Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Lilly's antibody combination receives FDA emergency use authorization for COVID-19

 Eli Lilly’s combination antibody therapy to fight COVID-19 has been granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Lilly said on Tuesday.

Lilly’s combination therapy of two antibodies, bamlanivimab and etesevimab, helped cut the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients by 70%, data from a late-stage trial showed in January.

Lilly said the therapy will be available immediately.

“There are 100,000 doses ready immediately and an additional 150,000 doses will be available throughout the first quarter,” Lilly said in a statement.

The company said that in collaboration with Amgen, it plans to manufacture up to 1 million doses of etesevimab for administration with bamlanivimab by mid-2021.

Lilly said the “therapy is authorized for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients aged 12 and older who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization.”

The FDA, separately, said bamlanivimab and etesevimab are not authorized for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 or who require oxygen therapy due to COVID-19.

Late last month, Lilly reported a fourth-quarter profit that topped Wall Street estimates. It recorded $871.2 million in quarterly sales of the COVID-19 therapy bamlanivimab, benefiting from the U.S. government’s move to stock up on the drug for emergency use.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-lilly-fda/eli-lillys-antibody-combination-receives-fda-emergency-use-authorization-for-covid-19-idUSKBN2AA02P

GENFIT Announces Positive Results from Phase 2 Clinical Trial

 GENFIT (Nasdaq and Euronext: GNFT), a late-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to improving the lives of patients with metabolic and liver diseasestoday announced that the positive results from the Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating elafibranor in patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) with incomplete response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) have been published in the Journal of Hepatology.

Dr. Carol Addy, CMO at GENFIT, commented: “These data support the potential for elafibranor as novel treatment in PBC and confirm the rationale of evaluating our compound in this disease in a pivotal Phase 3 trial. PBC remains a disease with significant unmet medical needs, mostly because a substantial number of patients have insufficient response or cannot benefit from existing therapies. This publication reminds us that research can give patients and healthcare professionals hope for new therapeutic options. We seek to replicate the Phase 2 efficacy and safety results in ELATIVE™, our Phase 3 clinical trial in PBC, in the hope that we may improve the prospect of new treatment for patients.”

These data show a clinically relevant improvement on the primary and composite biochemical endpoints, a positive trend on pruritus improvement, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile, all of which are supportive of the conduct of ELATIVE™, a longer term, larger scale pivotal Phase 3 study to evaluate elafibranor in patients with PBC.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/genfit-announces-publication-positive-results-211000032.html

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

How You Make an Adenovirus Vaccine

 By Derek Lowe

The other day I had a look at the process used to make the mRNA vaccines, so I thought it would be a good idea to do the same for the adenovirus vector ones, such as J&J, Oxford/AstraZeneca, CanSino, Gamaleya et al. It’s a different system, with its own advantages and disadvantages, and that’s the broad story of scale-up manufacturing all the way: tradeoffs at every turn. It’s always tough to break out of the constraints of the Engineer’s Triangle: “Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick Any Two”. That is, if it’s good and cheap, it’s unlikely to be fast, and if it’s fast and good it’s unlikely to be cheap. And of course, if it’s fast and cheap, it’s unlikely to be any good!

Update: for further reading, reviews on this whole topic can be found herehereherehere, and here.

Intro: Adenoviruses and Infection

Adenoviruses are extremely common double-stranded DNA-containing pathogens, and it seems like a sure bet that every single person reading that has been infected with several of them over the years. They tend to cause mild respiratory symptoms and sometimes show up as ear infections or conjunctivitis. There are no antiviral drugs that target them, and no adenovirus-targeting vaccines that are available to the general public (although there have been anti-adenovirus vaccination programs in the military for a couple of subtypes). Subtypes, indeed: there are at least 88 of them that infect humans (more since that paper was published!), divided into several related groups. Among the more common ones is adenovirus 5 (Ad5), and in some regions of the world you find 80 to 90% of the population is already seropositive to it (the US figures seem to be close to 40%).

The adenoviruses have long been used as tools in molecular biology, since they have plenty of room to carry a modified DNA payload, show no tendencies to integrate DNA into the host genomes, and can infect both dividing and nondividing cells. But as those figures just cited show, a downside of using them as human therapies is that many people may well already have antibodies to your viral vector tool right at the start, which will surely knock down its effectiveness. For this reason, there has been a long-running search for rare and unusual Ad forms to use as platforms, which explains why you see J&J and Gamaleya using Ad26, Oxford/AZ using a virus from chimpanzees that’s not in the human population, ReiThera using a gorilla adenovirus, etc. And it’s also why people wonder about CanSino’s efficacy in general, since they stayed with Ad5.

No matter what variety you use, though, you also have to wonder about what happens if you administer a second shot of the same vaccine: how much makes it through? The current wave of trials, I have to say, is going to provide more real-world data to answer this question than we could ever have imagined having so quickly. That’s closely related to an even larger question: once you’ve had a vaccine (or even a gene therapy?) with a particular adenovirus vector, what happens if you want to get another vaccine for a different disease that uses the same vector? Are you going to cross off large numbers of people from being dosed in Ad5 space, Ad26 space, and so on? Another unanswered question, as of yet.

No matter what the adenovirus types, the end result of such a vaccination is rather similar to what happens with an mRNA vaccine like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech. The adenovirus goes in and does its normal infection route; all that machinery is intact.. But in this case, the DNA payload that’s delivered into your cells is not a big set of instructions for making more adenoviruses, it’s a much shorter sequence that codes for the coronavirus spike protein instead. So the modified DNA gets transcribed to messenger RNA in your cells (and that’s the exact step that the mRNA vaccines jump in at if you take them), and this mRNA is taken up by ribosomes and translated into the Spike protein itself. And production of that foreign protein sets off your immune system, which to be sure has already been ringing alarm bells because it is sensing that a foreign virus is attacking. That’s why you don’t need an adjuvant added to either the viral vector vaccines or the mRNA ones; they set off the various Intruding Virus Detected machinery very well on their own, whereas just injecting you with the Spike protein itself skips past some of those warning systems. Those are generally set up around sensing foreign DNA and RNA, and jumping past them with an injected protein leads to a less vigorous response (thus the need for an adjuvant in the mix).

Making an Adenovirus Vector

So let’s move on to how you make such vaccines. You’ll need to produce a large mass of infectious viral particles, each with the modified stripped-down DNA that you want to target to a patient’s cells. You especially want to take out the part of the adenovirus genome called E1; removing that makes it impossible for the virus to replicate. If you need more room for your own payload, you can delete the E3 region as well. This stuff has all been explored some years back; there are number of regions in the viral genome that have been shown to be suitable for splicing in your own sequences.

But getting this done and into a system that will make a pile of new virus requires some genomic dance steps. The most common way to do this, in broad outlines, is to make a bunch of (linear) adenovirus DNA, with your own modifications, and then get that into a big reactor full of human cells. And (this is key) these human cells have already been engineered to make the proteins that the viral E1 region makes, the ones the virus needs to replicate. This complementation trick allows the modified adenovirus to replicate away in the human cells and give you a much-increased yield of new infectious virus particles, but ensures that these viruses themselves are still unable to replicate. The E1 proteins they’d need are not coded for in their own genomes (you took that part out), but were just present for them inside the human cells. And when injected into a patient, they will most definitely not be encountering any other human cells that are cranking out viral E1 proteins for them.

So the first step in this process is to engineer the viral DNA that you need and make a lot of it. This step has often been done in bacteria because bacterial DNA is relatively straightforward to handle and to get replicated. There are actually commercial systems you can buy to do this on a laboratory scale – that is, you can purchase plasmids (the circular DNA molecules used by bacteria) that already have the A5 adenovirus genome in them, with the E1 and E3 regions already removed, and with the sequences set up for easy insertion of whatever DNA you want. Another way to do that is with a variety of plasmid called a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC), and you can buy those with the features you need for modification. But you’ll recall that J&J (and Gamaleya) are both using Ad26, while Oxford/AZ are using a chimpanzee adenovirus, so the commercial Ad5 reagents won’t be of any use – the teams involved have been working up their own tools for the job. Earlier on, CanSino reported using the commercial AdMax system from Microbix (Toronto) for their plasmid work. In any case, though, you’re forcing the bacteria (often good old E. coli) to make copies of these plasmids, as many as it can stand. You then lyse (break open) the bacteria, isolate your DNA, and then break open the circular plasmids to get a linear DNA molecule. Some of the BACs can be engineered so that they do that to themselves, saving you a step. You need the linear DNA because it turns out that in that form It can directly infect human cells (with the help of some additives in the cell culture to get it through the cell membranes more efficiently). Update: you need the linear DNA form for adenovirus replication/packaging once it’s in the cell. The earlier Oxford papers reference this book chapter for their methods. As for J&J, this patent would appear to have some of the details of their system. Updated: you can get adenovirus DNA in as the circular plasmid form, too

From this paper and this one, it appears that the Oxford/AZ team is using a BAC, engineered from combination of two different plasmids through “recombineering” to bring in their sequence for the Spike protein into what used to be the E1 region of the adenovirus sequence. (I’m skipping the details of that process to save time, space, and patience). Meanwhile, you can read about what appears to be the J&J plasmid system here and here (that last one detailing another adenovirus subtype, but apparently with similar techniques used for Ad26).

Now it’s time to get those linear DNA molecules into human cells. Here we get into some controversy, depending on your beliefs. It looks like Oxford/AZ is using a complementation-engineered version of HEK293 cells for this process, as are Gamaleya and CanSino, while J&J is using a line called PER.C6. These two have both been around for a while. The HEK initials stand for “human embryonic kidney”, and it was indeed first isolated from aborted fetal tissue in the early 1970s at Leiden University. PER.C6 as a complementation strain goes back to 1998, but the origin of the cell line is back in 1985 in Leiden as well, also from aborted tissue, with the “ER” part standing for “embryonic retinoblasts”. As you can well imagine, people with strong anti-abortion beliefs are not enthusiastic about taking vaccines that touch on this area in any way for their production, while other with different beliefs are not bothered at all. No matter what, though, it seems crucial for the linear DNA to be transfected into some sort of human cell complementation line; that’s the only way you’re going to get amplified yields of the final viral particles used in the vaccine.

As you read about vector vaccine production, you’ll sometimes see the phrases “virus seed stock” and “host cell bank”. You’ll see below that there are manufacturing sites all over the world for these vaccines, and the last thing you need is for everyone to be out there going it alone. Batches of the plasmids, the linear DNA, the complentary cells, and the final adenovirus are all going to be stored for future reference and/or distribution, and exhaustively characterized. You definitely want to keep a close eye on the batches of these things to make sure that you’re dealing with the same stuff at all the production sites.

Human cell culture – any cell culture – is simultaneously a scientific process and an art form. Ask anyone, literally anyone who’s done it, and if you can find someone who’s worked on it at an industrial scale, they’ll confirm that all the more vigorously. This is (or can be) the weak point of the entire viral-vector production process. When everything is working, this method for infecting living cells and turning them into virus factories is hard to beat. But it doesn’t aways work the way it’s supposed to. It appears that AstraZeneca has been having problems because one of their largest production facilities has been experiencing problems with low yields of virus, even though everything should be the same (same viral DNA, same cell line, etc.)

To give you an idea, HEK293 cells themselves come in varieties that grow on the surfaces of a culture vessel (adherent, HEK293A) or grow floating around in suspension (HKE293S). You may well want the latter for serious scaleup (not least because you’re growing in three dimensions instead of two), but it can be done either way. Adherent cells grow until they touch and form a confluent layer on their surface, and some lines are OK when that happens and some aren’t (or gradually become less happy about it). Suspension cell lines divide and make a thicker, more concentrated suspension, and all of them react somewhat differently to that process, too. You have to think about what media all these things are growing in and what nutrients to provide (and in what concentration), the buildup of waste products (and debris from dead cells), the washing of adherent lines with fresh media and the stirring rates and techniques for suspension ones. . .oh, it’s glorious.

For example, when using engineered cells to make modified human proteins (an extremely common task in both academic and industrial molecular biology), I have been on a project where the yield of protein changed dramatically using the same damn cells grown in cylindrical “roller bottles” which were stirred (as the name implies) by slow rotation (rather like a convenience store hot dog machine), versus being grown in “shaker bags”, a more free-form affair that was sloshed around slowly by rotary oscillation. Why did the cells care? You tell me – but under one set of conditions they made a lot more protein than the other. Why is one of AZ’s plants making less virus than it should? Who knows?

Purification and Packaging

Isolation of the viral particles is likely pretty similar for all of these vaccines. I’ve been unable (no great surprise) to find detailed production information for any of the current vaccines, but this was likely one of the less stressful parts of the process optimization, given all the work that has already been put into adenoviruses over the years. You’ll lyse the cells in the cultures and start with some rough filtration to pass the viral particles and retain the cellular debris. From this AstraZeneca page, it looks like they’re using a series of filtration steps, followed by membrane chromatography (likely some sort of ion-exchange technique, in this case, based on the charged residues of the viral surface proteins), followed by an ultrafiltration step. You can bet that the organizations involved already had a pretty clear idea of what steps they’d be taking, although all of this stuff needs some tweaking for optimization and also validation at every step. The regulatory agencies involved will have seen these details, but I don’t think we’re going to.

And then you have to formulate the viral particles, which is a much less fraught process than it is with the mRNA vaccines. The other ingredients for the vaccine itself are going to be pretty innocuous stuff, no weird lipids as needed for the lipid nanoparticles. Here’s the list for the Gamaleya vaccine (see the first page of text); there’s nothing on it that looks to be any sort of supply problem. Now it’s time for fill-and-finish, which has been a common step for everyone, rounding up enough production-line capacity for filling and capping sterile vials.

I see that the earliest batches of the Oxford/AZ vaccine were produced at Oxford itself, and later on were manufactured and packaged by a company called Advent (in Pomezia, Italy) and by COBRA Biologics (in Keele, UK) with vial-filling by Symbiosis (in Sterling, UK). They’re working with the large contract firm Catalent in both the US (Harmans, MD) for production and Europe (Anagni, Italy) for fill-and-finish. There is production in the Netherlands (Halix) and Belgium (Novasep, in Seneffe). The last one is apparently the site with the yield problems. It’s also being packaged in Dessau, Germany by IDT Biologika. Russian manufacturer R-Pharm has a plant in Germany that’s in production for export back into the CIS countries (they’re also producing the Gamaleya vaccine). Insud in Spain is involved as well, as is a new plant of theirs in Argentina. AZ also has a big production deal with India’s Serum Institute, and WuXi is involved in China and at a plant in Wuppertal, Germany. And I’m sure I’ve missed some deals.

J&J, for their part, has a lot of capacity in the Netherlands (such as in Leiden), and they have signed deals with Emergent to produce the vaccine in Baltimore (who are also working with AstraZeneca, and indeed with Novavax, producing their protein vaccine at a separate Maryland plant). They’re also working with Catalent (at their Bloomington, Indiana plant and also at the Anagni site in Italy), Reig Jofre in Barcelona, Aspen Pharmacare (in Port Elizabeth, South Africa), Biological E in India (who just bought another facility in Himachal Pradesh), and with PCI Pharma for cold storage and shipping. No doubt there are more deals out there, too.

So there you have it, in outline form anyway. Any one of these steps can be zoomed in on to reveal a forest of further details, but that should give you an idea of what’s happening (and in many cases may provide even more than you ever wanted to know!) As you can see, it’s a fundamentally different process than the mRNA vaccines, with its own features (good and bad). That may well become important if we have to retool the existing vaccine candidates for new variants, but that’s a post for another day!

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/08/how-you-make-an-adenovirus-vaccine

Decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load following vaccination

 Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun, 

Idan YelinRachel KatzEsma HerzelZiv GolanLicita SchreiberTamar WolfVarda NadlerAmir Ben-TovJacob KuintSivan GazitTal PatalonGabriel ChodickRoy Kishony

Which Coronavirus Variants Will Resist Antibody Treatments

 You may have heard about the new variants of SARS-CoV-2—the coronavirus that causes COVID-19—that have appeared in other parts of the world and have now been detected in the United States. These variants, particularly one called B.1.351 that was first identified in South Africa, have raised growing concerns about the extent to which their mutations might help them evade current antibody treatments and highly effective vaccines.

While researchers take a closer look, it’s already possible in the laboratory to predict which mutations will help SARS-CoV-2 evade our therapies and vaccines, and even to prepare for the emergence of new mutations before they occur. In fact, an NIH-funded study, which originally appeared as a bioRxiv pre-print in November and was recently peer-reviewed and published in Science, has done exactly that. In the study, researchers mapped all possible mutations that would allow SARS-CoV-2 to resist treatment with three different monoclonal antibodies developed for treatment of COVID-19 [1].

The work, led by Jesse Bloom, Allison Greaney, and Tyler Starr, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, focused on the receptor binding domain (RBD), a key region of the spike protein that studs SARS-CoV-2’s outer surface. The virus uses RBD to anchor itself to the ACE2 receptor of human cells before infecting them. That makes the RBD a prime target for the antibodies that our bodies generate to defend against the virus.

In the new study, researchers used a method called deep mutational scanning to find out which mutations positively or negatively influence the RBD from being able to bind to ACE2 and/or thwart antibodies from striking their target. Here’s how it works: Rather than waiting for new mutations to arise, the researchers created a library of RBD fragments, each of which contained a change in a single nucleotide “letter” that would alter the spike protein’s shape and/or function by swapping one amino acid for another. It turns out that there are more than 3,800 such possible mutations, and Bloom’s team managed to make all but a handful of those versions of the RBD fragment.

The team then used a standard laboratory approach to measure systematically how each of those single-letter typos altered RBD’s ability to bind ACE2 and infect human cells. They also measured how those changes affected three different therapeutic antibodies from recognizing and binding to the viral RBD. Those antibodies include two developed by Regeneron (REGN10933 and REGN10987), which have been granted emergency use authorization for treatment of COVID-19 together as a cocktail called REGN-COV2. They also looked at an antibody developed by Eli Lilly (LY-CoV016), which is now in phase 3 clinical trials for treating COVID-19.

Based on the data, the researchers created four mutational maps for SARS-CoV-2 to escape each of the three therapeutic antibodies, as well as for the REGN-COV2 cocktail. Their studies show most of the mutations that would allow SARS-CoV-2 to escape treatment differed between the two Regeneron antibodies. That’s encouraging because it indicates that the virus likely needs more than one mutation to become resistant to the REGN-COV2 cocktail. However, it appears there’s one spot where a single mutation could allow the virus to resist REGN-COV2 treatment.

The escape map for LY-CoV016 similarly showed a number of mutations that could allow the virus to escape. Importantly, while some of those changes might impair the virus’s ability to cause infection, most of them appeared to come at little to no cost to the virus to reproduce.

How do these laboratory data relate to the real world? To begin to explore this question, the researchers teamed up with Jonathan Li, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They looked at an immunocompromised patient who’d had COVID-19 for an unusually long time and who was treated with the Regeneron cocktail for 145 days, giving the virus time to replicate and acquire new mutations.

Viral genome data from the infected patient showed that these maps can indeed be used to predict likely paths of viral evolution. Over the course of the antibody treatment, SARS-CoV-2 showed changes in the frequency of five mutations that would change the makeup of the spike protein and its RBD. Based on the newly drawn escape maps, three of those five are expected to reduce the efficacy of REGN10933. One of the others is expected to limit binding by the other antibody, REGN10987.

The researchers also looked to data from all known circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants as of Jan. 11, 2021, for evidence of escape mutations. They found that a substantial number of mutations with potential to allow escape from antibody treatment already are present, particularly in parts of Europe and South Africa.

However, it’s important to note that these maps reflect just three important antibody treatments. Bloom says they’ll continue to produce maps for other promising therapeutic antibodies. They’ll also continue to explore where changes in the virus could allow for escape from the more diverse set of antibodies produced by our immune system after a COVID-19 infection or vaccination.

While it’s possible some COVID-19 vaccines may offer less protection against some of these new variants—and recent results have suggested the AstraZeneca vaccine may not provide much protection against the South African variant, there’s still enough protection in most other current vaccines to prevent serious illness, hospitalization, and death. And the best way to keep SARS-CoV-2 from finding new ways to escape our ongoing efforts to end this terrible pandemic is to double down on whatever we can do to prevent the virus from multiplying and spreading in the first place.

For now, emergence of these new variants should encourage all of us to take steps to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2. That means following the three W’s: Wear a mask, Watch your distance, Wash your hands often. It also means rolling up our sleeves to get vaccinated as soon as the opportunity arises.

Reference:

[1] Prospective mapping of viral mutations that escape antibodies used to treat COVID-19.
Starr TN, Greaney AJ, Addetia A, Hannon WW, Choudhary MC, Dingens AS, Li JZ, Bloom JD.
Science. 2021 Jan 25:eabf9302.

Links:

COVID-19 Research (NIH)

Bloom Lab  (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle)

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/02/09/mapping-which-coronavirus-variants-will-resist-antibody-treatments/

NeuroRx/Relief: Initial Phase 2b/3 Results Show Benefit of ZYESAMI (aviptadil) in Respiratory Failure due to COVID

 NeuroRx, Inc. today reported preliminary results from their Phase 2b/3 trial of ZYESAMI™ (aviptadil, previously RLF-100) performed in collaboration with Relief Therapeutics Holdings, AG (SIX:RLF;OTCQB:RLFTF) in patients with respiratory failure due to Critical COVID-19. The study showed that patients who were treated with the maximal standard of care plus ZYESAMI were discharged sooner from the hospital compared to those treated with placebo plus maximal standard of care (SOC). If authorized for use, ZYESAMI would be the first drug indicated specifically for COVID-19 patients who are critically ill with respiratory failure.

https://www.neurorxpharma.com/press-releases/neurorx-and-relief-therapeutics-report-initial-phase-2b-3-study-results-demonstrating-significant-benefit-of-zyesami-in-reducing-hospital-stay-among-patients-with-respiratory-failure-due-to-c/

Variant-proof vaccines — invest now for the next pandemic

 The rapid development and delivery of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines less than a year after the emergence of the disease is a huge success story. This was possible, in part, because of certain properties of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that favour vaccine design — in particular, the spike protein on the virus’s surface. This prompts the body to make protective neutralizing antibodies (proteins that bind to viruses and prevent them from infecting human cells). These are most likely to be responsible for the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines.

The next pathogen to emerge might be less accommodating. A vaccine could take much longer to make. Even SARS-CoV-2 could be becoming more problematic for vaccines, because of the emergence of new variants. We call for an alternative approach to pandemic preparedness.

A special class of protective antibodies called broadly neutralizing antibodies (see ‘Pan-virus vaccines’) acts against many different strains of related virus — for example, of HIV, influenza or coronavirus. Such antibodies could be used as first-line drugs to prevent or treat viruses in a given family, including new lineages or strains that have not yet emerged. More importantly, they could be used to design vaccines against many members of a given family of viruses.

Pan-virus vaccines. Graphic showing how different antibodies bind to specific viruses. Some antibodies can bind to more.

Such pan-virus vaccines could be made in advance and deployed before the next emerging infection becomes a pandemic. We call for an investment now in basic research leading to the stockpiling of broadly effective vaccines. As we’ve seen for influenza, one virus strain can cause more deaths than a world war and result in trillions of dollars of economic damage. Surely, global governments that together spend US$2 trillion a year on defence can find a few hundred million dollars to stop the next pandemic?

Evasion tactics

Why has vaccine design for SARS-CoV-2 been relatively easy (so far, at least)? Infection begins when the spike protein on the surface attaches to a receptor on human cells. The virus injects its genetic material into the cell and takes it over to produce many copies of itself, leading eventually to disease. Neutralizing antibodies stop this viral entry and prevent infection. On SARS-CoV-2, the attachment site is a large, open protein surface to which antibodies stick readily. It is thus relatively easy for a vaccination to stimulate protective neutralizing antibodies.

In evolutionary terms, SARS-CoV-2 is an ‘evasion-light’ pathogen. It has not had to acquire an armamentarium of molecular features to outwit immune responses in general and neutralizing antibodies in particular. This is because it currently transmits from one person to another before immune responses have developed — and, in many cases, before disease symptoms are noted.

Other pathogens are ‘evasion-strong’. The extreme example is HIV. It frequently co-exists with human immune systems, possibly for years, before onward transmission. So it has developed many ways to stymie our defences, including extensive sequence variation. This is known as immune escape. Even in one infected person, there can be 100,000 different HIV strains, any of which could be transmitted.

A vaccine attempting to block this transmission must induce broadly neutralizing antibodies that are effective against most HIV strains. Encouragingly, many such antibodies have been identified in infected people1. This suggests that an HIV vaccine is possible in principle, if researchers can learn how to induce the antibodies through immunization. Intensive research over the past ten years or so has generated promising approaches, but a vaccine is still probably a decade away.

The emergence of another pathogen with the evasion capabilities of HIV might be the worse-case scenario for a pandemic.

Influenza virus is another evasion-strong pathogen. Its huge sequence variability is a challenge for vaccine design. The current temporary solution is to attempt to anticipate which strains will predominate in the next flu season and prepare a vaccine accordingly. Researchers have sought a longer-lasting solution — a universal flu vaccine — that would protect against essentially all flu strains, inspired by the discovery of broadly neutralizing antibodies to many or most strains.

Similarly to SARS-CoV-2, flu has spike proteins on its surface. Broadly neutralizing antibodies have been identified that target the head (top) and stem of haemagglutinin, one of the spike proteins. Antibodies against the stem are very broad but not so potent; clinical studies using these to treat flu have been disappointing2 (see also go.nature.com/3phhtcm). Antibodies to the head are less broad but more potent3.

In terms of pandemic potential, influenza virus ticks all of the boxes. It is a respiratory virus, is readily transmitted between humans and has animal reservoirs. Indeed, many researchers rate influenza as the greatest pandemic threat, and fear a repeat of the 1918 pandemic, which killed more than 50 million people globally with a case fatality rate of around 2.5%. So far, COVID-19 has killed around 2.1% of the more than 100 million people confirmed to be infected globally, and has left around 10% of infected people with health effects lasting for 6 months or more.

Clearly, a universal flu vaccine would be the ideal countermeasure. A more realistic approach might be to design several vaccine candidates based on potent anti-head antibodies against a limited set of influenza viruses, perhaps organized by flu subtypes. Generating and stockpiling specific flu vaccines and broadly neutralizing antibodies might then offer some insurance. The vaccines could be created in the formats used for those against SARS-CoV-2: messenger RNA and viral vectors such as adenovirus, both of which are amenable to rapid scaling and deployment.

Priority viruses

Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged in recent months, including B.1.1.7, B1.351 (also known as 501Y.V2) and P.1. These were first identified in the United Kingdom, South Africa and Brazil, respectively, and each variant has many mutations in the crucial spike protein. Laboratory studies suggest the potential for immune escape4,5,6,7 with at least one of these variants. There is also now initial evidence from two vaccine clinical trials suggesting reduced efficacy in preventing mild to moderate COVID-19 in individuals infected with the B.1.351 variant (see go.nature.com/2ydkrxs and go.nature.com/2musicv), although the vaccine candidates still seemed to prevent severe disease. Over time, uncontained spread and accelerated evolution in immunocompromised hosts could drive enough mutation to reduce the efficacy of current vaccines considerably, or even entirely. We would then need vaccines that induce antibodies able to neutralize variants of SARS-CoV-2, as well as the original virus.

Many broadly neutralizing antibodies effective against both SARS-CoV (the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS) and SARS-CoV-2 have been isolated from donors infected with either of the two individual viruses alone8,9,10. These could form the basis of vaccines designed to contain SARS-related coronaviruses (sarbecoviruses) generally, including potential coronaviruses that have not yet emerged. Broadly neutralizing antibodies have also been isolated that are effective against a wider range of betacoronaviruses (the genus that includes the Sarbecovirus lineage), including Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus and seasonal coronaviruses11. Again, these could seed projects to design broad vaccines.

There are viruses against which it is relatively easy to induce protective neutralizing antibodies through vaccination. Even here, the existence of subtypes and the possibility of others emerging suggest that the discovery of broadly neutralizing antibodies could be valuable to the design of vaccines to protect against existing and future viruses. For instance, there are six known subtypes of Ebola virus; two have emerged in the past 15 years. Broadly neutralizing antibodies exist that potently counter multiple subtypes12.

Several more viruses have been identified as potential pandemic threats by the Oslo-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). As well as Ebola, CEPI lists MERS, Lassa, Nipah, Rift Valley fever and chikungunya viruses as its priorities for vaccine development. These should be at the front of the queue in the search for broadly neutralizing antibodies and rational vaccine design.

If not now, when?

What do the fiercest critics of our proposals argue? They point to the difficulties of isolating neutralizing antibodies with sufficient potency and breadth to be effective. They note the complexities of rational vaccine design. They underscore concerns about pathogen evolution and resistance to antibodies. They ask why this approach has not been widely applied already.

Generating very broad, very potent neutralizing antibodies can be difficult. But research to find the best antibodies and improve them has been highly successful in recent years. It might not always be possible to obtain the ideal breadth of responses across a whole family of viruses. But compromises can be made, and methods for delivering cocktails of antibodies (two or three, say) and vaccines are becoming feasible.

Already there are pockets of promise. Rational design has delivered a favourable vaccine, currently in phase III trials, against respiratory syncytial virus — the cause of severe, sometimes fatal, illness in the very young. That virus has defied conventional vaccine-development efforts for more than 50 years. Rational design approaches are under way for major pathogens such as HIV, influenza and malaria, although not on the scale we suggest here.

Crucially, early containment or eradication of an emerging virus would greatly reduce the likelihood of it evolving resistance to antibodies and vaccines.

Cost and investors

Unlike a reactive programme that swings into action when a new pathogen appears, our proposal has goals that can be described now and projects that could begin on a large scale immediately. Thanks to work already done on other viruses, particularly HIV and influenza, the approaches are understood and the infrastructure is in place. Investments made so far in basic science — including virology, genomics, immunology and structural biology — have afforded us a remarkable opportunity to get ahead of further SARS-CoV-2 evolution and put us in a powerful position of readiness for new viral pathogens.

The investment per virus from bench to phase I trials is likely to be in the range of $100 million to $200 million over several years. We envisage that these costs would be borne by public–private partnerships between governments, philanthropy and industry. Organizations such as CEPI, the COVAX Facility and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance could help to convene the expertise and initiate the negotiations needed to deliver the types of vaccine we propose.

We will have outbreaks in the future, and are very likely to see further epidemics. We must stop these becoming pandemics.