The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron BA.1 sublineage has been supplanted in many countries by the BA.2 sublineage. BA.2 differs from BA.1 by about 21 mutations in its spike. In this study, we first compared the sensitivity of BA.1 and BA.2 to neutralization by nine therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In contrast to BA.1, BA.2 was sensitive to cilgavimab, partly inhibited by imdevimab and resistant to adintrevimab and sotrovimab. We then analyzed sera from 29 immunocompromised individuals up to 1 month after administration of Ronapreve (casirivimab and imdevimab) and/or Evusheld (cilgavimab and tixagevimab) antibody cocktails. All treated individuals displayed elevated antibody levels in their sera, which efficiently neutralized the Delta variant. Sera from Ronapreve recipients did not neutralize BA.1 and weakly inhibited BA.2. Neutralization of BA.1 and BA.2 was detected in 19 and 29 out of 29 Evusheld recipients, respectively. As compared to the Delta variant, neutralizing titers were more markedly decreased against BA.1 (344-fold) than BA.2 (nine-fold). We further report four breakthrough Omicron infections among the 29 individuals, indicating that antibody treatment did not fully prevent infection. Collectively, BA.1 and BA.2 exhibit noticeable differences in their sensitivity to therapeutic mAbs. Anti-Omicron neutralizing activity of Ronapreve and, to a lesser extent, that of Evusheld is reduced in patients’ sera.
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant comprises three main sublineages, termed BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3 (ref. 1). The original BA.1 sublineage (also termed B.1.1.529) was identified in November 2021 and became dominant worldwide in about 2 months. BA.1 demonstrated considerable escape from neutralization by mAbs and sera from vaccinated individuals2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. BA.2 cases have now sharply increased, suggesting that it is more transmissible and possesses a selective advantage over BA.1. As of March 2022, BA.2 was the dominant sublineage in many countries, including Denmark, the Philippines, South Africa, France and Belgium. BA.1 and BA.2 have many mutations in common, but about 21 mutations in the spike protein differentiate the two sublineages (Fig. 1a). Neutralizing activity of sera from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine recipients is reduced against BA.2 relative to the ancestral strain and prior variants of concern (VOCs), to an extent similar to BA.1 (refs. 11,12,13,14). BA.2 also displays a marked decreased sensitivity to many neutralizing mAbs when compared to previous VOCs11,12,14,15,16.
Neutralizing mAbs targeting the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have been isolated from COVID-19 convalescent individuals and demonstrated efficacy in preventing or treating disease in humans17,18. Some mAbs are used in combination, such as Ronapreve (imdevimab and casirivimab) from Regeneron and Evusheld (cilgavimab and tixagevimab) from AstraZeneca. Evusheld mAbs are modified in their Fc regions to improve half-life and decrease Fc effector functions8. Post-exposure administration of Ronapreve prevented 84% of infections in a randomized clinical trial, which was conducted before Omicron circulation19. In a preclinical model, Evusheld protected macaques from infection with ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (ref. 20). A press release from AstraZeneca indicated that intra-muscular administration of Evusheld (300 mg) reduced symptomatic disease by 83%21. The efficacy of Evusheld in preventing virus infection is not known. Both Ronapreve and Evushled received emergency use approval for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in many countries. However, in cell culture systems, BA.1 is resistant to casirivimab and imdevimab and partially evades cilgavimab and tixagevimab3,4,6,9. Different studies have reported an 11–183-fold increase in the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of Evusheld against BA.1 relative to ancestral strains22. As BA.1 was becoming predominant, these results motivated the switch of emergency use from Ronapreve to Evusheld for PreP in immunocompromised individuals. Besides Ronapreve and Evusheld, other mAbs are in clinical use. For instance, sotrovimab, a pan-coronavirus antibody, is indicated for treatment of infected individuals at risk for severe disease23. The relative capacity of mAbs to neutralize Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages is poorly characterized, with discordant preliminary results regarding mAbs such as sotrovimab and imdevimab. The clinical significance of the reduced sensitivity of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 to neutralizing antibodies in cell culture remains unknown. To address this question, we first evaluated the sensitivity of infectious BA.1 and BA.2 isolates to nine therapeutic mAbs in a cell culture system. We then directly measured the neutralizing activity of the antibodies in sera from immunocompromised individuals who had received Ronapreve and/or Evusheld.
We isolated a BA.2 variant from a nasopharyngeal swab that was initially sequenced at the National Reference Center of UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium). The virus was amplified by two passages on Vero E6 cells and re-sequenced (Pango lineage BA.2, 21L (Omicron), according to Nextstrain, GISAID accession ID: EPI_ISL_10654979) (Fig. 1a). When compared to the Delta variant (B.1.617), the BA.2 spike protein contained 30 changes, with 18 modifications that are shared with BA.1 (Fig. 1a). The modifications are dispersed throughout the spike but display a preferential accumulation in the N-terminal domain and the RBD (Fig. 1a). Viral stocks were titrated using S-Fuse cells. These reporter cells become GFP+ upon infection, allowing rapid measurement of viral infectivity and neutralizing antibody activity24,25. Syncytia were observed in BA.2-infected S-Fuse cells, with a size similar to those induced by BA.1 (Extended Data Fig. 1). As previously reported4, Delta-infected cells formed large syncytia, bigger than BA.1-infected or BA.2-infected cells (Extended Data Fig. 1). This suggests that BA.1 and BA.2 may behave similarly in terms of fusogenicity and fitness.
We first measured the sensitivity of BA.2 to a panel of nine mAbs that were, or are currently, in clinical use8,26,27,28,29,30,31. These mAbs belong to the four main classes of anti-RBD antibodies, which are defined by their binding site18,32,33. In addition to the antibodies present in Ronapreve (casirivimab and imdevimab) and Evusheld (cilgavimab and tixagevimab), we tested the following antibodies: bamlanivimab and etesevimab (class 2 and class 1, respectively) were initially mixed in the Eli Lilly cocktail and are no longer in clinical use; regdanvimab (Regkirona) (Celltrion) is a class 1 antibody; sotrovimab (Xevudy) by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology is a class 3 antibody that targets an epitope outside of the receptor-binding motif (RBM); and adintrevimab (ADG20, Adagio) binds to an epitope located in between class 1 and class 4 sites. We compared the activity of these nine mAbs against the Delta variant and against the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages (Fig. 1b).
Seven antibodies (bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, sotrovimab, adintrevimab, regdanvimab and tixagevimab) were inactive against BA.2. The two other antibodies (imdevimab and cilgavimab) displayed an IC50 of 693 ng ml−1 and 9 ng ml−1 against BA.2, respectively (Fig. 1b and Table 1), indicating that they were more active against BA.2 than BA.1. The addition of tixagevimab to cilgavimab in the Evusheld cocktail was not more efficient than cilgavimab alone (Fig. 1b and Table 1). These results are in line with recent reports11,12,14 and highlight substantial differences in the neutralization profiles of BA.1 and BA.2.
We next measured antibody levels and neutralization activity in the sera of 29 immunocompromised individuals before and after administration of Evusheld (Table 2). Some individuals (n = 18 of 29) were previously treated with Ronapreve 10−49 days (mean, 35 days) before Evusheld administration. The first group of patients was a cohort of eight individuals (six females and two males) from the Centre Hospitalier Regional of Orléans, France, with pre-existing conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 5), kidney transplantation (n = 2) and myelodysplasia (n = 1). Most patients were receiving anti-CD20 (rituximab) (n = 5) and prednisone (n = 4). These treatments were maintained before and after vaccination and at the time of administration of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs. The patients were previously vaccinated with three doses of BNT162b2 (Pfzier/BioNTech), and three had a 4th dose. Three patients received Ronapreve as PrEP 4−7 weeks before Evusheld. The second group of twenty-one patients (thirteen females and eight males) came from Hôpital Cochin in Paris. They were suffering from autoimmune diseases, including RA (n = 2), vasculitis (n = 17), polychondritis (n = 1) and lupus (n = 1). They were vaccinated with three doses of BNT162b2, except one who received two doses of ChadOX-1 (AstraZeneca) and one dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Three patients received a 4th dose of BNT162b2, and another had a history of COVID-19. They were mostly treated with rituximab (n = 17). Fifteen of the 21 individuals were already receiving Ronapreve. None of the 29 individuals elicited antibodies above 264 binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU ml−1) after vaccination and were, thus, eligible to receive Evusheld PreP, according to French health authority guidelines34.
We first analyzed the eight individuals from the Orléans cohort, as longitudinal samples were available (Fig. 2a). We used the S-Flow assay to quantify anti-spike IgGs in sera collected at days 0, 3, 15 and 30 after Evusheld administration. Day 30 sampling was available for only four individuals. In the five Ronapreve-naive individuals, administration of Evusheld led to a sharp increase of anti-spike IgGs (from 5–57 BAU ml−1 before treatment to 195–1,290 BAU ml−1 after treatment) (Fig. 2a). As expected, the three individuals who initially received Ronapreve had anti-spike antibodies (788-1,016 BAU ml−1) at the time of Evusheld administration (day 0), with no detectable effect of Evusheld on antibody levels (Fig. 2a). In all patients, levels of anti-spike antibodies were stable or slightly increasing between days 3 and 30 (Fig. 2a).
We then measured the neutralizing activity of the sera against Delta and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 by calculating 50% effective dilution (ED50) titers with the S-Fuse assay (Fig. 2a). None of the five Ronapreve-naive individuals had detectable neutralization activity at day 0. Evusheld administration led to a sharp increase of neutralizing activity against Delta, with ED50s between 788 and 1,016. For the three individuals having previously received Ronapreve, Evusheld administration did not increase their levels of neutralization against Delta. In line with in vitro experiments (Fig. 1b and refs. 4,6), sera from Ronapreve-naive and Ronapreve-treated individuals did not neutralize BA.1. After Evusheld treatment, seven of eight individuals neutralized BA.1 at different time points between days 3 and 30. Titers were, however, very low, ranging from 27 to 128 at day 15. For most of the patients, we observed an increase of antibody levels between days 3 and 15, reflecting the pharmacokinetics of the antibodies. The delayed and low neutralizing activity of the sera at day 3 against BA.1 was likely due to the poor antiviral activity of the mAbs against this viral isolate. A low level of BA.2 neutralizing activity was detectable in the three Ronapreve-treated individuals, in line with the ability of imdevimab to neutralize BA.2 (Fig. 1b). Sera from the five Ronapreve-naive individuals did not neutralize BA.2 at day 0. Evusheld administration raised BA.2 neutralization in all individuals, with titers reaching up to an ED50 of 3,534 at day 15 (Fig. 2b). Neutralization titers for the three viral lineages were stable for six of eight individuals, consistent with Evusheld’s long half-life20.
We extended this analysis to the 21 individuals of the second group, who were sampled at a single time point, 15–30 days after Evusheld administration. We combined the results obtained with the first group of eight individuals at day 15 to collectively analyze 29 individuals. The nine Ronapreve-naive individuals had low levels of anti-spike antibodies (below 264 BAU ml−1), reflecting the inefficacy of the vaccination (Fig. 2b). Ronapreve or Evusheld therapy strongly and similarly increased anti-spike IgGs in the sera (median of 3,263 BAU ml−1 and 1,321 BAU ml−1) (Fig. 2b). These levels were not higher in individuals who successively received the two treatments (Fig. 2b).
We next measured neutralization titers in the 29 sera (Fig. 2c). The untreated individuals did not neutralize any of the three strains. Ronapreve-treated individuals efficiently neutralized Delta, were inactive against BA.1 and poorly neutralized BA.2. Sera from Evusheld-treated and Ronapreve+Evusheld-treated individuals were efficient against Delta (ED50 of 15,109 and 71,324, respectively), barely neutralized BA.1 (ED50 of 44 and 42, respectively) and quite efficiently neutralized BA.2 (ED50 of 1,673 and 1,882, representing a nine-fold and 38-fold decrease, respectively, compared to Delta) (Fig. 2c). After Evusheld administration, eight of 11 individuals, who did not previously receive Ronapreve, had neutralization activity against BA.1 in their sera, and all neutralized BA.2. This confirmed that Evusheld is more active against BA.2 than BA.1. There was no major difference in the neutralization titers in individuals having received only Evusheld or the successive combination of Ronapreve and Evusheld (Fig. 2c). The neutralizing activity against Delta correlated to anti-spike IgG levels, whereas this was not the case for BA.1 and BA.2 (Extended Data Fig. 2). This reflects an uncoupling of the capacity of the antibodies to bind to the spike from the ancestral Wuhan strain and to neutralize Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 strains. Altogether, these data show that administration of Evusheld in immunocompromised individuals elicits poor sera neutralizing activity against BA.1 and better activity against BA.2.
In agreement with the decreased sero-neutralization activity of Evusheld-treated individuals against BA.1, we observed four breakthrough infections among the 29 participants. A summary of the cases is provided in Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 3, along with the serology and neutralization data of the closest sampling point. The four cases came from the second cohort of patients. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening confirmed Omicron infection for the four cases but did not allow for distinction between BA.1 and BA.2. However, in France, at the time of the sampling, BA.1 represented 90% of sequenced cases, whereas BA.2 was detected in less than 10% of cases. Sequencing was performed only for case 4 and confirmed BA.1 infection in this individual. Three of the four individuals received sotrovimab after diagnosis, according to French guidelines. Three cases were classified as mild disease, whereas case 4 was classified as severe and required hospitalization. Despite detection of high levels of anti-spike antibodies in the sera, the neutralization titers against BA.1 were low and ranged between <7.5 and 351 for the four individuals (Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 3). These four cases indicate that Evusheld neither protects against Omicron infection nor fully prevents severe disease.
We highlight here substantial differences not only between the Delta and Omicron variants but also between BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron sublineages with regard to their sensitivity to therapeutic mAbs. Considering that these variants have sequentially dominated the pandemic in the last few months, and the vulnerability of immunocompromised individuals to both Omicron infection and severe disease, our results support the importance of genomic surveillance. Rapid genotyping or sequencing will need to be introduced in clinical practice to better inform treatment of patients with COVID-19. For pre-exposure prophylaxis, which was the application studied here, it will be important to use mAbs that cover both BA.1 and BA.2 (for example, bebtelovimab)14,35, especially in regions where both sublineages are prevalent. Our results also show that measuring antibody levels with standard serology assays that currently use an ancestral spike antigen does not inform on protection. Future work will help determine whether adapted, lineage-specific, serological or neutralization assays can be used as a marker of clinical efficacy.
Our study has limitations. The relatively low number of individuals analyzed did not allow us to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Evusheld against BA.2. We did not have access to nasopharyngeal samples of the individuals. Measuring antibody levels and neutralizing activity in these types of samples could provide insights into the capacity of mAbs to neutralize Omicron sublineages at the infection site. We also did not test neutralization of the BA.1.1 and BA.3 sublineages of Omicron. Future experiments with these sublineages are needed to determine the antiviral activity of mAbs against the full landscape of the Omicron clade, which we recently proposed to be considered as a distinct SARS-CoV-2 serotype from ancestral strains and previous variants36. We observed that syncytia induced by BA.1 and BA.2 are of similar size and smaller than those formed by Delta-infected cells. Future experiments are warranted to determine affinity to ACE2 and other characteristics of the BA.2 spike. It will also be informative to study the binding of the sera to BA.1 and BA.2 spike proteins to confirm the neutralization results obtained with infectious viral strains.
Although clinical trials that can provide a complete evaluation of the effect of BA.2 on the treatment efficacy of mAbs have yet to be completed, based on our observation of breakthrough infections we expect more frequent treatment failures. It is also possible that the progressive accumulation of further mutations will increase the level of resistance of BA.1 or BA.2 to mAbs during prolonged infection. The low or intermediate sensitivity to Ronapreve and Evusheld, when used as a pre-exposure prophylaxis in immunocompromised individuals at risk for severe disease, is of potential concern. One can speculate that the risk that further escape mutations will arise in these individuals is higher compared to Delta. We, therefore, recommend a close follow-up of these individuals, particularly in case of prolonged infection despite treatment.
No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized, and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment. Our research complies with all relevant ethical regulation, as detailed in the ‘Cohorts’ section.
Immunocompromised individuals receiving Evusheld were recruited in two centers (CHR d’Orléans and Hôpital Cochin) in the French cities of Orléans and Paris. The ‘Orléans’ cohort is an ongoing prospective, monocentric, longitudinal, observational cohort clinical study aiming to describe the kinetics of neutralizing antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04750720). This study was approved by the Est II (Besançon) ethical committee. At enrollment, written informed consent was collected, and participants completed a questionnaire that covered sociodemographic characteristics, clinical information and data related to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Blood sampling was performed on the day of Evusheld infusion and after 3 days, 15 days and 1 month. The ‘Cochin’ cohort is a prospective, monocentric, longitudinal, observational clinical study (NCT04870411) enrolling immunocompromised individuals with rheumatic diseases, aiming at describing immunological responses to COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants and/or biologics. Ethics approval was obtained from the Comite de Protection des Personnes Nord-Ouest II. Leftover sera from usual care were used from these individuals in the setting of the local biological samples collection (RAPIDEM). A written informed consent was collected for all participants. None of the study participants received compensation.
The Delta strain was isolated from a nasopharyngeal swab of a hospitalized patient returning from India37. The swab was provided and sequenced by the virology laboratory of Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou (Assistance Publique–Hopitaux de Paris). The Omicron strain was supplied and sequenced by the NRC UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium)4. The BA.2 strain was isolated from a nasopharyngeal swab sampled on 4 January 2022 from a 10-year-old male patient. His legal authorized representative provided written informed consent. The sample was sequenced in the context of active surveillance by the NRC UZ/KU Leuven, showing an average coverage of 989× for the Omicron BA.2 genome, after which it was cultured on Vero E6 cells. We noted an additional mutation in the spike of our BA.2 isolate (R682W) compared to the primary sample from which it was isolated, although this mutation was already present at low frequency in the original swab. We obtained similar neutralization profiles with another BA.2 isolate. Both patients provided informed consent for the use of the biological materials. The sequences of the isolates were deposited on GISAID immediately after their generation, with the following Delta ID: EPI_ISL_2029113; Omicron ID: EPI_ISL_6794907; and Omicron BA.2 GISAID ID: EPI_ISL_10654979. Titration of viral stocks was performed on Vero E6 cells, with a limiting dilution technique allowing a calculation of TCID50 or on S-Fuse cells.
Bamlanivimab, casirivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, cilgavimab, tixagevimab and sotrovimab were provided by CHR Orleans. Adintrevimab (ADG20) and regdanvimab (CT-P59) were produced as previously described4.
S-Fuse neutralization assay
U2OS-ACE2 GFP1-10 or GFP11 cells, also termed S-Fuse cells, become GFP+ when they are productively infected by SARS-CoV-2. Cells tested negative for mycoplasma. Cells were mixed (ratio 1:1) and plated at 8 × 103 per well in a μClear 96-well plate (Greiner Bio-One). The indicated SARS-CoV-2 strains were incubated with serially diluted mAb or sera for 15 minutes at room temperature and added to S-Fuse cells. The sera were heat-inactivated for 30 minutes at 56 °C before use. Eighteen hours later, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed and stained with Hoechst (dilution 1:1,000, Invitrogen). Images were acquired with an Opera Phenix high-content confocal microscope (PerkinElmer). The GFP area and the number of nuclei were quantified using Harmony software version 4.9 (PerkinElmer). The percentage of neutralization was calculated using the number of syncytia as value with the following formula: 100 × (1 − (value with serum − value in ‘non-infected’) / (value in ‘no serum’ − value in ‘non-infected’)). Neutralizing activity of each serum was expressed as the ED50. ED50 values (in μg ml−1 for mAbs and in dilution values for sera) were calculated with a reconstructed curve using the percentage of the neutralization at the different concentrations. We previously reported correlations between neutralization titers obtained with the S-Fuse assay and both pseudovirus neutralization and microneutralization assays38,39.
The S-Flow assay uses 293T cells stably expressing the spike protein (293T spike cells) and 293T control cells as control to detect anti-spike antibodies by flow cytometry40. In brief, the cells were incubated at 4 °C for 30 minutes with sera (1:300 dilution) in PBS containing 0.5% BSA and 2 mM EDTA. Cells were then washed with PBS and stained with an anti-human IgG Fc Alexa Fluor 647 antibody (109-605-170, Jackson Immuno Research). After 30 minutes at 4 °C, cells were washed with PBS and fixed for 10 minutes using 4% PFA. A standard curve with serial dilutions of a human anti-spike monoclonal antibody (mAb48) was acquired in each assay to standardize the results as a binding Unit (BU). Data were acquired on an Attune NxT instrument using Attune NxT software version 3.2.2 (Life Technologies) and analyzed with FlowJo version 10.7.1 software (see Extended Data Fig. 4 for gating strategy). The sensitivity is 99.2% with a 95% confidence interval of 97.69–99.78%, and the specificity is 100% (98.5–100%)40. To determine BAU ml−1, we analyzed a series of vaccinated (n = 144), convalescent (n = 59) samples and World Health Organization international reference sera (20/136 and 20/130) on S-Flow and on two commercially available ELISAs (Abbott 147 and Beckmann 56). Using this dataset, we performed a Passing–Pablok regression, which shows that the relationship between BU and BAU ml−1 is linear, allowing calculation of BAU ml−1 using S-Flow data41.
Flow cytometry data were analyzed with FlowJo version 10 software. Calculations were performed using Excel 365 (Microsoft). Figures were drawn on Prism 9 (GraphPad Software). Statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism 9. Statistical significance between different groups was calculated using Kruskall–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparions, Friedman tests with Dunn’s multiple comparison correction and Spearman non-parametric correlation test. All tests were two-sided.
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request without any restrictions. Source data are provided for Figs. 1 and 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2. Source data are provided with this paper.
Viana, R. et al. Rapid epidemic expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in southern Africa. Nature 603, 679–686 (2022).
Carreño, J. M. et al. Activity of convalescent and vaccine serum against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. Nature 602, 682–688 (2022).
Cameroni, E. et al. Broadly neutralizing antibodies overcome SARS-CoV-2 Omicron antigenic shift. Nature 602, 664–670 (2022).
Planas, D. et al. Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization. Nature 602, 671–675 (2021).
Garcia-Beltran, W. F. et al. mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Cell 185, 457–466 (2022).
Cao, Y. et al. Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Nature 602, 657–663 (2022).
Cele, S. et al. Omicron extensively but incompletely escapes Pfizer BNT162b2 neutralization. Nature 602, 654–656 (2022).
Zost, S. J. et al. Potently neutralizing and protective human antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Nature 584, 443–449 (2020).
Liu, L. et al. Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 602, 676–681 (2022).
VanBlargan, L. A. et al. An infectious SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron virus escapes neutralization by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Nat. Med 28, 490–495 (2022).
Yamasoba, D. et al. Virological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 BA.2 variant. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.480335v1 (2022).
Zhou, H., Tada, T., Dcosta, B. M. & Landau, N. R. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2 by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.15.480166v2 (2022).
Yu, J. et al. Neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 Variants. NEJM https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2201849 (2022).
Iketani, S. et al. Antibody evasion properties of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04594-4 (2022).
Cathcart, A. L. et al. The dual function monoclonal antibodies VIR-7831 and VIR-7832 demonstrate potent in vitro and in vivo activity against SARS-CoV-2. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.09.434607v10 (2021).
Mykytyn, A. Z. et al. Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 are antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.23.481644v1.full (2022).
Crowe, Jr., J. E. C. Human antibodies for viral infections. Annu. Rev. Immunol. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-immunol-042718-041309 (2022).
Taylor, P. C. et al. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 21, 382–393 (2021).
O’Brien, M. P. et al. Subcutaneous REGEN-COV antibody combination to prevent Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 1184–1195 (2021).
Loo, Y.-M. et al. The SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody combination, AZD7442, is protective in non-human primates and has an extended half-life in humans. Sci. Transl. Med. 14, eabl8124 (2022).
AstraZeneca. New analyses of two AZD7442 COVID-19 phase III trials in high-risk populations confirm robust efficacy and long-term prevention. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/new-analyses-of-two-azd7442-covid-19-phase-iii-trials-in-high-risk-populations-confirm-robust-efficacy-and-long-term-prevention.html (2021).
National Institutes of Health. All Variants. Reported in vitro Therapeutic Activity. https://opendata.ncats.nih.gov/variant/activity (2022).
Agarwal, A. et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ 370, m3379 (2020).
Buchrieser, J. et al. Syncytia formation by SARS‐CoV‐2 infected cells. EMBO J. 39, e2020106267 (2020).
Planas, D. et al. Sensitivity of infectious SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants to neutralizing antibodies. Nat. Med. 27, 917–924 (2021).
Shi, R. et al. A human neutralizing antibody targets the receptor-binding site of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 584, 120–124 (2020).
Kim, C. et al. A therapeutic neutralizing antibody targeting receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Nat. Commun. 12, 288 (2021).
Rappazzo, C. G. et al. Broad and potent activity against SARS-like viruses by an engineered human monoclonal antibody. Science 371, 823–829 (2021).
Pinto, D. et al. Cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 by a human monoclonal SARS-CoV antibody. Nature 583, 290–295 (2020).
Hansen, J. et al. Studies in humanized mice and convalescent humans yield a SARS-CoV-2 antibody cocktail. Science 369, 1010–1014 (2020).
Jones, B. E. et al. The neutralizing antibody, LY-CoV555, protects against SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhuman primates. Sci. Transl. Med. 13, eabf1906 (2021).
Liu, L. et al. Potent neutralizing antibodies against multiple epitopes on SARS-CoV-2 spike. Nature 584, 450–456 (2020).
Barnes, C. O. et al. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody structures inform therapeutic strategies. Nature 588, 682–687 (2020).
Haute Autorité de Santé. EVUSHELD (tixagévimab/cilgavimab) DÉCISION D’ACCÈS PRÉCOCE. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3304034/fr/evusheld-tixagevimab/cilgavimab (2021).
Westendorf, K. et al. LY-CoV1404 (bebtelovimab) potently neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.30.442182v5 (2022).
Simon-Loriere, E. & Schwartz, O. Towards SARS-CoV-2 serotypes? Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 187–188 (2022).
Planas, D. et al. Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta to antibody neutralization. Nature 596, 276–280 (2021).
Pelleau, S. et al. Kinetics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody response and serological estimation of time since infection. J. Infect. Dis. 224, 1489–1499 (2021).
Sterlin, D. et al. IgA dominates the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2. Sci. Transl. Med. 13, eabd2223 (2021).
Grzelak, L. et al. Sex differences in the evolution of neutralizing antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. J. Infect. Dis. 224, 983–988 (2021).
Hadjadj, J. et al. Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 vaccine against the Alpha and Delta variants in immunocompromised patients with systemic inflammatory diseases. Ann. Rheum. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221508 (2022).
We thank the European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) for supporting the work being done at Institut Pasteur and UK Leuven. We thank J. Buchrieser, J. Puech and F. Gambaro for their help with the sequencing data analysis. We thank the patients who participated to this study. We thank Y. Yazdanpanah, members of the Virus and Immunity Unit and other teams for discussions and help, N. Aulner and the UtechS Photonic BioImaging (UPBI) core facility (Institut Pasteur), a member of the France BioImaging network, for image acquisition and analysis. The Opera system was co-funded by Institut Pasteur and the Région Ȋle-de-France (DIM1Health). We thank the KU Leuven University authorities and J. Arnout, B. Lambrecht, C. Van Geet and L. Sels for their support. We thank F. Peira, V. Legros and L. Courtellemont for their help with the cohorts. UZ Leuven, as national reference center for respiratory pathogens, is supported by Sciensano, which is gratefully acknowledged. Work in the O.S. lab is funded by Institut Pasteur, Urgence COVID-19 Fundraising Campaign of Institut Pasteur, Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM), ANRS, the Vaccine Research Institute (ANR-10-LABX-77), Labex IBEID (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID), ANR/FRM Flash Covid PROTEO-SARS-CoV-2, ANR Coronamito and IDISCOVR. Work in the UPBI facility is funded by grant ANR-10-INSB-04-01 and the Région Ȋle-de-France program DIM1Health. D.P. is supported by the Vaccine Research Institute. G.B. acknowledges support from the Internal Funds KU Leuven under grant agreement C14/18/094 and the Research Foundation–Flanders (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek–Vlaanderen, G0E1420N and G098321N). P.M. acknowledges support from a COVID-19 research grant of ‘Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek’/Research Foundation Flanders (grant G0H4420N). P.M. acknowledges support of a COVID-19 research grant from ‘Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek’/Research Foundation Flanders (grant G0H4420N) and ‘Internal Funds KU Leuven’ (grant 3M170314). E.S.L. acknowledges funding from the INCEPTION program (Investissements d’Avenir grant ANR-16-CONV-0005). The funders of this study had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation or writing of the article.
T.B., C.P., H.M. and O.S. have a pending patent application for an anti-RBD mAb not used in this study (PCT/FR2021/070522). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Peer review information
Nature Medicine thanks Ailong Huang, Joshua Tan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Saheli Sadanand was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta, BA.1 and BA.2 induce syncytia in S-Fuse cells.
S-Fuse cells that become GFP + upon cell-cell fusion were exposed to the indicated SARS-CoV-2 strains. After 20 h, cells were stained with Hoechst to visualize nuclei. Syncytia (green) and nuclei (blue) are shown. Representative images from three independent experiments are shown. Scale bar, 500 μm.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Correlation of neutralization capacity and anti-S antibody levels in individuals having received Ronapreve and/or Evusheld.
Two-sided Spearman non-parametric correlations of neutralizing antibody titers against Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 and the level of anti-S IgG. R and p-values are indicated.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Report of four Omicron breakthrough infections in Evusheld treated patients.
A timeline indicates the key events for each of the 4 Omicron breakthrough cases. Patients’ characteristics and antibody measurement of the closest sampling point are indicated.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Gating strategy of the S-Flow assay.
293T cells stably expressing the Wuhan Spike were incubated with sera from patient treated with monoclonal antibodies (dilution 1:300), stained with an anti-human secondary antibody and analyzed by flow-cytometry. a. One representative example of the gating strategy is shown. Gates are set on cells transfected with a control plasmid not encoding a spike. b. An example of the signal obtained by a reactive serum on spike expressing cells is shown.
Source Data Fig. 1
Source Data Fig. 2
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bruel, T., Hadjadj, J., Maes, P. et al. Serum neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies. Nat Med 28, 1297–1302 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01792-5
This article is cited by
Therapie von COVID-19 unter Berücksichtigung von Lebererkrankungen
Die Gastroenterologie (2023)
Simulation of COVID-19 symptoms in a genetically engineered mouse model: implications for the long haulers
Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry (2023)
A neonatal mouse model characterizes transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants and reveals a role for ORF8
Nature Communications (2023)
Resistance of Omicron subvariants BA.2.75.2, BA.4.6, and BQ.1.1 to neutralizing antibodies
Nature Communications (2023)
Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests
Medical Microbiology and Immunology (2023)