Since the appearance in the late of December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly evolving and mutating continuously, giving rise to various variants with variable degrees of infectivity and lethality. The virus that initially appeared in China later mutated several times, wreaking havoc and claiming many lives worldwide amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. After Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants, the most recently emerged variant of concern (VOC) is the Omicron (B.1.1.529) that has evolved due to the accumulation of high numbers of mutations especially in the spike protein, raising concerns for its ability to evade from pre-existing immunity acquired through vaccination or natural infection as well as overpowering antibodies-based therapies. Several theories are on the surface to explain how the Omicron has gathered such a high number of mutations within less time. Few of them are higher mutation rates within a subgroup of population and then its introduction to a larger population, long term persistence and evolution of the virus in immune-compromised patients, and epizootic infection in animals from humans, where under different immune pressures the virus mutated and then got reintroduced to humans. Multifaceted approach including rapid diagnosis, genome analysis of emerging variants, ramping up of vaccination drives and receiving booster doses, efficacy testing of vaccines and immunotherapies against newly emerged variants, updating the available vaccines, designing of multivalent vaccines able to generate hybrid immunity, up-gradation of medical facilities and strict implementation of adequate prevention and control measures need to be given high priority to handle the on-going SARS-CoV-2 pandemic successfully. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112816

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, salient features, high global health concerns and strategies to counter it amid ongoing COVID-19 pandemic

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113522

Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) and its sublineages: What do we know so far amid the emergence of recombinant variants of SARS-CoV-2?

ABSTRACT Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected more than 529 million people, and today the world is facing different mutant strains of the virus, leading to increased morbidity rates, fatality rates, and surfacing re-infections. Various therapies, such as prophylactic treatments, repurposed drug treatments, convalescent plasma, and polyclonal antibody therapy have been developed to help combat the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Area covered This review article provides insights into the basic aspects of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the therapy of COVID-19, as well as its advancement in terms of clinical trial and current approval status. Expert opinion Monoclonal antibodies represents the most effective and viable therapy and/or prophylaxis option against COVID-19, and have shown a reduction of the viral load, as well as lowering hospitalizations and death rates. In different countries, various mAbs are undergoing different phases of clinical trials, with a few of them having entered phases III and IV. Due to the soaring number of cases worldwide, the FDA has given emergency approval for the mAb combinations bamlanivimab with etesevimab and casirivimab with imdevimab.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 management: an update

Importance
The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.


Objective
To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab.


Design, Setting, and Participants
This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria.


Exposure
For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy.


Main Outcomes and Measures
For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound.


Results
A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence.


Conclusions and Relevance
In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant.


Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198743X22001173/pdf

Caring for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization or death in patients infected by SARS-CoV2 variants of concern (VOCs) receiving combinations of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Observational prospective study conducted in two Italian hospitals (University Hospital of Pisa and San Donato Hospital, Arezzo) including consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from March 20th to May 10th 2021. All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to FDA/AIFA recommendations. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the infecting viral strain (VOCs): Alpha and Gamma group. The primary endpoint was a composite of hospitalization or death within 30 days from mAbs infusion. A Cox regression multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome in the overall population. The study included 165 patients: 105 were infected by the VOC Alpha and 43 by the VOC Gamma. In the Alpha group, no differences in the primary endpoint were observed between patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Conversely, in the Gamma group, a higher proportion of patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab met the primary endpoint compared to those receiving casirivimab/imdevimab (55% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.013). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, the Gamma variant and days from symptoms onset to mAbs infusion were factors independently associated with higher risk of hospitalization or death, while casirivimab/imdevimab was protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.83, p = 0.019). In patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, bamlanivimab/etesevimab should be used with caution because of the high risk of disease progression.

/pdf/efficacy-of-bamlanivimab-etesevimab-and-casirivimab-1u3w0x83ln.pdf

Sara Occhineri

Papers

Efficacy of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19 and Role of Variants of Concern.