|
Basic Characteristics of Mutations
|
|
Mutation Site
|
A475V |
|
Mutation Site Sentence
|
The emerging mutations were A27S (n = 1), A67V (n = 1), S98F (n = 2), R102G (n = 1), A475V (n = 1), E484K (n = 2), Q493K (n = 1), and Q493R (n = 8). |
|
Mutation Level
|
Amino acid level |
|
Mutation Type
|
Nonsynonymous substitution |
|
Gene/Protein/Region
|
S |
|
Standardized Encoding Gene
|
S
|
|
Genotype/Subtype
|
- |
|
Viral Reference
|
-
|
|
Functional Impact and Mechanisms
|
|
Disease
|
COVID-19
|
|
Immune
|
- |
|
Target Gene
|
-
|
|
Clinical and Epidemiological Correlations
|
|
Clinical Information
|
Y |
|
Treatment
|
- |
|
Location
|
France |
|
Literature Information
|
|
PMID
|
39459877
|
|
Title
|
Comparison of Dual Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for COVID-19 Evolution: A Multicentric Retrospective Study
|
|
Author
|
Zafilaza K,Bellet J,Truffot A,Foulongne V,Onambele MM,Salmona M,Vellas C,Perillaud-Dubois C,Mirand A,Andre-Garnier E,Alidjinou EK,Brichler S,Fenaux H,Bouvier-Alias M,Hartard C,Dorival C,Carrat F,Marcelin AG,Stefic K,Soulie C
|
|
Journal
|
Viruses
|
|
Journal Info
|
2024 Sep 29;16(10):1542
|
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: Neutralizing antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein reduce COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization, particularly in high-risk individuals. The COCOPREV-R study aimed to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with dual monoclonal antibody therapies and to identify associated virological factors. METHODS: The COCOPREV-R study retrospectively collected real-world data from high-risk patients receiving Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab or Casirivimab/Imdevimab dual monoclonal antibody therapies (22 February 2021 to 15 June 2021). RESULTS: The study included 1004 patients with COVID-19, of whom 691 received Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and 313 received Casirivimab/Imdevimab. The alpha variant represented 90.1% of those for whom data were available. The risk of hospitalization within 30 days was lower with Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (12.7%, CI 95% [9.9-16.3%]) compared to Casirivimab/Imdevimab (28.4%, CI 95% [22.7-35.1%) (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rates were comparable between both groups (p = 0.982). Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity showed no difference between the two treatment groups (95.2% [93.0-96.9%] and 93.5% [89.1-96.6%] until day 30, p = 0.851 for Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab, respectively). Among persistently positive samples with available sequencing results (n = 43), Spike protein changes occurred only in Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (42.9%) vs. Casirivimab/Imdevimab (0.0%) groups. Q493R (25.0%) and E484K (12.5%) were the most common mutations selected by Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab in follow-up samples. Other factors (immunodepression, comorbidities, and age) did not appear to be associated with the occurrence of Spike protein mutations. CONCLUSIONS: A higher rate of hospitalization was seen with Casirivimab/Imdevimab (RONAPREVE((R))) in comparison with Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab treatment, but with the emergence of Spike mutations only in the Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab group.
|
|
Sequence Data
|
-
|
|
|