The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented health and economic impact and there are currently no approved therapies. We have isolated an antibody, EY6A, from an individual convalescing from COVID-19 and have shown that it neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 and cross-reacts with SARS-CoV-1. EY6A Fab binds the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the viral spike glycoprotein tightly (K_D of 2 nM), and a 2.6-Å-resolution crystal structure of an RBD–EY6A Fab complex identifies the highly conserved epitope, away from the ACE2 receptor binding site. Residues within this footprint are key to stabilizing the pre-fusion spike. Cryo-EM analyses of the pre-fusion spike incubated with EY6A Fab reveal a complex of the intact spike trimer with three Fabs bound and two further multimeric forms comprising the destabilized spike attached to Fab. EY6A binds what is probably a major neutralizing epitope, making it a candidate therapeutic for COVID-19.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

An increase of Ct values was 0.9 per day in 2 cases of COVID-19 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), an increase was 1.0 per day in 3 cases without LPV/r through illness day 1-10, indicating that LPV/r did not shorten the duration of SARS CoV-2 shedding.

Serological and plasmablast responses and plasmablast-derived IgG monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have been analysed in three COVID-19 patients with different clinical severities. Potent humoral responses were detected within 3 weeks of onset of illness in all patients and the serological titre was elicited soon after or concomitantly with peripheral plasmablast response. An average of 13.7% and 3.5% of plasmablast-derived MAbs were reactive with virus spike glycoprotein or nucleocapsid, respectively. A subset of anti-spike (10 of 32) antibodies cross-reacted with other betacoronaviruses tested and harboured extensive somatic mutations, indicative of an expansion of memory B cells upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fourteen of 32 anti-spike MAbs, including five anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD), three anti-non-RBD S1 and six anti-S2, neutralised wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in independent assays. Anti-RBD MAbs were further grouped into four cross-inhibiting clusters, of which six antibodies from three separate clusters blocked the binding of RBD to ACE2 and five were neutralising. All ACE2-blocking anti-RBD antibodies were isolated from two recovered patients with prolonged fever, which is compatible with substantial ACE2-blocking response in their sera. Finally, the identification of non-competing pairs of neutralising antibodies would offer potential templates for the development of prophylactic and therapeutic agents against SARS-CoV-2.

Objective: In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective study. Methods: Subjects admitted to 11 designated public hospitals in Taiwan between April 1 and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by pharyngeal real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, were randomized at a 2:1 ratio and stratified by mild or moderate illness. HCQ (400 mg twice for 1 d or HCQ 200 mg twice daily for 6 days) was administered. Both the study and control group received standard of care (SOC). Pharyngeal swabs and sputum were collected every other day. The proportion and time to negative viral PCR were assessed on day 14. In the retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for patients admitted before March 31, 2020. Results: There were 33 and 37 cases in the RCT and retrospective study, respectively. In the RCT, the median times to negative rRT-PCR from randomization to hospital day 14 were 5 days (95% CI; 1, 9 days) and 10 days (95% CI; 2, 12 days) for the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively (p = 0.40). On day 14, 81.0% (17/21) and 75.0% (9/12) of the subjects in the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively, had undetected virus (p = 0.36). In the retrospective study, 12 (42.9%) in the HCQ group and 5 (55.6%) in the control group had negative rRT-PCR results on hospital day 14 (p = 0.70). Conclusions: Neither study demonstrated that HCQ shortened viral shedding in mild to moderate COVID-19 subjects.

Serological responses (Seroresponse) and durability of hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccination are reduced among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐positive patients. Incidence of and associated factors with early seroreversion (loss of seroresponse) among HIV‐positive patients who have achieved seroresponses after two doses of HAV vaccination remain unclear. In this multicenter study, we followed HIV‐positive adults who had mounted seroresponses after completing two doses of HAV vaccination during a recent outbreak of acute hepatitis A between 2015 and 2017, a 1:4 case‐control study was conducted to identify factors associated with seroreversion. Case patients were those with seroreversion, and controls were those with similar follow‐up durations who were able to maintain seroresponses. During the study period, 49 of the 1,256 patients (3.9%) seroreverted after a median follow‐up of 611 days. In a case‐control study, seroreversion was more likely to occur in patients with a higher weight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.703; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.292‐2.323, per 10‐kg increment) and HIV viremia at the time of vaccination (aOR, 2.922; 95% CI, 1.067‐7.924), whereas positive seroresponse at 6 months of HAV vaccination and higher CD4 lymphocyte counts at vaccination were inversely associated with early seroreversion with an aOR of 0.059 (95% CI, 0.020‐0.154) and 0.837 (95% CI, 0.704‐0.979, per 100‐cell/mm³ increment), respectively, in multivariable analyses. Conclusion: During an outbreak setting, early seroreversion following two‐dose HAV vaccination occurred in 3.9% of HIV‐positive patients. Lower and delayed seroresponses to HAV vaccination, a higher weight, and HIV viremia and lower CD4 lymphocyte counts at the time of HAV vaccination were associated with early seroreversion. Regular monitoring of seroresponse and booster vaccination might be warranted, especially in HIV‐positive adults with predictors of early seroreversion.