Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Implementation of a seamless phase 2/3 study design in the setting of an emergent infectious disease pandemic: Lessons learned from the ACTIV-2 platform COVID-19 treatment trial

Seamless phase 2/3 study designs provide a framework for a more efficient trial. During the COVID-19 pandemic, such study designs were considered particularly appealing as there was an urgent global need to rapidly identify effective therapeutics. However, limited in vivo safety and efficacy data was available early in the pandemic to inform decisions. As part of the ACTIV-2 study, we implemented a phase 2/3 platform trial to evaluate multiple candidate treatments for non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19. In addition to an adequate safety profile, the decision to graduate an agent from phase 2 to phase 3 was based on showing treatment effects on clinical or laboratory markers. Decision criteria evolved over time as more data became available during the global pandemic. A seamless transition and approximately 20 % reduction in total sample size was achieved for one agent, amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. Using both simulation studies and actual results from graduation assessments of five ACTIV-2 candidate therapeutics, we provide a discussion of lessons learned from our implementation and recommendations for future seamless trials of interventions for emergent infections.

Development of antiviral drugs for COVID-19 in 2025: unmet needs and future challenges

INTRODUCTION

The success in the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic containment largely originated from vaccine- and infection-elicited immunity, with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection only marginally mitigated by the availability of antiviral drugs. The current lack of effective antiviral prophylactic and therapeutic agents in immunocompromised patients highlights the need for a radical change in the design of both drug manufacturing and clinical trials.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors summarize their suggestions for manufacturers, by reviewing classes of small molecule antivirals and passive immunotherapies and highlighting their limitations and unexploited potential.

EXPERT OPINION

Molecular and serological testing of patients can improve appropriateness. Efficacy of antivirals can be improved by combining different therapeutic classes while preserving economical sustainability. Respiratory delivery should be better investigated in clinical trials.

Viral and Symptom Rebound Following Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

We explored viral and symptom rebound after coronavirus disease 2019 amubarvimab-romlusevimab monoclonal antibody therapy versus placebo in the randomized ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Participants underwent nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction testing at study days 3, 7, 14, and 28. Viral rebound was defined as RNA ≥3 and ≥0.5 log10 copies/mL increase from day 3 or 7, and symptom rebound as hospitalization or any moderate/severe symptom for ≥2 days after initial symptom improvement. There was no difference in viral rebound (∼5%/arm) (analysis population n = 713) or symptom rebound among participants who initially improved (hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval, .52-1.75]; analysis population n = 574); <1% had both viral/symptom rebound.

Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Nonhospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the fully human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 trial for COVID-19.

METHODS

Nonhospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Noninferiority comparison was undertaken for pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. A secondary outcome was time to sustained symptom resolution.

RESULTS

Enrollment ended early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence; 255 adults were in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms (absolute difference 2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3%-8.6%); and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0%; 95% CI, -2.3%-4.5%) for Omicron. All risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were not significant. Time to symptom resolution was significantly shorter for SAB-185 for Omicron only: 18 versus >25 days; P =.006.

CONCLUSIONS

SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04518410.

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.

Effect of amubarvimab-romlusevimab for treatment of severe COVID-19 in intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study

Amubarvimab-romlusevimab is a commonly recommended antiviral treatment in China for adult patients with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially for patients with a high risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19. However, its exact efficacy in patients with severe Covid-19 is not yet known.This is a single-center retrospective cohort study, in which we collected the general data, laboratory tests, radiological characteristics, viral conversion status, and prognosis of the disease from patients with COVID-19 hospitalized, from December 2022 to March 2023 in the Department of Critical Care Medicine. The amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy can reduce the 28-day mortality (29.79 % vs 51.35 %, p = 0.02), and ICU mortality (29.79 % vs 55.41 %, p = 0.006) of severe COVID-19.A 1:1 PSM (Propensity Score Matching) was performed to reduce bias, in order to ensure the two groups were balanced and comparable. In the matched population (n = 47), there were no statistically significant differences between the mAbs (monoclonal antibody)group and the Non-antiviral group in 28-day, and thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients. The 40-day survival analysis shows that mAbs therapy can improve patient prognosis (HR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.26-0.76, p = 0.008). However, no significant intergroup difference in the 40-day cumulative viral conversion rate. In a univariate Cox regression analysis, The Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.464; CI:[0.252-0.853]; p:0.013) is a protective factor and CRP, PCT, PLT, Lactate, PT, PT-INR, and pt% level at admission were risk factors for clinical prognosis. After including the above covariates, Multifactorial COX regression shows that the Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.392; CI:[0.211-0.729]; p:0.003), CRP, Lactate and PT-INR at admission are independent factors for mortality of severe COVID-19. Based on the current data, we conclude that amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy is beneficial for patients with severe COVID-19.

Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases: global trends and new strategies for their prevention and control

To adequately prepare for potential hazards caused by emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, the WHO has issued a list of high-priority pathogens that are likely to cause future outbreaks and for which research and development (R&D) efforts are dedicated, known as paramount R&D blueprints. Within R&D efforts, the goal is to obtain effective prophylactic and therapeutic approaches, which depends on a comprehensive knowledge of the etiology, epidemiology, and pathogenesis of these diseases. In this process, the accessibility of animal models is a priority bottleneck because it plays a key role in bridging the gap between in-depth understanding and control efforts for infectious diseases. Here, we reviewed preclinical animal models for high priority disease in terms of their ability to simulate human infections, including both natural susceptibility models, artificially engineered models, and surrogate models. In addition, we have thoroughly reviewed the current landscape of vaccines, antibodies, and small molecule drugs, particularly hopeful candidates in the advanced stages of these infectious diseases. More importantly, focusing on global trends and novel technologies, several aspects of the prevention and control of infectious disease were discussed in detail, including but not limited to gaps in currently available animal models and medical responses, better immune correlates of protection established in animal models and humans, further understanding of disease mechanisms, and the role of artificial intelligence in guiding or supplementing the development of animal models, vaccines, and drugs. Overall, this review described pioneering approaches and sophisticated techniques involved in the study of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and clinical theatment of WHO high-priority pathogens and proposed potential directions. Technological advances in these aspects would consolidate the line of defense, thus ensuring a timely response to WHO high priority pathogens.

Post-acute COVID-19 outcomes including participant-reported long COVID: amubarvimab/romlusevimab versus placebo in the ACTIV-2 trial

Background

It is unknown if early COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy can reduce risk of Long COVID. The mAbs amubarvimab/romlusevimab were previously demonstrated to reduce risk of hospitalization/death by 79%. This study assessed the impact of amubarvimab/romlusevimab on late outcomes, including Long COVID.

Methods

Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 10 days of COVID-19 symptom onset enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial of amubarvimab/romlusevimab for COVID-19 treatment. Late symptoms, assessed using a participant-completed symptom diary, were a pre-specified exploratory endpoint. The primary outcome for this analysis was the composite of Long COVID by participant self-report (presence of COVID-19 symptoms as recorded in the diary at week 36) or hospitalization or death by week 36. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address incomplete outcome ascertainment, giving weighted risk ratios (wRR) comparing amubarvimab/romlusevimab to placebo.

Findings

Participants received amubarvimab/romlusevimab (n = 390) or placebo (n = 390) between January and July 2021. Median age was 49 years, 52% were female, 18% Black/African American, 49% Hispanic/Latino, and 9% COVID-19-vaccinated at entry. At week 36, 103 (13%) had incomplete outcome ascertainment, and 66 (17%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 92 (24%) on placebo met the primary outcome (wRR = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.93). The difference was driven by fewer hospitalizations/deaths with amubarvimab/romlusevimab (4%) than placebo (13%). Among 652 participants with available diary responses, 53 (16%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 44 (14%) on placebo reported presence of Long COVID.

Interpretation

Amubarvimab/romlusevimab treatment, while highly effective in preventing hospitalizations/deaths, did not reduce risk of Long COVID. Additional interventions are needed to prevent Long COVID.

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab supplied by Brii Biosciences.

Characterization of Treatment Resistance and Viral Kinetics in the Setting of Single-Active Versus Dual-Active Monoclonal Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is unclear whether combination mAbs offer a benefit over single-active mAb treatment. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab significantly reduced the risk of hospitalizations or death in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Certain SARS-CoV-2 variants are intrinsically resistant against romlusevimab, leading to only single-active mAb therapy with amubarvimab in these variants. We evaluated virologic outcomes in individuals treated with single- versus dual-active mAbs.

METHODS

Participants were nonhospitalized adults at higher risk of clinical progression randomized to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and targeted S-gene next-generation sequencing was performed on anterior nasal samples. We compared viral load kinetics and resistance emergence between individuals treated with effective single- versus dual-active mAbs depending on the infecting variant.

RESULTS

Study participants receiving single- or dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared with single-active mAb treatment, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study days 3 (P < .001) and 7 (P < .01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than with placebo (2.6% vs 0%; P < .001) and were more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared with dual-active mAb treatment (7.3% vs 1.1%; P < .01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with single-active mAb therapy, dual-active mAbs led to similar clinical outcomes but significantly faster viral load decline and a lower risk of emergent resistance.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapies Against SARS-CoV-2: Promises and Realities

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 have been widely deployed in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. I review here the impact of those therapeutics in the early pandemic, ranging from structural classification to outcomes in clinical trials to in vitro and in vivo evidence of basal and treatment-emergent immune escape. Unfortunately, the Omicron variant of concern has completely reset all achievements so far in mAb therapy for COVID-19. Despite the intrinsic limitations of this strategy, future developments such as respiratory delivery of further engineered mAb cocktails could lead to improved outcomes.

Current development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing antibodies (Review)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) seriously affected global public health security. Studies on vaccines, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and small molecule antiviral drugs are currently ongoing. In particular, NAbs have emerged as promising therapeutic agents due to their well‑defined mechanism, high specificity, superior safety profile, ease of large‑scale production and simultaneous application for both prevention and treatment of viral infection. Numerous NAb therapeutics have entered the clinical research stages, demonstrating promising therapeutic and preventive effects. These agents have been used for outbreak prevention and control under urgent authorization processes. The present review summarizes the molecular targets of SARS‑CoV‑2‑associated NAbs and screening and identification techniques for NAb development. Moreover, the current shortcomings and challenges that persist with the use of NAbs are discussed. The aim of the present review is to offer a reference for the development of NAbs for any future emergent infectious diseases, including SARS‑CoV‑2.

Considerations for the development of monoclonal antibodies to address new viral variants in COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies proved safe and effective in preventing progression of COVID-19 to hospitalization, but most were eventually defeated by continued viral evolution. mAb combinations and those mAbs that were deliberatively selected to target conserved regions of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein proved more resilient to viral escape variants as evident by longer clinical useful lives.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed for literature covering the need, development, and use of mAb therapies for COVID-19. As much of humanity now has immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the population at most risk is that of immunocompromised individuals. Hence, there continues to be a need for mAb therapies for immunocompromised patients. However, mAb use in this population carries the risk for selecting mAb-resistant variants, which could pose a public health concern if they disseminate to the general population.

EXPERT OPINION

Going forward, structural knowledge of the interactions of Spike with its cellular receptor has identified several regions that may be good targets for future mAb therapeutics. A focus on designing variant-resistant mAbs together with cocktails that target several epitopes and the use of other variant mitigating strategies such as the concomitant use of small molecule antivirals and polyclonal preparations could extend the clinical usefulness of future preparations.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Safety, Efficacy, and Pharmacokinetics of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies BMS-986414 (C135-LS) and BMS-986413 (C144-LS) Administered Subcutaneously in Non-Hospitalized Persons with COVID-19 in a Phase 2 Trial

Background

Outpatient COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment via subcutaneous delivery, if effective, overcomes the logistical burdens of intravenous administration.

Methods

ACTIV-2/A5401 was a randomized, masked placebo-controlled platform trial where participants with COVID-19 at low risk for progression were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneously administered BMS-986414 (C135-LS) 200 mg, plus BMS-986413 (C144-LS) 200 mg, (BMS mAbs), or placebo. Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events (TEAEs) through 28 days.

Results

A total of 211 participants (105 BMS mAbs and 106 placebo) initiated study product. Time to symptom improvement favored the active therapy but was not significant (median 8 vs 10 days, P=0.19). There was no significant difference in the proportion with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Conclusions

While safe, the BMS mAbs delivered subcutaneously were not effective at treating COVID-19 at low risk for progression. The lack of clinically significant activity may relate to the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous administration of mAbs.

Collapse

Key Words

• COVID-19
• SARS-CoV-2
• monoclonal antibodies
• outpatient treatment
• subcutaneous

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants

• UM1 AI069423 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069424 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI106701 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069419 NIAID NIH HHS
• UL1 TR001881 NCATS NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069412 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068634 NIAID NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Katya C. Corado Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
Kara W. Chew Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California
Mark J. Giganti Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Ying Mu UNMC Center for Drug Discovery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Courtney V. Fletcher UNMC Center for Drug Discovery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Judith S. Currier Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California
Eric S. Daar Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
David A. Wohl Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Jonathan Z. Li Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Carlee B. Moser Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Justin Ritz Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Arzhang Cyrus Javan National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
Gene Neytman Quantum Clinical Trials, Miami, Florida
Marina Caskey Laboratory of Molecular Immunology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York
Michael D. Hughes Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Davey M. Smith University of California, San Diego, California
Joseph J. Eron Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
ACTIV-2/A5401 Study Team Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts UNMC Center for Drug Discovery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland Quantum Clinical Trials, Miami, Florida Laboratory of Molecular Immunology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York University of California, San Diego, California

Collapse

Collaborators Collapse

The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective antiviral drugs accelerate viral clearance in acute COVID-19 infections; the relationship between accelerating viral clearance and reducing severe clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral therapies in early symptomatic COVID-19, where viral clearance data were available. Treatment benefit was defined clinically as the relative risk of hospitalization/death during follow-up (≥14 days), and virologically as the SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate ratio (VCRR). The VCRR is the ratio of viral clearance rates between the intervention and control arms. The relationship between the clinical and virological treatment effects was assessed by mixed-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

From 57 potentially eligible RCTs, VCRRs were derived for 44 (52 384 participants); 32 had ≥1 clinical endpoint in each arm. Overall, 9.7% (R2) of the variation in clinical benefit was explained by variation in VCRRs with an estimated linear coefficient of -0.92 (95% CI: -1.99 to 0.13; P = 0.08). However, this estimate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of the recent very large PANORAMIC trial. Omitting this outlier, half the variation in clinical benefit (R2 = 50.4%) was explained by variation in VCRRs [slope -1.47 (95% CI -2.43 to -0.51); P = 0.003], i.e. higher VCRRs were associated with an increased clinical benefit.

CONCLUSION

Methods of determining viral clearance in COVID-19 studies and the relationship to clinical outcomes vary greatly. As prohibitively large sample sizes are now required to show clinical treatment benefit in antiviral therapeutic assessments, viral clearance is a reasonable surrogate endpoint.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

COVID-19 and Long-COVID Thrombosis: From Clinical and Basic Science to Therapeutics

Coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) is a pandemic characterized by serious lung disease and thrombotic events in the venous and circulation trees, which represent a harmful clinical sign of poor outcome. Thrombotic events are more frequent in patients with severe disease requiring intensive care units and are associated with platelet and clotting activation. However, after resolution of acute infection, patients may still have clinical sequelae, the so-called long-COVID-19, including thrombotic events again in the venous and arterial circulation. The mechanisms accounting for thrombosis in acute and long COVID-19 have not been fully clarified; interactions of COVID-19 with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 or toll-like receptor family or infection-induced cytokine storm have been suggested to be implicated in endothelial cells, leucocytes, and platelets to elicit clotting activation in acute as well in chronic phase of the disease. In acute COVID-19, prophylactic or full doses of anticoagulants exert beneficial effects even if the dosage choice is still under investigation; however, a residual risk still remains suggesting a need for a more appropriate therapeutic approach. In long COVID-19 preliminary data provided useful information in terms of antiplatelet treatment but definition of candidates for thrombotic prophylaxis is still undefined.

New clinical trial design in precision medicine: discovery, development and direction

In the era of precision medicine, it has been increasingly recognized that individuals with a certain disease are complex and different from each other. Due to the underestimation of the significant heterogeneity across participants in traditional "one-size-fits-all" trials, patient-centered trials that could provide optimal therapy customization to individuals with specific biomarkers were developed including the basket, umbrella, and platform trial designs under the master protocol framework. In recent years, the successive FDA approval of indications based on biomarker-guided master protocol designs has demonstrated that these new clinical trials are ushering in tremendous opportunities. Despite the rapid increase in the number of basket, umbrella, and platform trials, the current clinical and research understanding of these new trial designs, as compared with traditional trial designs, remains limited. The majority of the research focuses on methodologies, and there is a lack of in-depth insight concerning the underlying biological logic of these new clinical trial designs. Therefore, we provide this comprehensive review of the discovery and development of basket, umbrella, and platform trials and their underlying logic from the perspective of precision medicine. Meanwhile, we discuss future directions on the potential development of these new clinical design in view of the "Precision Pro", "Dynamic Precision", and "Intelligent Precision". This review would assist trial-related researchers to enhance the innovation and feasibility of clinical trial designs by expounding the underlying logic, which be essential to accelerate the progression of precision medicine.

Evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants: Genetic Impact on Viral Fitness

Over the last three years, the pandemic of COVID-19 has had a significant impact on people's lives and the global economy. The incessant emergence of variant strains has compounded the challenges associated with the management of COVID-19. As the predominant variant from late 2021 to the present, Omicron and its sublineages, through continuous evolution, have demonstrated iterative viral fitness. The comprehensive elucidation of the biological implications that catalyzed this evolution remains incomplete. In accordance with extant research evidence, we provide a comprehensive review of subvariants of Omicron, delineating alterations in immune evasion, cellular infectivity, and the cross-species transmission potential. This review seeks to clarify the underpinnings of biology within the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, thereby providing a foundation for strategic considerations in the post-pandemic era of COVID-19.

Impact of structural modifications of IgG antibodies on effector functions

Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies are a critical component of the adaptive immune system, binding to and neutralizing pathogens and other foreign substances. Recent advances in molecular antibody biology and structural protein engineering enabled the modification of IgG antibodies to enhance their therapeutic potential. This review summarizes recent progress in both natural and engineered structural modifications of IgG antibodies, including allotypic variation, glycosylation, Fc engineering, and Fc gamma receptor binding optimization. We discuss the functional consequences of these modifications to highlight their potential for therapeutical applications.

Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 mutations associated with resistance to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies that emerge after treatment

The mutation rate of the Omicron sublineage has led to baseline resistance against all previously authorized anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Nevertheless, in case more antiviral mAbs will be authorized in the future, it is relevant to understand how frequently treatment-emergent resistance has emerged so far, under different combinations and in different patient subgroups. We report the results of a systematic review of the medical literature for case reports and case series for treatment-emergent immune escape, which is defined as emergence of a resistance-driving mutation in at least 20% of sequences in a given host at a given timepoint. We identified 32 publications detailing 216 cases that included different variants of concern (VOC) and found that the incidence of treatment emergent-resistance ranged from 10% to 50%. Most of the treatment-emergent resistance events occurred in immunocompromised patients. Interestingly, resistance also emerged against cocktails of two mAbs, albeit at lower frequencies. The heterogenous therapeutic management of those cases doesn't allow inferences about the clinical outcome in patients with treatment-emergent resistance. Furthermore, we noted a temporal correlation between the introduction of mAb therapies and a subsequent increase in SARS-CoV-2 sequences across the globe carrying mutations conferring resistance to that mAb, raising concern as to whether these had originated in mAb-treated individuals. Our findings confirm that treatment-emergent immune escape to anti-Spike mAbs represents a frequent and concerning phenomenon and suggests that these are associated with mAb use in immunosuppressed hosts.

Association Between Anterior Nasal and Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA Levels and Hospitalization or Death in Nonhospitalized Adults With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19

BACKGROUND

There is little information regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA as a predictor for clinical outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Anterior nasal (AN) and plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA data from 2115 nonhospitalized adults who received monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial were analyzed for associations with hospitalization or death.

RESULTS

One hundred two participants were hospitalized or died through 28 days of follow-up. Higher day 0 (pretreatment) AN RNA was associated with increasing risk of hospitalization/death (risk ratio [RR], 1.24 per log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.04-1.49]) among placebo recipients, ranging from 3% to 16% for <2 to ≥6 log10 copies/mL. Although only 1% had quantifiable levels, there was a similar trend across day 0 plasma RNA categories. Higher day 3 AN RNA was associated with subsequent hospitalization/death among placebo recipients (RR, 1.42 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 1.00-2.03]), but not mAb recipients (RR, 1.02 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 0.68-1.56]). The proportion of treatment effect (reduction in hospitalizations/deaths after day 3 for mAb vs placebo) explained by day 3 AN RNA was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels are predictive of hospitalization/death in the natural history setting, but AN RNA levels may not be a reliable surrogate marker of mAb treatment effect in COVID-19 trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Pooling Different Placebos as a Control Group in a Randomized Platform Trial: Benefits and Challenges From Experience in the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Trial

Adaptive platform trials were implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to rapidly evaluate therapeutics, including the placebo-controlled phase 2/3 ACTIV-2 trial, which studied 7 investigational agents with diverse routes of administration. For each agent, safety and efficacy outcomes were compared to a pooled placebo control group, which included participants who received a placebo for that agent or for other agents in concurrent evaluation. A 2-step randomization framework was implemented to facilitate this. Over the study duration, the pooled placebo design achieved a reduction in sample size of 6% versus a trial involving distinct placebo control groups for evaluating each agent. However, a 26% reduction was achieved during the period when multiple agents were in parallel phase 2 evaluation. We discuss some of the complexities implementing the pooled placebo design versus a design involving nonoverlapping control groups, with the aim of informing the design of future platform trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

ACTIV-2: A Platform Trial for the Evaluation of Novel Therapeutics for the Treatment of Early COVID-19 in Outpatients

Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.