Badley, Andrew D.

Abstract Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often results from the immune-mediated cytokine storm, triggered by granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), potentially leading to respiratory failure and death. Lenzilumab, a novel anti-human GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, neutralizes GM-CSF and demonstrated potential to improve clinical outcomes in a matched case-cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of survival without invasive mechanical ventilation (SWOV), beyond available treatments. Methods Hypoxic patients, hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=520), requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized on Day 0 to receive lenzilumab (1800mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259), and available treatments, including remdesivir and/or corticosteroids; and were followed through Day 28. Results Baseline demographics were comparable between groups: male, 64.7%; mean age, 60.5 years; median CRP, 79.0 mg/L. Patients across both groups received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the primary endpoint, likelihood of SWOV in the mITT population, by 1.54-fold (HR: 1.54; 95%CI: 1.02-2.32, p=0.0403). Lenzilumab improved SWOV by 1.91-fold (nominal p=0.0073) and 1.92-fold (nominal p=0.0067) in patients receiving remdesivir or remdesivir and corticosteroids, respectively. A key secondary endpoint of incidence of IMV, ECMO or death was also improved in patients receiving remdesivir (p=0.020) or remdesivir and corticosteroids (p=0.0180). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were similar across both groups. Conclusion Lenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hypoxic COVID-19 patients upon hospitalization, with the greatest benefit observed in patients receiving treatment with remdesivir and corticosteroids. NCT04351152 Disclosures Zelalem Temesgem, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Jason Baker, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Christopher Polk, MD, Atea (Research Grant or Support)Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Humanigen (Research Grant or Support)Regeneron (Research Grant or Support) Claudia R. Libertin, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Colleen F. Kelley, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Moderna (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Novavax (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Viiv (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support Vincent Marconi, MD, Bayer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Eli Lilly (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Victoria Catterson, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) William Aronstein, MD, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Cameron Durrant, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Dale Chappell, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Omar Ahmed, PharmD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Gabrielle Chappell, MSc, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Andrew Badley, M.D., AbbVie (Consultant) for the LIVE-AIR Study Group, n/a, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support)

Abstract The raging COVID-19 pandemic in India and reports of “vaccine breakthrough infections” globally have raised alarm mandating the characterization of the immuno-evasive features of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we systematically analyzed over 1.3 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes from 178 countries and performed whole-genome viral sequencing from 53 COVID-19 patients, including 20 vaccine breakthrough infections. We identified 116 Spike protein mutations that increased in prevalence during at least one surge in SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in any country over a three-month window. Deletions in the Spike protein N-terminal domain (NTD) are highly enriched for these ‘surge-associated mutations’ (Odds Ratio = 18.2, 95% CI: 7.53-48.7; p=1.465x10-18). In the recent COVID-19 surge in India, an NTD deletion (ΔF157/R158) increased over 10-fold in prevalence from February 2021 (1.1%) to April 2021 (15%). During the recent surge in Chile, an NTD deletion (Δ246-253) increased rapidly over 30-fold in prevalence from January 2021 (0.86%) to April 2021 (33%). Strikingly, these simultaneously emerging deletions associated with surges in different parts of the world both occur at an antigenic supersite that is targeted by neutralizing antibodies. Finally, we generated clinically annotated SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequences and identified deletions within this NTD antigenic supersite in a patient with vaccine breakthrough infection (Δ156-164) and other deletions from unvaccinated severe COVID-19 patients that could represent emerging deletion-prone regions. Overall, the expanding repertoire of Spike protein deletions throughout the pandemic and their association with case surges and vaccine breakthrough infections point to antigenic minimalism as an emerging evolutionary strategy for SARS-CoV-2 to evade immune responses. This study highlights the urgent need to sequence SARS-CoV-2 genomes at a larger scale globally and to mandate a public health policy for transparent reporting of relevant clinical annotations (e.g. vaccination status) in order to aid the development of comprehensive therapeutic strategies.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Abstract Background Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. Results Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56–.77], I2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57–.94], I2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A cure for HIV would require eliminating cells that contain the virus in a latent form from the body. Current antiretroviral medications are unable to rid the body of latently infected cells. Here, we show that a combination of investigational agents—ixazomib plus venetoclax—which reactivate latent virus and predispose infected cells to apoptosis may reduce latent virus in a T cell model, but at the expense of nonspecific toxicity in primary cells.

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Abstract Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787 ). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.