Spike Protein Genetic Evolution in Patients at High Risk of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treated by Monoclonal Antibodies

SARS-CoV-2 lineage-dependent temporal phylogenetic distribution and viral load in immunocompromised and immunocompetent individuals

OBJECTIVES

Mutational dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised hosts, although well documented, remain a relatively unexplored mechanism. This study aims to compare the viral replication load and genetic diversity of SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients and non-immunocompromised individuals (NICs) from two major hospitals in Paris from January 2021 to May 2023.

METHODS

Cycle threshold (CT) values were measured by TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The SARS-CoV-2 whole-genomes from 683 immunocompromised patients and 296 NICs was sequenced using Oxford Nanopore Technologies and used to determine lineage and mutational profile.

RESULTS

All immunocompromised patients, but not oncology patients, had lower SARS-CoV-2 viral loads than NICs. The genetic distribution of SARS-CoV-2 was homogeneous between immunocompromised individuals and NICs, with more mutations in immunocompromised patients (IRR = 1,013). Indeed, extensive genomic analysis revealed several mutations specifically associated with immunosuppression status, such as S: T95I, S:N764K, M:Q19E and ORF10:L37F. Conversely, the S: R346K and NSP13:T127N mutations were more common in NICs.

CONCLUSION

Immunocompromised patients have lower viral loads, probably due to their later diagnosis compared to NICs and oncology patients, who have better access to on-site SARS-CoV-2 testing and follow-up. In addition, mutational profiles differ between the two groups, with immunocompromised hosts accumulating more mutations compared to NICs.

Adaptive evolution of SARS-CoV-2 during a persistent infection for 521 days in an immunocompromised patient

Immunocompromised patients struggle to adequately clear viral infections, offering the virus the opportunity to adapt to the immune system in the host. Here we present a case study of a patient undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with a 521-day follow-up of a SARS-CoV-2 infection with the BF.7.21 variant. Virus samples from five time points were submitted to whole genome sequencing. Between the first detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clearance, the patient's virus population acquired 34 amino acid substitutions and 8 deletions in coding regions. With 11 amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain of the virus' spike protein, substitutions were 15 times more abundant than expected for a random distribution in this highly functional region. Amongst them were the substitutions S:K417T, S:N440S, S:K444R, S:V445A, S:G446N, S:L452Q, S:N460K, and S:E484V at positions that are notorious for their resistance-mediating effects. The substitution patterns found indicate ongoing adaptive evolution.

Comparison of Dual Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for COVID-19 Evolution: A Multicentric Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein reduce COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization, particularly in high-risk individuals. The COCOPREV-R study aimed to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with dual monoclonal antibody therapies and to identify associated virological factors.

METHODS

The COCOPREV-R study retrospectively collected real-world data from high-risk patients receiving Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab or Casirivimab/Imdevimab dual monoclonal antibody therapies (22 February 2021 to 15 June 2021).

RESULTS

The study included 1004 patients with COVID-19, of whom 691 received Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and 313 received Casirivimab/Imdevimab. The alpha variant represented 90.1% of those for whom data were available. The risk of hospitalization within 30 days was lower with Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (12.7%, CI 95% [9.9-16.3%]) compared to Casirivimab/Imdevimab (28.4%, CI 95% [22.7-35.1%) (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rates were comparable between both groups (p = 0.982). Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity showed no difference between the two treatment groups (95.2% [93.0-96.9%] and 93.5% [89.1-96.6%] until day 30, p = 0.851 for Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab, respectively). Among persistently positive samples with available sequencing results (n = 43), Spike protein changes occurred only in Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (42.9%) vs. Casirivimab/Imdevimab (0.0%) groups. Q493R (25.0%) and E484K (12.5%) were the most common mutations selected by Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab in follow-up samples. Other factors (immunodepression, comorbidities, and age) did not appear to be associated with the occurrence of Spike protein mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher rate of hospitalization was seen with Casirivimab/Imdevimab (RONAPREVE®) in comparison with Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab treatment, but with the emergence of Spike mutations only in the Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab group.

Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab: Still a Valid Prophylaxis against COVID-19 New Variants?

BACKGROUND

this study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld™) against various SARS-CoV-2 variants, including newer Omicron sublineages, in an immunocompromised cohort and in vitro.

STUDY DESIGN

Conducted in Italy, this research involves immunocompromised patients who received Evusheld. It evaluates serum neutralization activity against different SARS-CoV-2 strains (20A.EU1, BA.5, BQ.1, XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, and EG.5) before (T0), after 14 (T1), and after 30 (T2) days from the tixagevimab/cilgavimab injection. Furthermore, the in vitro activity of Evusheld against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs was evaluated.

RESULTS

The cohort was composed of 72 immunocompromised patients. The serum neutralizing activity of tixagevimab/cilgavimab-treated patients was notably lower against newer variants such as BQ.1, XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, and EG.5. Then, the in vitro study detailed specific EC50 values to quantify the activity of tixagevimab/cilgavimab against various SARS-CoV-2 VOCs. Newer variants like BQ.1 and XBB.1.5 exhibited notably lower neutralization, underscoring the challenges in effectively countering the evolving virus. Interestingly, tixagevimab/cilgavimab maintained reduced but still valid activity against EG.5 with an EC50 of 189 ng/mL and Cmax/EC90 of 110.7.

CONCLUSIONS

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab efficacy wanes against novel subvariants. This underscores the critical need for ongoing adaptation and vigilance in prophylactic strategies to effectively counter the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sotrovimab: A Review of Its Efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Among the anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the S-309 derivative sotrovimab was the most successful in having the longest temporal window of clinical use, showing a high degree of resiliency to SARS-CoV-2 evolution interrupted only by the appearance of the BA.2.86* variant of interest (VOI). This success undoubtedly reflects rational selection to target a highly conserved epitope in coronavirus Spike proteins. We review here the efficacy of sotrovimab against different SARS-CoV-2 variants in outpatients and inpatients, discussing both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Although it could not be anticipated at the time of its development and introduction, sotrovimab's use in immunocompromised individuals who harbor large populations of variant viruses created the conditions for its eventual demise, as antibody selection and viral evolution led to its eventual withdrawal due to inefficacy against later variant lineages. Despite this, based on observational and real-world data, some authorities have continued to promote the use of sotrovimab, but the lack of binding to newer variants strongly argues for the futility of continued use. The story of sotrovimab highlights the power of modern biomedical science to generate novel therapeutics while also providing a cautionary tale for the need to devise strategies to minimize the emergence of resistance to antibody-based therapeutics.