotus-adapted P. vivax Sal-1 strain to empirically evaluate different short-term in vitro culture conditions and compare them with previous reported attempts at P. vivax in vitro culture Most importantly, we suggest that reticulocyte enrichment methods affect invasion efficiency and we identify stabilized forms of nutrients that appear beneficial for parasite growth, indicating that P. vivax may be extremely sensitive to waste products. Leuko-depletion methods did not significantly affect parasite development. Formatting changes such as shaking and static cultures did not seem to have a major impact while; in contrast, the starting haematocrit affected both parasite invasion and growth. These results support the continued use of Aotus-adapted Sal-1 for development of P. vivax laboratory methods; however, further experiments are needed to optimize culture conditions to support long-term parasite development

NAction! How Can Neuraminidase-Based Immunity Contribute to Better Influenza Virus Vaccines?

Neuraminidase is one of the two surface glycoproteins of influenza A and B viruses. It has enzymatic activity that cleaves terminal sialic acid from glycans, and that activity is essential at several points in the virus life cycle. While neuraminidase is a major target for influenza antivirals, it is largely ignored in vaccine development. Current inactivated influenza virus vaccines might contain neuraminidase, but the antigen quantity and quality are varied and not standardized. While there are data that show a protective role of anti-neuraminidase immunity, many questions remain unanswered. These questions, among others, concern the targeted epitopes or antigenic sites, the potential for antigenic drift, and, connected to that, the breadth of protection, differences in induction of immune responses by vaccination versus infection, mechanisms of protection, the role of mucosal antineuraminidase antibodies, stability, and the immunogenicity of neuraminidase in vaccine formulations. Reagents for analysis of neuraminidase-based immunity are scarce, and assays are not widely used for clinical studies evaluating vaccines. However, efforts to better understand neuraminidase-based immunity have been made recently. A neuraminidase focus group, NAction!, was formed at a Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance meeting at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, to promote research that helps to understand neuraminidase-based immunity and how it can contribute to the design of better and broadly protective influenza virus vaccines. Here, we review open questions and knowledge gaps that have been identified by this group and discuss how the gaps can be addressed, with the ultimate goal of designing better influenza virus vaccines

Antigenic characterization and pandemic risk assessment of North American H1 Influenza A viruses circulating in swine

The first pandemic of the 21st century was caused by an H1N1 influenza A virus (IAV) introduced from pigs into humans, highlighting the importance of swine as reservoirs for pandemic viruses. Two major lineages of swine H1 circulate in North America: the 1A classical swine lineage (including that of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic) and the 1B human seasonal-like lineage. Here, we investigated the evolution of these H1 IAV lineages in North American swine and their potential pandemic risk. We assessed the antigenic distance between the HA of representative swine H1 and human seasonal vaccine strains (1978 to 2015) in hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays using a panel of monovalent antisera raised in pigs. Antigenic cross-reactivity varied by strain but was associated with genetic distance. Generally, the swine 1A lineage viruses that seeded the 2009 H1 pandemic were antigenically most similar to the H1 pandemic vaccine strains, with the exception of viruses in the genetic clade 1A.1.1.3, which had a two-amino acid deletion mutation near the receptor-binding site, which dramatically reduced antibody recognition. The swine 1B lineage strains, which arose from previously circulating (pre-2009 pandemic) human seasonal viruses, were more antigenically similar to pre-2009 human seasonal H1 vaccine viruses than post-2009 strains. Human population immunity was measured by cross-reactivity in HI assays to representative swine H1 strains. There was a broad range of titers against each swine strain that was not associated with age, sex, or location. However, there was almost no cross-reactivity in human sera to the 1A.1.1.3 and 1B.2.1 genetic clades of swine viruses, and the 1A.1.1.3 and 1B.2.1 clades were also the most antigenically distant to the human vaccine strains. Our data demonstrate that the antigenic distances of representative swine strains from human vaccine strains represent an important part of the rational assessment of swine IAV for zoonotic risk research and pandemic preparedness prioritization. IMPORTANCE Human H1 influenza A viruses (IAV) spread to pigs in North America, resulting in a sustained circulation of two major groups of H1 viruses in swine. We quantified the genetic diversity of H1 in swine and measured antigenic phenotypes. We demonstrated that the swine H1 lineages were significantly different from the human vaccine strains and that this antigenic dissimilarity increased over time as the viruses evolved in swine. Pandemic preparedness vaccine strains for human vaccines also demonstrated a loss in similarity with contemporary swine strains. Human sera revealed a range of responses to swine IAV, including two groups of viruses with little to no immunity. The surveillance and risk assessment of IAV diversity in pig populations are essential to detect strains with reduced immunity in humans and provide critical information for pandemic preparedness