Search This Blog

Saturday, May 8, 2021

Lenzilumab efficacy, safety in newly hospitalized COVID-19 subjects

 Zelalem Temesgen, Charles D. Burger, Jason Baker, Christopher Polk, Claudia Libertin, Colleen Kelley, Vincent C. Marconi, Robert Orenstein, Cameron Durrant, Dale Chappell, Omar Ahmed, Gabrielle Chappell, Andrew D. Badley

Science, society come together in Events Research Programme

After a  momentous weekend in Liverpool, we caught up with Professor Iain Buchan – now officially known as ‘The Party Professor’ – to find out about the Events Research Programme, and how he and teams across the UK will be working together to find out if live, large-scale events can resume safely and securely post-Covid.

Can you tell us a bit about the Events Research Programme?

The Events Research Programme is a fantastic partnership between national and local scientists, Liverpool City Council, the event organisers, and the people of Liverpool City Region. A lot of people concentrated at the University of Liverpool have partnered with the Council's events team, Public Health teams and with event organizers to capture and analyse the data on how to build a safety net around events that involves testing - people had to get tested in the 24 hours before the event.

There's also a social responsibility piece to that safety net.  People have to declare if they have any symptoms, and not go on the day if they do. For research purposes, we've done another two tests. We've asked people to take some home tests that are not part of the entry criteria - a PCR test on the event day, and five days later. We're looking for any signs of virus, but we're not expecting to see much, as rates are low at the moment (around 1 in 1000). So if you apply testing on top of that with lateral flow rapid antigen tests, they detect around 8 out of 10 likely infectious individuals. So the chance of encountering someone in one of these venues has been very low, maybe 1 in 5000.  The acceptable level of risk was rightly a local public health decision - informed by good science – a decision that now is a good time to build that safety net.

People attending live concert at Sefton Park 2021

People attending the Sefton Park pilot live event, May 2021

We’re developing and testing the early warning system that needs to be in place so that we have all the data, should we need to ramp up safety measures later on. If rates were to rise a little bit in July, let’s say, do we have the very quick flow of information between testing and ticketing, and so between public health teams and event organizers? Do you know who everyone is? Can you trace them quickly? It’s a bit like putting a contact tracing system in place for an outbreak that has not happened. Can the local public health team handle that amount of information in a short period of time? That's what we've really tested - that pre-emptive safety net, and whether the audience understands how important it is that they are part of that safety net. This includes the choices they make, such as minimizing their unnecessary contacts with other people in the days leading up to the event. And afterwards, we can all play our part in securing these events.

Why was Liverpool selected for these pilot events?

Liverpool was selected because it's been a global pioneer city in voluntary 'mass' or 'community' testing – testing open to people irrespective of whether or not they have symptoms. The people of Liverpool embraced this community scheme and so the region knows more about the background patterns of the virus than other places. If you want to understand the potential impacts of events, you need a lot of background information. Liverpool's probably the best place in the world to understand this. The local economy is also reliant on events, hospitality and visitors – so there is a civic, societal need to generate the evidence in Liverpool.

How did you work with the other organisations in Liverpool to make these events happen?

This is a partnership that's been growing over the past year, a remarkable partnership of science and society. I'd say it's one of the most rewarding partnerships of my working life. The Events, Communications and Public Health teams in Liverpool City Council have worked with us in the University as one family. A lot of hard work has been done in a very short period, and that's based on trust, hard work, courage and capability. Liverpool had already identified in December the need to open events with a 'testing shield' when it was safe to do so when the vaccination scheme was advanced, and rates were low. Because of the tight partnership in community testing between the University, the City Council, the NHS and the population, there was the ability to offer a well prepared community for the Events Research Programme.

Professor Iain Buchan and event official at Sefton park event

Professor Iain Buchan with an event official at Sefton Park

What has been the most challenging aspect up to this point?

Timescales. Events are complicated - there are a lot of moving parts. Public health operations in a pandemic also have a lot of moving parts! You put the two together, and it's super complex. There's a lot to consider - consequences of actions that are interconnected in ways that they don't normally work, ticket offices don't normally accept health information! They didn't have a process for doing that, so we had to create ways for the world of events to work efficiently with the world of public health, and communicate that to both the scientific audience and the public attending the events. A project like this might take a year to plan in normal times – we had a month – pandemic timescales are tight, and Liverpool is responsive.

What were your personal highlights of the events that took place over the past week?

I think the finale at Sefton Park with over 5000 people. I've never seen a crowd cry happy tears - the event organizers, the audience, the press and guests broke out into song an hour before the bands came on. There was an outpouring of joy. And suddenly all the very hard work on the science and the logistics - you could see it was worthwhile. You saw a part of public health that's about social fabric, mental health and wellbeing just come alive in that room. A GP friend of mine was there, she's 58. She wanted her teenage twins to go, but they were just under age. She was crying too and it was the most joyous, collective experience I think many of us have ever encountered and probably will ever encounter. It was major goosebumps time.

Band performing to live crowd in liverpool

Stockport band Blossoms perfoming live at Sefton Park

So, what happens now?

Our teams are looking at the data coming in from testing, ticketing, social media, questionnaires and field reports from people on the ground at the events. Colleagues in other universities in Loughborough, London, and Edinburgh are looking at environmental, crowd movement and other aspects. They're taking data from carbon dioxide sensors for air quality and the AI behind the cameras, for example to see how closely people stand together. We're going to put the different threads of research together. Liverpool is the only place where all the components come into a social critical mass of multiple events happening as they would be. These are realistic events, they weren't artificial. The Wembley events were not as a big football match would normally be run, but at the nightclub, I can tell you it was pretty realistic because I was terrified! That was full on. The business event and the music festival were held as they would normally be too. So realistic evidence will come out of Liverpool. We will crunch the numbers and deliver a report that goes to the policymakers on the 21st of May. A ‘know how’ guide might also be written with the teams on the ground to provide a blueprint for others needing to run events and public health operations in a tightly coupled way. A lot of data is being crunched and notes being swapped over the next week or so.

Who will you be working with to analyze the results?

The Institute of Population Health has a great health data science team who take data from an integrated system that we have in Cheshire and Merseyside called CIPHA (Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action). That gives us a feed, so the CIPHA team have been working really hard over the weekend and matching ticketing and testing. We’ll then be marrying the data that comes back from the follow up tests, and they don't conclude until Friday.  They have to be processed by a laboratory in Cambridge - it will be the middle of next week when the full data comes through. The teams have got the ability to flow data from public health, NHS and ticketing into the Institute of Population Health in a secure, de-identified form for analysis. The data teams who worked on community testing are also working on events, so they are used to handling these kinds of data. Marta Garcia-Finana, David Hughes, Chris Cheney, Girvan Burnside - they’re the team in health data science. Gary Leeming and teams at the Civic Data Cooperative, and Michael Humann deploying questionnaires at military pace from Psychology - they've been helping make sure the data flows work between ticketing, testing and questioning. Gary's worked really hard with his counterpart in events who is the data lead of Robin Kemp. Rhiannon Corcoran and her team are running focus groups and Kay O’Halloran and teams in Humanities and Social Sciences are analysing social media feeds. The Faculty of Science and Engineering is also involved via Simon Maskell and colleagues. Everyone's rolled their sleeves up and really worked as one.

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/coronavirus/blog/mayposts/iain-buchan-science-society-events-research-programme/

Severe Immunosuppression Tied to Chronic COVID-19, Virus Variants

 Jennifer Abbasi

JAMA. Published online May 5, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.7212


Last summer, a UK man in his 70s was admitted to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge with COVID-19 pneumonia. He hadn’t been able to shake his illness since testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 more than a month earlier. Despite interventions including multiple rounds of the antiviral remdesivir and convalescent plasma, he died in the hospital’s intensive care unit about 9 weeks after his arrival.

Throughout his hospitalization, the patient continued to test positive with a high viral load. This, along with his worsening illness, indicated that he was battling an ongoing infection with live, replicating virus for more than 100 days.

His body wasn’t equipped for the task. Back in 2012 he had been diagnosed with marginal B-cell lymphoma. The blood cancer, along with the treatment he received for it, had wiped out his B and T cells—both arms of his adaptive immune response—leaving him severely immunocompromised.

University of Cambridge clinical microbiology professor Ravindra K. Gupta, MD, PhD, who consults part-time on infectious disease cases at Addenbrooke’s, was involved in the patient’s care. Gupta and colleagues analyzed the man’s SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences, which they had collected over 23 time points, starting with the first positive nasopharyngeal swab. Their findings, published in Nature in February, showed the virus evolving and adapting to treatment over the 3-month-long infection. The patient was likely contagious all along, Gupta said in an interview, although there’s no evidence that the virus was transmitted to others.

A number of case studies like this one now demonstrate that some patients with severely weakened immune systems can take months to clear the novel coronavirus, if they ever do. These patients are potentially contagious for much longer than average. Compounding that, their prolonged infections and suboptimal therapies can provide the time and the evolutionary pressure for variants to emerge. The fear is that these changes could produce a more transmissible virus, like the B.1.1.7 variant of concern, or that the resulting variants could resist therapies or vaccines, as is potentially true with B.1.351 and P.1.

“I think we need to wise up that there is this group that could sustain transmission and generate new variants to the virus,” John Mellors, MD, chief of the infectious diseases division at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

Mellors and Gupta are among the virologists who believe that the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern circling the globe first arose in immunocompromised hosts. “There’s no other explanation for how this is happening,” Gupta said. “It’s the product of chronic infection.”

Physicians are now grappling with how best to treat COVID-19 in severely immunosuppressed patients without encouraging treatment-resistant variants to emerge. They’re also working out how long to isolate these patients and how to determine when it’s safe to lift the precautions.

Diverse Presentations

Exactly who falls under the category of severely immunosuppressed is still an open question. “The challenge we and other centers are now facing is how to define who these patients are,” Ghady Haidar, MD, a transplant infectious disease physician at UPMC, said in an email.

Certain conditions, including some hematological malignancies and rare congenital disorders, can substantially impair the immune system, according to University of California, San Diego, infectious disease specialist Saima Aslam, MD. The myriad immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated diseases, cancer, and transplants can cause transient or chronic immunodeficiencies for millions of patients. Aslam and others cited rituximab, a B cell–depleting agent used in certain blood cancers and a range of autoimmune disorders, as one such medication on their radar. A recent study in Gut potentially implicates infliximab, a biologic used to treat inflammatory bowel disease, as another.

Case reports of prolonged infectious SARS-CoV-2 shedding describe patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma, as well as individuals with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and the autoimmune disorder severe antiphospholipid syndrome. One article reported long-term infectiousness among 3 patients, 1 with untreated HIV, 1 with a heart transplant, and another with rituximab-treated rheumatoid arthritis. “If you look at the clinical presentations, they’re quite diverse,” Gupta said.

In one early case in Washington State, reported in Cell in November 2020, a 71-year-old woman with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and acquired hypogammaglobulinemia had culturable virus 70 days after her first positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, despite being asymptomatic over the entire course of her infection.

“Not all immunocompromised patients are the same and the ones we are seeing with true chronic or recrudescent COVID tend to be patients who have significant impaired B-cell immunity, usually with some T-cell impairment: CAR-T recipients, lymphoma patients on treatment, rituximab users,” the late Francisco Marty, MD, wrote in a March email to JAMA. (Marty, who was an infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and editor in chief of the journal Transplant Infectious Disease, died in April.)

Complicating the matter, some severely immunocompromised patients don’t mount a robust response to standard vaccines, like those for influenza and hepatitis B, Mellors said. Research is starting to show that the same is likely true for the novel coronavirus. In a recent study at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, only about half of 658 fully vaccinated solid organ transplant recipients generated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Severely immunosuppressed patients are therefore uniquely vulnerable not only to becoming infected, but also to being chronically infected—and infectious. Researchers are interested in using monoclonal antibodies prophylactically in these patients. In the meantime, it’s critical that family members and caregivers are vaccinated to create a “bubble” around people with weakened immune systems, said Joshua A. Hill, MD, an assistant professor in the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Fred Hutch) and the Allergy and Infectious Disease Division of the University of Washington.

The Problem With Plasma

Without the assurance of vaccine protection, effective therapies are of paramount importance for these individuals. But “basically none of the medical interventions for treatment of COVID-19 infection have really been well studied in immunocompromised patients,” Hill said in an interview.

For now, monoclonal antibodies offer the best hope for people with COVID-19 who can’t produce their own antibodies. But in regions where they aren’t yet approved or widely available outside of clinical trials, like the UK, clinicians often rely on convalescent plasma for these patients, Gupta said. While monoclonals are standardized, the level of neutralizing antibodies in plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 isn’t and may not be optimal.

High antibody titers are also key to avoiding variant evolution. A treatment that helps keep patients alive for a time without delivering a knockout punch could give the virus a chance to adapt.

Haidar and Mellors were coauthors of a case study in Clinical Infectious Diseases describing a CAR-T therapy recipient with treatment-resistant multiple myeloma who had infectious SARS-CoV-2 in endotracheal aspirate 72 days after his COVID-19 diagnosis. Genomic sequencing identified 5 variants that arose within the individual after his initial infection with the dominant strain that was circulating in Pittsburgh. “Our patient had 2 rounds of convalescent plasma, so I think it may have had some role,” Mellors said.

This also appears to be true for Gupta’s patient, who developed what’s known as a double mutant variant. “The big shifts in the virus only really came after the plasma was infused,” Gupta said.

The 2 mutations, both in the spike protein, were troubling. One bestowed modest resistance to the plasma antibodies but decreased infectivity. The other—a deletion also found in the B.1.1.7 variant—appeared to compensate for the reduction, making the variant just as infectious as the dominant strain.

About 3 weeks after the first round of convalescent plasma, when the antibodies had likely waned, different variants took over—that is, until the next infusion, when the antibody-resistant variant resurfaced and outcompeted the rest.

Gupta called the pace of changes within a single patient “absolutely staggering.” The virus’s ability to infect many different cell and tissue types, a feature known as tropism, may have enabled some of the quick shifts. According to Gupta, this trait potentially allows the pathogen to acquire different mutations as it replicates in the various organs of a single host. “It’s got all these different reservoirs,” he said. “It’s very much like HIV in that sense.”

Gupta is an HIV researcher who is known for having treated the so-called London patient, the second person to be functionally cured of the virus. For him, there are “a lot of parallels between HIV and what’s going on with this virus and chronic infection.” In both, the virus wages an ongoing war against the host immune system, the treatments, and even itself: “There’s a battle between different variants going on,” he said.

All this means that therapies that put evolutionary pressure on the virus should be considered that much more carefully for immunocompromised patients.

Last October, Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, a University of Michigan Medical School infectious disease professor, and colleagues published one of the first accounts of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in an immunocompromised person. The patient with mantle cell lymphoma was hospitalized 3 times for COVID-19 and was infectious for at least 119 days. Two courses of remdesivir and convalescent plasma helped resolve his symptoms, but each time the improvements were fleeting. “You get a transient benefit, but then the virus just comes back,” Lauring said in an interview. “So I’m less enthusiastic about convalescent plasma in general.”

Mellors cautioned that, if used, high-titer convalescent plasma should be given early in the course of infection, when the antibodies it contains are more likely to fully block viral replication and evolution. “Don’t just give it because it’s available” or as “a Hail Mary pass,” he said.

Contagious or Not?

Isolating potentially contagious patients is a sound public health tactic but can negatively affect the individuals’ emotional well-being. For that reason, clinicians who care for these patients want to know when enough is enough.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that most adults with COVID-19 can stop isolating 10 days after their symptoms began but that some people with severe illness may need to be isolated for up to 20 days. Recognizing that some severely immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 can be infectious for even longer, the CDC now says physicians can consider using a test-based strategy to decide when to stop isolating these individuals.

The protocols differ from one health facility to another. “Right now I feel like each center is doing its own thing,” Aslam said in an interview. Haidar agreed: “We’ve had discussions about this issue with colleagues from other large transplant and cancer centers, and the lack of a uniform approach to this problem is striking.”

At Fred Hutch, Hill said severely immunosuppressed cancer patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are isolated for at least 20 days. They need a negative PCR test to get out of isolation, and they must be fever-free for at least a day without using fever-reducing medications, with improvements in other symptoms like cough or shortness of breath.

At UC San Diego Health, where Aslam directs the Solid Organ Transplant Infectious Diseases Service, severely immunocompromised patients whose COVID-19 symptoms have resolved must have at least 2 negative PCR tests separated by at least 24 hours before the hospital discontinues isolation. But because the test results can remain positive for some time even without replicating virus, clinicians there also consider the tests’ Ct, or cycle threshold, values, which correlate with viral load and can indicate whether the infection is resolving.

“The most important thing is to figure out whether their secretions still have lots of virus,” Mellors said. “If they have lots of RNA in them, they probably have replicating virus that is potentially infectious.”

Lauring’s laboratory has looked at subgenomic RNA—small RNA strands the virus makes when it’s actively replicating—as a marker for infectivity. “It sounds great,” he said. But “what we found, and I think what others have found, is it might not be any better than just looking at the overall viral load over time.”

As for immunosuppressed outpatients, Aslam said she is comfortable with them coming out of isolation after 20 days if their COVID-19 symptoms have resolved. For those with ongoing symptoms, she waits for a negative PCR test result before ending isolation.

Evolution Within a Host

These precautions are intended to prevent highly infectious patients from transmitting the virus—and new variants—to others. At the end of the UPMC patient’s life, his level of virus replication was enormous, Mellors said. “The potential was for him to be a source of transmission of one or more of those variants,” he noted. “But because of good infection control practices and spending the majority of his time out of the hospital in a relatively isolated environment, that didn’t occur.”

The first 3 variants of concern identified globally all had accumulated several mutations by the time they were discovered, which to some suggests that they evolved in individuals with chronic infections and then were transmitted to others. “That is likely, in my mind, to be the source of these 3 types of variants,” Mellors said.

“It’s not stepwise evolution—it’s evolution within a host,” Gupta said. “It’s being hidden from the surveillance that we have because it’s going on in 1 person for 3, 4 months undetected, and then it causes an infection of someone else, and then it starts spreading.”

In Lauring’s view, the best case can be made for B.1.1.7. The variant had 17 strain-defining mutations when it was first detected in the UK last September, more changes than should have accumulated in that time. “It was kind of ticking to a different clock,” he said, which argues for it having evolved in an unusual setting. What’s more, some of its mutations have also been detected in immunocompromised patients with prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections.

“All that, I think, is suggestive,” Lauring said. “It’s not an airtight case but given that we probably won’t ever find the smoking gun, it’s I think a reasonable hypothesis.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779850