BA.2.75.2 exhibits more extreme antibody escape than any variant we've seen so far. A short 🧵 
As with our previous work, this effort was led by @DannySheward, with @PeacockFlu helping us accelerate things.
@EricTopol made a gutsy call a while back, saying that BA.2.75 was "a scariant".
This may turn out to be correct, but BA.2.75's daughter, BA.2.75.2, with just three additional mutations, is genuinely scary.
This may turn out to be correct, but BA.2.75's daughter, BA.2.75.2, with just three additional mutations, is genuinely scary.
In 18 random blood donor samples in Stockholm, sampled just a couple of weeks ago, BA.2.75.2 was neutralised, on average, five-fold less potently than BA.5. These are recent samples in a city that has good vaccine coverage and likely relatively high prior infection rates.
As an important caveat, we don't know the individual histories of these samples.
We also looked at BA.4.6 and BA.2.10.4, but neither show nearly as much evasion of neutralisation by serum antibodies as BA.2.75.2.
We also looked at BA.4.6 and BA.2.10.4, but neither show nearly as much evasion of neutralisation by serum antibodies as BA.2.75.2.
In terms of clinical monoclonal antibodies, Evusheld is completely gone for BA.2.75.2. Sotrovimab looks similar between BA.2.75.2 and BA.5 (that is: not great, but not completely knocked out - clinical utility unclear?). Bebtelovimab's potency survives, alone.
A short preprint has been uploaded to BioRxiv, which we'll be updating with more data soon. Thanks to all the collaborators involved, and a special thanks to all the clinicians and researchers who work so hard to sequence these emerging variants. We'd be blind without you.
Additional thanks to others involved @NillaKH @Jan_Albert_ @bjorkstrom_lab @saireddy911 and a few who aren't on twitter!
And this is our short preprint: biorxiv.org/content/10.110… which we'll continue to update.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
