31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

      research-article
      a , b , c , , d , z , a , b , c , e , z , a , b , a , f , a , g , a , h , i , i , j , j , j , k , k , k , l , g , m , n , o , p , q , p , q , r , r , s , s , s , s , s , a , b , d , t , u , v , w , a , b , o , x , GC2010 STUDY GROUP aa , a , b , o , y
      eClinicalMedicine
      Elsevier
      Hyperimmune immunoglobulin, Antibody therapies, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Outpatients, Asymptomatic individuals

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

          Methods

          We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141.

          Findings

          461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported.

          Interpretation

          Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19.

          Funding

          doi 10.13039/501100016387, Grifols; .

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization

          The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was first identified in November 2021 in Botswana and South Africa1-3. It has since spread to many countries and is expected to rapidly become dominant worldwide. The lineage is characterized by the presence of around 32 mutations in spike-located mostly in the N-terminal domain and the receptor-binding domain-that may enhance viral fitness and enable antibody evasion. Here we isolated an infectious Omicron virus in Belgium from a traveller returning from Egypt. We examined its sensitivity to nine monoclonal antibodies that have been clinically approved or are in development4, and to antibodies present in 115 serum samples from COVID-19 vaccine recipients or individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. Omicron was completely or partially resistant to neutralization by all monoclonal antibodies tested. Sera from recipients of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine, sampled five months after complete vaccination, barely inhibited Omicron. Sera from COVID-19-convalescent patients collected 6 or 12 months after symptoms displayed low or no neutralizing activity against Omicron. Administration of a booster Pfizer dose as well as vaccination of previously infected individuals generated an anti-Omicron neutralizing response, with titres 6-fold to 23-fold lower against Omicron compared with those against Delta. Thus, Omicron escapes most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and, to a large extent, vaccine-elicited antibodies. However, Omicron is neutralized by antibodies generated by a booster vaccine dose.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Broadly neutralizing antibodies overcome SARS-CoV-2 Omicron antigenic shift

            The recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant encodes 37 amino acid substitutions in the spike protein, 15 of which are in the receptor-binding domain (RBD), thereby raising concerns about the effectiveness of available vaccines and antibody-based therapeutics. Here we show that the Omicron RBD binds to human ACE2 with enhanced affinity, relative to the Wuhan-Hu-1 RBD, and binds to mouse ACE2. Marked reductions in neutralizing activity were observed against Omicron compared to the ancestral pseudovirus in plasma from convalescent individuals and from individuals who had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, but this loss was less pronounced after a third dose of vaccine. Most monoclonal antibodies that are directed against the receptor-binding motif lost in vitro neutralizing activity against Omicron, with only 3 out of 29 monoclonal antibodies retaining unaltered potency, including the ACE2-mimicking S2K146 antibody1. Furthermore, a fraction of broadly neutralizing sarbecovirus monoclonal antibodies neutralized Omicron through recognition of antigenic sites outside the receptor-binding motif, including sotrovimab2, S2X2593 and S2H974. The magnitude of Omicron-mediated immune evasion marks a major antigenic shift in SARS-CoV-2. Broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that recognize RBD epitopes that are conserved among SARS-CoV-2 variants and other sarbecoviruses may prove key to controlling the ongoing pandemic and future zoonotic spillovers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection

              Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron sublineages BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 exhibit higher transmissibility than the BA.2 lineage 1 . The receptor binding and immune-evasion capability of these recently emerged variants require immediate investigation. Here, coupled with structural comparisons of the spike proteins, we show that BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4 and BA.5 are hereafter referred collectively to as BA.4/BA.5) exhibit similar binding affinities to BA.2 for the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Of note, BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 display increased evasion of neutralizing antibodies compared with BA.2 against plasma from triple-vaccinated individuals or from individuals who developed a BA.1 infection after vaccination. To delineate the underlying antibody-evasion mechanism, we determined the escape mutation profiles 2 , epitope distribution 3 and Omicron-neutralization efficiency of 1,640 neutralizing antibodies directed against the receptor-binding domain of the viral spike protein, including 614 antibodies isolated from people who had recovered from BA.1 infection. BA.1 infection after vaccination predominantly recalls humoral immune memory directed against ancestral (hereafter referred to as wild-type (WT)) SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The resulting elicited antibodies could neutralize both WT SARS-CoV-2 and BA.1 and are enriched on epitopes on spike that do not bind ACE2. However, most of these cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies are evaded by spike mutants L452Q, L452R and F486V. BA.1 infection can also induce new clones of BA.1-specific antibodies that potently neutralize BA.1. Nevertheless, these neutralizing antibodies are largely evaded by BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 owing to D405N and F486V mutations, and react weakly to pre-Omicron variants, exhibiting narrow neutralization breadths. The therapeutic neutralizing antibodies bebtelovimab 4 and cilgavimab 5 can effectively neutralize BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5, whereas the S371F, D405N and R408S mutations undermine most broadly sarbecovirus-neutralizing antibodies. Together, our results indicate that Omicron may evolve mutations to evade the humoral immunity elicited by BA.1 infection, suggesting that BA.1-derived vaccine boosters may not achieve broad-spectrum protection against new Omicron variants.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                10 March 2023
                March 2023
                10 March 2023
                : 57
                : 101898
                Affiliations
                [a ]Fight Infectious Diseases Foundation, Badalona, Spain
                [b ]Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
                [c ]Facultat de Medicina-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [d ]ISGlobal, Hospital Clinic - Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [e ]Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, I3PT, 08028, Sabadell, Spain
                [f ]Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
                [g ]Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
                [h ]Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [i ]Gerència Territorial Metropolitana Nord, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
                [j ]Gerència Territorial de Barcelona, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
                [k ]Gerència Territorial Metropolitana Sud, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
                [l ]Unitat de Suport a la Recerca Costa de Ponent, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), l’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
                [m ]Unitat de Suport a la Recerca de la Catalunya Central, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain
                [n ]Health Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència Territorial de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Spain
                [o ]Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya (UVIC-UCC), Vic, Spain
                [p ]Unidad de Investigación, Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria, Madrid, Spain
                [q ]Red de Investigación en Cronicidad, Atención Primaria y Promoción de la Salud -RICAPPS- ISCIII, Spain
                [r ]Unitat de Suport a la Recerca de Girona, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Girona, Spain
                [s ]Scientific Innovation Office, Grifols, Barcelona, Spain
                [t ]Pediatrics Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, Esplugues, Barcelona, Spain
                [u ]Consorcio de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
                [v ]ICREA, Pg Lluís Companys 23, Barcelona, Spain
                [w ]Centro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça (CISM), Maputo, Mozambique
                [x ]IrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute, Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute, Can Ruti Campus, Badalona, Spain
                [y ]Lihir Medical Centre, International SOS, Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Infectious Diseases and Fight Infectious Diseases Foundation, Hospital Germans Trias Pujol, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain. aalemany@ 123456lluita.org
                [z]

                Contributed equally.

                [aa]

                Study group are listed in the appendix.

                Article
                S2589-5370(23)00075-5 101898
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101898
                10005687
                56a72e9e-639d-4745-a070-a52afebbd473
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 4 December 2022
                : 16 February 2023
                : 17 February 2023
                Categories
                Articles

                hyperimmune immunoglobulin,antibody therapies,covid-19,sars-cov-2,outpatients,asymptomatic individuals

                Comments

                Comment on this article