Activity of Sotrovimab against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 Omicron sublineages in a hamster model

Neutralization sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants FL.1 and GE.1 by therapeutic antibodies and XBB sera

Two SARS-CoV-2 XBB sub-variants, FL.1 and GE.1, have been increasing in prevalence worldwide, but limited information is available about their ability to evade the immune system. FL.1 and GE.1 are emerging Omicron XBB variants possessing additional mutations in the spike RBD raising concerns of increased neutralization escape. In this study, we assessed the neutralizing ability of eleven FDA-approved monoclonal antibody combinations against different Omicron variants, including BA.2.75, BA.2.76, BA.4/5, XBB.1.5, and CH.1.1. Among the eleven antibodies, Sotrovimab was the only antibody to show broad neutralization ability against XBB.1.5. However, Sotrovimab showed attenuated neutralization efficiency against recently emerging XBB sub-lineages EG.5, FL.1, and GE.1 compared to XBB.1.5. Additionally, XBB.1.5 seropositive convalescent sera displayed lower neutralization activity against EG.5, FL.1, and GE.1. Overall, our findings present enhanced immune evasion capacity of emerging XBB variants and emphasize the importance of continued monitoring of novel variants.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).

RESULTS

Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).

CONCLUSION

The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

Background

Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves.

Methods

With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups.

Findings

A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033).

Interpretation

In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant.

Funding

UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Reduction in the risk of progression of solid organ transplant recipients infected by SARS-CoV-2 treated with monoclonal antibodies

Recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) are at higher risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 virus especially due to chronic immunosuppression therapy and frequent multiple comorbid conditions. COVID-19 is a potentially life-threatening disease in SOT recipients, with an increased likelihood of progressing to severe disease, with the need of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilatory support. This article presents an updated review of different aspects related to the outcome of COVID-19 in SOT recipients. In nvaccinated SOT recipients, COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate, in-patient care and ICU admission, and impaired graft function or rejection in severe disease. In vaccinated SOT recipients even after full vaccination, there is a reduction of the risk of mortality, but the course of COVID-19 may continue to be severe, influenced by the time from transplant, the net state of immunosuppression and having suffered graft rejection or dysfunction. SOT recipients develop lower immunity from mRNA vaccines with suboptimal response. Treatment with mAbs provides favorable outcomes in non-hospitalized SOT recipients at high risk for severe disease, with lower rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, ICU care, progression to severe disease, and death. However, broad vaccination and therapeutic options are required, particularly in light of the tendency of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to adapt and evade both natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Enhanced neutralization escape to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 omicron sub-lineages

The landscape of SARS-CoV-2 variants dramatically diversified with the simultaneous appearance of multiple subvariants originating from BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 Omicron sub-lineages. They harbor a specific set of mutations in the spike that can make them more evasive to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. In this study, we compared the neutralizing potential of monoclonal antibodies against the Omicron BA.2.75.2, BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB variants, with a pre-Omicron Delta variant as a reference. Sotrovimab retains some activity against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1, and XBB as it did against BA.2/BA.5, but is less active against BQ.1.1. Within the Evusheld/AZD7442 cocktail, Cilgavimab lost all activity against all subvariants studied, resulting in loss of Evusheld activity. Finally, Bebtelovimab, while still active against BA.2.75, also lost all neutralizing activity against BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB variants.