| Literature DB >> 33318491 |
Matthew S Buckland1,2, James B Galloway3, Caoimhe Nic Fhogartaigh4, Luke Meredith5, Nicholas M Provine6,7, Stuart Bloor8,9, Ane Ogbe6,7, Wioleta M Zelek10, Anna Smielewska11,12, Anna Yakovleva5, Tiffeney Mann13, Laura Bergamaschi8,9, Lorinda Turner8,9, Frederica Mescia8,9, Erik J M Toonen14, Carl-Philipp Hackstein6,7, Hossain Delowar Akther6,7, Vinicius Adriano Vieira6,7, Lourdes Ceron-Gutierrez15, Jimstan Periselneris16, Sorena Kiani-Alikhan17, Sofia Grigoriadou17, Devan Vaghela18, Sara E Lear19, M Estée Török8,20, William L Hamilton8,21, Joanne Stockton22, Josh Quick22, Peter Nelson23, Michael Hunter23, Tanya I Coulter23,24, Lisa Devlin23,24, John R Bradley25, Kenneth G C Smith8,9, Willem H Ouwehand26,27, Lise Estcourt28, Heli Harvala29, David J Roberts28,30, Ian B Wilkinson9, Nick Screaton31, Nicholas Loman22, Rainer Doffinger16, Paul A Lyons8,9, B Paul Morgan10, Ian G Goodfellow5, Paul Klenerman6,7, Paul J Lehner8,9,18, Nicholas J Matheson32,33,34,35, James E D Thaventhiran36,37,38,39.
Abstract
The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by lack of an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral therapy. Here we report the use of remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19 and the prototypic genetic antibody deficiency X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). Despite evidence of complement activation and a robust T cell response, the patient developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis, without progressing to multi-organ involvement. This unusual clinical course is consistent with a contribution of antibodies to both viral clearance and progression to severe disease. In the absence of these confounders, we take an experimental medicine approach to examine the in vivo utility of remdesivir. Over two independent courses of treatment, we observe a temporally correlated clinical and virological response, leading to clinical resolution and viral clearance, with no evidence of acquired drug resistance. We therefore provide evidence for the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in vivo, and its potential benefit in selected patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33318491 PMCID: PMC7736571 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19761-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 17.694
Fig. 1Clinical and virological assessment of the response to remdesivir.
a Temperature, CRP, total lymphocyte count, and cycle-threshold (CT) value for viral RNA amplification from patient samples, deducted from the CT value at the limit of detection (LoD) of the assay, plotted by day since symptom onset, aligned with clinical interventions. Samples tested in the clinical laboratory at the Royal London Hospital are highlighted (*). Indicated viral isolates a–g were analyzed by Nanopore sequencing (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Table 5). n = 1 biologically independent samples. b Computerized tomography (CT) images at the level of the inferior pulmonary veins (top) and aortic arch (bottom) obtained at indicated time points. Prior to COVID-19 infection, there is moderate bronchiectasis, mucoid impaction and small airway obstruction (black arrows) in the middle lobe and lingula, but the remainder of the lungs are clear (Pre-COVID-19). Shortly before the first course of remdesivir, extensive ground-glass opacification and patchy consolidation with a lower lobe predominance is seen, together with perivascular consolidation in the right upper lobe (Day 32). Nine days after initiation of remdesivir treatment there is improvement in the lower zone ground-glass opacity and consolidation, but persistent consolidation in the right upper lobe and mild progression of the left upper lobe subpleural consolidation (red arrows) (Day 42). 10 days after completion of the first course of remdesivir treatment, following relapse of symptoms and fever, there is further improvement in the lower zone ground-glass opacification, but progressive subpleural consolidation, particularly in the left upper lobe (blue arrows) (Day 53).
Results from the clinical biochemistry laboratory, collated from readings at the indicated stages of the patient’s illness.
| Days after inpatient admission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-remdesivir: day 30–31 | Post first course remdesivir: day 45–51 | Second course remdesivir: day 60 | Post second course remdesivir: day 67 | |
| Serum sodium (mmol/litre) | 135 (133–146) | 139 (133–146) | 134 (133–146) | |
| Serum potassium (mmol/litre) | 3.6 (3.5–5.3) | 4.3 (3.5–5.3) | 3.4 (3.5–5.3) | |
| Serum urea (mmol/litre) | 3.8 (2.5–7.8) | 2.7 (2.5–7.8) | 2.1 (2.5–7.8) | |
| Serum creatinine (µmol/litre) | 75 (62–115) | 77 (62–115) | ||
| Albumin (g/litre) | ||||
| Total bilirubin (µmol/litre) | 9 (0–20) | 5 (0–20) | ||
| Alkaline phosphatase (U/litre) | 66 (30–130) | 77 (30–130) | ||
| Alanine transaminase (U/litre) | 26 (10–49) | 13 (10–49) | ||
| Triglyceride (mmol/litre) | ||||
Abnormal results are shown in bold. Numbers in parentheses indicate reference values of the corresponding measurements.
Results from the clinical microbiology laboratory, collated from readings at the indicated stages of the patient’s illness.
| Days after inpatient admission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-remdesivir: day 30–31 | Post first course remdesivir: day 45–51 | Second course remdesivir: day 60 | Post second course remdesivir: day 67 | |
| Procalcitonin (ng/ml) | 0.15 (0–0.5) | 0.06 (0–0.5) | ||
| HIV RNA | Not detected | |||
| Adenovirus DNA | Not detected | |||
| Human metapneumovirus RNA | Not detected | |||
| Influenza A generic | Not detected | |||
| Influenza B RNA | Not detected | |||
| Parainfluenza virus RNA | Not detected | |||
| RSV RNA | Not detected | |||
| Picornavirus RNA | Not detected | |||
Numbers in parentheses indicate reference values of the corresponding measurements.
Viral sequence accession numbers that were compared to the reference GenBank accession MN908947.3.
| Virus name | COG-UK ID | GISAID accession | ENA accession | ENA hyperlink |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-7FE20/2020 | CAMB-7FE20 | EPI_ISL_444421 | SAMEA6958574 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-82C3F /2020 | CAMB-82C3F | EPI_ISL_438672 | SAMEA6957692 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-1AC102/2020 | CAMB-1AC102 | EPI_ISL_444373 | SAMEA6960187 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-1AD7F0/2020 | CAMB-1AD7F0 | EPI_ISL_448012 | SAMEA6961791 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-1B2093/2020 | CAMB-1B2093 | EPI_ISL_453003 | SAMEA6964413 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-1B2CF9/2020 | CAMB-1B2CF9 | EPI_ISL_456720 | SAMEA6965179 | |
| hCoV-19/England/CAMB-1AC366/2020 | CAMB-1AC366 | EPI_ISL_584283 | SAMEA7459180 |
These data are available from https://www.cogconsortium.uk/data/.
Fig. 2Kinetic assessment of the antigen-specific humoral responses.
Serological reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 spike a and nucleocapsid b antigens of patient sera obtained at indicated time points, the first (CP 1) and second (CP 2) infusions of convalescent plasma (CP), sera from healthy controls (n = 8 biologically independent subjects) and patients (n = 5 biologically independent subjects) with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (MFI, mean fluorescence intensity; Mean and SEM). c Neutralisation activity against SARS-CoV-2 spike-pseudotyped lentiviral particles of patient sera obtained at indicated time points, compared with the first (CP 1) and second (CP 2) infusions of convalescent plasma (CP). (n = 1 independent biological samples, n = 3 technical replicates from each sample; mean and SD). Data from one independent experiment.
Fig. 3Kinetic assessment of the antigen-specific CD8+ T-cell responses.
a % CD8+ T cells expressing activation makers after incubation ± a peptide pool covering the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. Patient samples obtained at indicated time points are compared with HCWs with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at presentation (n = 5 biologically independent subjects). b Number of activation markers expressed by S1-responsive CD8+ T cells from a. Representative flow cytometry dot plots c and % proliferating CD8+ T cells d after stimulation ± peptide pools covering the indicated SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Patient samples are compared with HCWs (n = 2 biologically independent subjects) with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at indicated time points. Data from one independent experiment.
Fig. 4Assessment of complement activation.
Concentrations of complement cleavage products C3a a, C3c b, and C5a c, and circulating terminal complement complex (TCC) d at indicated time points, compared with healthy controls or patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (healthcare workers, HCW or patients with severe disease admitted to the intensive therapy unit, ITU; mean and SEM are shown). For a and b HCW, n = 5 biologically independent subjects and ITU n = 5 biologically independent subjects. For c Healthy controls, n = 12 biologically independent subjects and ITU n = 51 biologically independent subjects. d Healthy controls, n = 67 biologically independent subjects and ITU n = 50 biologically independent subjects. Data from one independent experiment.
Results from the clinical hematology laboratory, collated from readings at the indicated stages of the patient’s illness.
| Days after inpatient admission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-remdesivir: day 30–31 | Post first course remdesivir: day 45–51 | Second course remdesivir: day 60 | Post second course remdesivir: day 67 | |
| 201 (0–230) | ||||
| Fibrinogen (g/litre) | ||||
| Ferritin (µg/L) | ||||
| Lactate dehydrogenase (U/litre) | ||||
| NT pro BNP (pg/ml) | 12 | |||
| High sensitivity troponin (ng/litre) | 5.8 (0–58.1) | |||
| APTT (sec) | 36.1 (28.2–36.6) | 28 (28.2–36.6) | ||
| PT (sec) | 11.2 (10.8–13.3) | 12 (10.8–13.3) | ||
Abnormal results are shown in bold. Numbers in parentheses indicate reference values of the corresponding measurements. APTT activated partial thromboplastin time, PT prothrombin time.
Results from the clinical immunology laboratory, collated from readings at the indicated stages of the patient’s illness.
| Days after inpatient admission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-remdesivir: day 30–31 | Post first course remdesivir: day 45–51 | Second course remdesivir: day 60 | Post second course remdesivir: day 67 | |
| IgG (g/litre) | 9.6 (6.34–18.11) | 13.8 (6.34–18.11) | 16.5 (6.34–18.11) | |
| IgA (g/litre) | ||||
| IgM (g/litre) | ||||
| Complement C3 (g/litre) | ||||
| Complement C4 (g/litre) | ||||
| Alternative pathway AP100 (%) | >129 (66–129) | |||
| Classical pathway CH100 (U/ml) | >911 (392–1019) | |||
| TNF Alpha (pg/ml) | ||||
| IL-1 beta (pg/ml) | 0.76 (0–3.1) | |||
| IL-10 (pg/ml) | ||||
| IFN- gamma (pg/ml) | ||||
| IL-6 (pg/ml) | ||||
| % | 91 | 93 | ||
| Total (×109 /litre) | 1.21 (0.7–2.1) | 1.61 (0.7–2.1) | ||
| % | 62 | 58 | ||
| Total (×109 /litre) | 0.82 (0.2–1.4) | 1.01 | ||
| % | 29 | 34 | ||
| Total (×109 /litre) | 0.39 (0.2–0.9) | 0.58 | ||
| % | 0 | 0 | ||
| Total (×109 /litre) | 0 (0.1–0.5) | 0 | ||
| % | 9 | 6 | ||
| Total (×109 /litre) | 0.12 (0.09–0.6) | 0.11 | ||
Abnormal results are shown in bold. Numbers in parentheses indicate reference values of the corresponding measurements.