The sub-variant BA.2.75 redraws the efficacy picture of monoclonal antibodies. Compared to BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5, it shows a lower response to some drugs, but is more vulnerable to others. This is the data that emerges from a study conducted at the University of Tokyo and made available on bioRxiv, a platform through which research is made available before evaluation by the scientific community.
“In this study, we assessed the sensitivity of the Omicron BA.2.75 sub-variant to 10 therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: adintrevimab, bamlanivimab, bebtelovimab, casirivimab, cilgavimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, regdanvimab, sotrovimab and tixagevimab on their Twitter account”, explains the laboratory led by virologist Kei Sato, author of the study.
The researchers summarize the research findings as follows: “adintrevimab, bamlanivimab, casirivimab, etesevimab and imdevimab did not work against any of the Omicron sub-variants tested, which included BA.2, BA.4 / 5 and BA.2.75”. The monoclonal antibody bebtelovimab “showed a robust antiviral effect against BA.2 and BA.4 / 5, but BA.2.75 is more resistant to this antibody than BA.2 (21-fold) and BA.4 / 5 (26-fold) ), suggesting that bebtelovimab may not be a good choice for combating BA.2.75 infection. ” Again: “Similarly to BA.4 / 5, BA.2.75 is more resistant to cilgavimab than BA.2”.
The good news is that sotrovimab, tixagevimab and regdanvimab, which “do not have effective antiviral action against BA.2 and BA.4 / 5”, “are effective against BA.2.75, suggesting that these 3 monoclonal antibodies can be used for the anti BA.2.75 treatment “, concludes the research group.
breaking latest news © Copyright ANSA
