SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

Human Identical Sequences, hyaluronan, and hymecromone ─ the new mechanism and management of COVID-19

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has created formidable damage to public health and market economy. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 variants has exacerbated the transmission from person-to-person. Even after a great deal of investigation on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is still rampaging globally, emphasizing the urgent need to reformulate effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we review the latest research progress of COVID-19 and provide distinct perspectives on the mechanism and management of COVID-19. Specially, we highlight the significance of Human Identical Sequences (HIS), hyaluronan, and hymecromone ("Three-H") for the understanding and intervention of COVID-19. Firstly, HIS activate inflammation-related genes to influence COVID-19 progress through NamiRNA-Enhancer network. Accumulation of hyaluronan induced by HIS-mediated HAS2 upregulation is a substantial basis for clinical manifestations of COVID-19, especially in lymphocytopenia and pulmonary ground-glass opacity. Secondly, detection of plasma hyaluronan can be effective for evaluating the progression and severity of COVID-19. Thirdly, spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 may bind to hyaluronan and further serve as an allergen to stimulate allergic reaction, causing sudden adverse effects after vaccination or the aggravation of COVID-19. Finally, antisense oligonucleotides of HIS or inhibitors of hyaluronan synthesis (hymecromone) or antiallergic agents could be promising therapeutic agents for COVID-19. Collectively, Three-H could hold the key to understand the pathogenic mechanism and create effective therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

Combined kinetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, N-antigenemia and virus-specific antibodies in critically ill adult COVID-19 patients

Combined kinetic analysis of plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, Nucleocapsid (N)-antigenemia and virus-specific antibodies may help ascertain the role of antibodies in preventing virus dissemination in COVID-19 patients. We performed this analysis in a cohort of 71 consecutive critically ill COVID-19 patients (49 male; median age, 65 years) using RT-PCR assay, lateral flow immunochromatography method and receptor binding domain (RBD) and N-based immunoassays. A total of 338 plasma specimens collected at a median of 12 days after symptoms onset were available for analyses. SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and N-antigenemia were detected in 37 and 43 specimens from 26 (36.5%) and 30 (42.2%) patients, respectively. Free RNA was the main biological form of SARS-CoV-2 found in plasma. The detection rate for both viral components was associated with viral load at the upper respiratory tract. Median time to SARS-CoV-2-RBD antibody detection was 14 days (range, 4–38) from onset of symptoms. Decreasing antibody levels were observed in parallel to increasing levels of both RNAemia and N-antigenemia, yet overall a fairly modest inverse correlation (Rho = −0.35; P < 0.001) was seen between virus RNAemia and SARS-CoV-2-RBD antibody levels. The data cast doubts on a major involvement of antibodies in virus clearance from the bloodstream within the timeframe examined.

Outpatient treatment options to address the SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron

INTRODUCTION

: On November 26, 2021, the World Health Organization's Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution designated PANGO lineage B.1.1.529 a variant of concern and gave it the designation Omicron. The following day, the United Kingdom reported its first two cases of Omicron, a novel variant that was thought to be more transmissible than other variants such as Delta, Beta, and Alpha.

AREAS COVERED

: Omicron has since become the dominant variant around the world, accounting for unprecedented case counts and hospitalizations. Omicron's high rate of spread has been attributed to a variety of factors, including enhanced replication in the upper airways (bronchi) as well as immune evasion.

EXPERT OPINION

: These intrinsic factors have implications for the approach to treatment. Monoclonal antibody therapies, which were highly effective against prior SARS-CoV-2 variants, were rendered largely ineffective against Omicron, and other antiviral options remain severely limited due to supply issues. This manuscript reviews the landscape of Omicron therapeutics and looks ahead to examine how these treatments and others may be used in the future to address the expanding threat of the Omicron variant.

Rapid and Accurate Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Variants Using Real Time PCR Assays

Background

Genomic surveillance efforts for SARS-CoV-2 are needed to understand the epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic. Viral variants may impact routine diagnostic testing, increase viral transmissibility, cause differences in disease severity, have decreased susceptibility to therapeutics, and/or confer the ability to evade host immunity. While viral whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has played a leading role in surveillance programs, many laboratories lack the expertise and resources for performing WGS. This study describes the performance of multiplexed real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays for identification of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2 specimens were tested for spike-gene variants using a combination of allele-specific primer and allele-specific detection technology (PlexPrime^® and PlexZyme^®). Targeted detection of spike gene mutations by RT-PCR was compared to variant detection in positive specimens by WGS, including the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Results

A total of 398 SAR-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 39 negative specimens previously tested by WGS were re-tested by RT-PCR genotyping. PCR detection of spike gene mutations N501Y, E484K, and S982A correlated 100% with WGS for the 29 lineages represented, including Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Gamma (P.1). Incorporating the P681R spike gene mutation also allowed screening for the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2 and AY sublineages). Further sampling of 664 specimens that were screened by WGS between June and August 2021 and then re-tested by RT-PCR showed strong agreement for Delta variant positivity: 34.5% for WGS vs 32.9% for RT-PCR in June; 100% vs 97.8% in August. In a blinded panel of 16 Omicron and 16 Delta specimens, results of RT-PCR were 100% concordant with WGS results.

Conclusions

These data demonstrate that multiplexed real-time RT-PCR genotyping has strong agreement with WGS and may provide additional SARS-CoV-2 variant screening capabilities when WGS is unavailable or cost-prohibitive. RT-PCR genotyping assays may also supplement existing sequencing efforts while providing rapid results at or near the time of diagnosis to help guide patient management.

Melatonin and REGN-CoV2 combination as a vaccine adjuvant for Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2

The omicron variant (B.529) of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in late 2021, caused panic worldwide due to its contagiousness and multiple mutations in the spike protein compared to the Delta variant (B.617.2). There is currently no specific antiviral available to treat Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, studies on neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAb) developed to fight COVID-19 are growing and gaining traction. REGN-COV2 (Regeneron or imdevimab-casirivimab combination), which has been shown in recent studies to be less affected by Omicron's RBD (receptor binding domain) mutations among other mAb cocktails, plays an important role in adjuvant therapy against COVID-19. On the other hand, it is known that melatonin, which has antioxidant and immunomodulatory effects, can prevent a possible cytokine storm, and other severe symptoms that may develop in the event of viral invasion. Along with all these findings, we believe it is crucial to evaluate the use of melatonin with REGN-COV2, a cocktail of mAbs, as an adjuvant in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, particularly in immunocompromised and elderly patients.

Passive Immunotherapy Against SARS-CoV-2: From Plasma-Based Therapy to Single Potent Antibodies in the Race to Stay Ahead of the Variants

The COVID-19 pandemic is now approaching 2 years old, with more than 440 million people infected and nearly six million dead worldwide, making it the most significant pandemic since the 1918 influenza pandemic. The severity and significance of SARS-CoV-2 was recognized immediately upon discovery, leading to innumerable companies and institutes designing and generating vaccines and therapeutic antibodies literally as soon as recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sequence was available. Within months of the pandemic start, several antibodies had been generated, tested, and moved into clinical trials, including Eli Lilly's bamlanivimab and etesevimab, Regeneron's mixture of imdevimab and casirivimab, Vir's sotrovimab, Celltrion's regdanvimab, and Lilly's bebtelovimab. These antibodies all have now received at least Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and some have received full approval in select countries. To date, more than three dozen antibodies or antibody combinations have been forwarded into clinical trials. These antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 all target the receptor-binding domain (RBD), with some blocking the ability of the RBD to bind human ACE2, while others bind core regions of the RBD to modulate spike stability or ability to fuse to host cell membranes. While these antibodies were being discovered and developed, new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have cropped up in real time, altering the antibody landscape on a moving basis. Over the past year, the search has widened to find antibodies capable of neutralizing the wide array of variants that have arisen, including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. The recent rise and dominance of the Omicron family of variants, including the rather disparate BA.1 and BA.2 variants, demonstrate the need to continue to find new approaches to neutralize the rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus. This review highlights both convalescent plasma- and polyclonal antibody-based approaches as well as the top approximately 50 antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, their epitopes, their ability to bind to SARS-CoV-2 variants, and how they are delivered. New approaches to antibody constructs, including single domain antibodies, bispecific antibodies, IgA- and IgM-based antibodies, and modified ACE2-Fc fusion proteins, are also described. Finally, antibodies being developed for palliative care of COVID-19 disease, including the ramifications of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are described.

New endemic and pandemic pathologies with interhuman airborne transmission through ear, nose and throat anatomical sites

The current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has once again stigmatised the importance of airborne pathogens and their clinical, social and public health impact. Respiratory viruses are transmitted between individuals when the pathogen is released from the upper airways or from the lower respiratory tract of an infected individual. Airborne transmission is defined as the inhalation of the infectious aerosol, named droplet nuclei which size is smaller than 5 mm and that can be inhaled at a distance up to 2 metres. This route of transmission is relevant for viral respiratory pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, influenza virus, human rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory virus families that differ in viral and genomic structures, susceptibility of a population to the infection, severity, transmissibility, ways of transmission and seasonal recurrence. Human respiratory viruses generally infect cells of the upper respiratory tract, eliciting respiratory signs and symptoms, sometimes without the possibility to differentiate them clinically. As seen by the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, human respiratory viruses can substantially contribute to increased morbidity and mortality, economic losses and, eventually, social disruption. In this article, we describe the structural, clinical and transmission aspects of the main respiratory viruses responsible for endemic, epidemic and pandemic infections.

Mechanisms of action of fluvoxamine for COVID-19: a historical review

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) accelerates the discovery of prophylactic and therapeutic drugs for persons infected with the virus. Drug repurposing for the COVID-19 pandemic has received particular attention. Increasing clinical data suggest that antidepressant use in early-stage subjects with COVID-19 might be associated with a reduced risk of intubation or death. Among the antidepressants, fluvoxamine is the most attractive drug for mild to moderate subjects with COVID-19. In this article, we review the mechanisms of action (i.e., serotonin transporter, sigma-1 receptor, and acid sphingomyelinase) of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. Furthermore, we discuss a possible link between maternal COVID-19 infection and a risk for neuropsychiatric disorders (i.e., autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia) in offspring.

A novel machine learning-based radiomic model for diagnosing high bleeding risk esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To develop and validate a novel machine learning-based radiomic model (RM) for diagnosing high bleeding risk esophageal varices (HREV) in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A total of 796 qualified participants were enrolled. In training cohort, 218 cirrhotic patients with mild esophageal varices (EV) and 240 with HREV RM were included to training and internal validation groups. Additionally, 159 and 340 cirrhotic patients with mild EV and HREV RM, respectively, were used for external validation. Interesting regions of liver, spleen, and esophagus were labeled on the portal venous-phase enhanced CT images. RM was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, calibration and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

The AUROCs for mild EV RM in training and internal validation were 0.943 and 0.732, sensitivity and specificity were 0.863, 0.773 and 0.763, 0.763, respectively. The AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.654, 0.773 and 0.632, respectively, in external validation. Interestingly, the AUROCs for HREV RM in training and internal validation were 0.983 and 0.834, sensitivity and specificity were 0.948, 0.916 and 0.977, 0.969, respectively. The related AUROC, sensitivity and specificity were 0.736, 0.690 and 0.762 in external validation. Calibration and DCA indicated RM had good performance. Compared with Baveno VI and its expanded criteria, HREV RM had a higher accuracy and net reclassification improvements that were as high as 49.0% and 32.8%.

CONCLUSION

The present study developed a novel non-invasive RM for diagnosing HREV in cirrhotic patients with high accuracy. However, this RM still needs to be validated by a large multi-center cohort.

Awaiting a cure for COVID-19: therapeutic approach in patients with different severity levels of COVID-19

COVID-19 is an unpredictable infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The development of effective anti-COVID-19 vaccines has enormously minimized the risk of severe illness in most immunocompetent patients. However, unvaccinated patients and non-responders to the COVID-19 vaccine are at risk of shortand long-term consequences. In these patients, the outcome of COVID-19 relies on an interplay of multiple factors including age, immunocompetence, comorbidities, inflammatory response triggered by the virus as well as the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Generally, COVID-19 is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic in young people, but it may manifest with respiratory insufficiency requiring mechanical ventilation in certain susceptible groups of patients. Furthermore, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection induces multiorgan failure syndrome by affecting liver, kidney heart and nervous system. Since December 2019, multiple drugs have been tested to treat COVID-19, but only a few have been proven effective to mitigate the course of the disease that continues to cause death and comorbidity worldwide. Current treatment of COVID-19 patients is essentially based on the administration of supportive oxygen therapy and the use of specific drugs such as steroids, anticoagulants, antivirals, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and immunomodulators. However, the rapid spread of new variants and the release of new data coming from the numerous ongoing clinical trials have created the conditions for maintaining a continuous updating of the therapeutic management of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we believe that a well-established therapeutic strategy along with the continuum of medical care for all patients with COVID-19 is pivotal to improving disease outcomes and restoring healthcare care fragmentation caused by the pandemic. This narrative review, focusing on the therapeutic management of COVID-19 patients, aimed to provide an overview of current therapies for (i) asymptomatic or mildly/moderate symptomatic patients, (ii) hospitalized patients requiring low-flow oxygen, (iii) high-flow oxygen and (iv) mechanical ventilation.

Optimization of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Therapies: Roadmap to Improve Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation

One of the major breakthroughs to combat the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the development of highly effective vaccines against the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Still, alternatives are needed for individuals who are at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 and are not protected by vaccination. Monoclonal antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to be effective as prophylaxis and treatment against COVID-19. However, the emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) challenges the efficacy of antibody therapies. This review describes the neutralization resistance of the clinically-approved monoclonal antibody therapies against the Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants. To guide the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and to anticipate on the continuous evolution of SARS-CoV-2, we highlight different strategies to broaden the antibody activity by targeting more conserved epitopes and/or simultaneously targeting multiple sites of vulnerability of the virus. This review further describes the contribution of antibody Fc effector functions to optimize the antibody efficacy. In addition, the main route of SARS-CoV-2 antibody administration is currently intravenously and dictates a monthly injection when used as prophylactic. Therefore, we discusses the concept of long-acting antibodies (LAABs) and non-intravenously routes of antibody administration in order to broaden the clinical applicability of antibody therapies.

Comprehensive Treatment of Hematological Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Including Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies: A Single-Center Experience Case Series

Patients with hematologic malignancies are at high risk of exacerbated condition and higher mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Bamlanivimab, casirivimab/imdevimab combination, and sotrovimab are monoclonal antibodies (mABs) that can reduce the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization. Clinical effectiveness of bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab combination has been shown for the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), but the effectiveness of the latter treatment against the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) has been suggested to be reduced. However, the tolerability and clinical usage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific mABs in patients with hematologic malignancies are less specified. We present a retrospective case series analysis of all SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with hematologic malignancies who received SARS-CoV-2-specific mABs at our facility between February and mid-December 2021. A total of 13 COVID-19 patients (pts) with at least one malignant hematologic diagnosis received SARS-CoV-2-specific mABs at our facility, with 3 pts receiving bamlanivimab and 10 pts receiving casirivimab/imdevimab combination. We observed SARS-CoV-2 clearance in five cases. Furthermore, we observed a reduction in the necessity for oxygen supplementation in five cases where the application was administered off-label. To the best of our knowledge, we present the largest collection of anecdotal cases of SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibody use in patients with hematological malignancies. Potential benefit of mABs may be reduced duration and/or clearance of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections.

MAIN RESULTS

Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

A Review of the Potential Roles of Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Pharmacological Approaches for the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Symptomatic COVID-19

In the past 2 years, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has driven investigational studies and controlled clinical trials on antiviral treatments and vaccines that have undergone regulatory approval. Now that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants may become endemic over time, there remains a need to identify drugs that treat the symptoms of COVID-19 and prevent progression toward severe cases, hospitalization, and death. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is extremely important for the development of effective therapies against COVID-19. This review outlines the key pathways involved in the host response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and discusses the potential role of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory pharmacological approaches for the management of early mild-to-moderate COVID-19, using the examples of combined indomethacin, low-dose aspirin, omeprazole, hesperidin, quercetin, and vitamin C. The pharmacological targets of these substances are described here for their possible synergism in counteracting SARS-CoV-2 replication and progression of the infection from the upper respiratory airways to the blood, avoiding vascular complications and cytokine and bradykinin storms.

Developing an Effective Peptide-Based Vaccine for COVID-19: Preliminary Studies in Mice Models

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused massive health and economic disasters worldwide. Although several vaccines have effectively slowed the spread of the virus, their long-term protection and effectiveness against viral variants are still uncertain. To address these potential shortcomings, this study proposes a peptide-based vaccine to prevent COVID-19. A total of 15 B cell epitopes of the wild-type severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein were selected, and their HLA affinities predicted in silico. Peptides were divided into two groups and tested in C57BL/6 mice with either QS21 or Al(OH)₃ as the adjuvant. Our results demonstrated that the peptide-based vaccine stimulated high and durable antibody responses in mice, with the T and B cell responses differing based on the type of adjuvant employed. Using epitope mapping, we showed that our peptide-based vaccine produced antibody patterns similar to those in COVID-19 convalescent individuals. Moreover, plasma from vaccinated mice and recovered COVID-19 humans had the same neutralizing activity when tested with a pseudo particle assay. Our data indicate that this adjuvant peptide-based vaccine can generate sustainable and effective B and T cell responses. Thus, we believe that our peptide-based vaccine can be a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19, particularly because of the flexibility of including new peptides to prevent emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and avoiding unwanted autoimmune responses.

Molnupiravir: Is It Time to Move In or Move Out?

Molnupiravir: Is It Time to Move In or Move Out?With more than 250 million diagnosed cases and 5 million deaths, Covid-19 is our epoch-defining pandemic - and it is still ongoing. Despite the development of several effective Covid-19 vaccines, there are a limited number of antiviral treatments to reduce disease progression, risk of hospitalization, and death once the infection occurs. In this editorial, we examine the results of the phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of molnupiravir, ...

Effect of Subcutaneous Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination vs Placebo on Development of Symptomatic COVID-19 in Early Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Easy-to-administer anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments may be used to prevent progression from asymptomatic infection to symptomatic disease and to reduce viral carriage.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of combination subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab on progression from early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptomatic COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2-infected index case at 112 sites in the US, Romania, and Moldova enrolled July 13, 2020-January 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021. Asymptomatic individuals (aged ≥12 years) were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection. Results from 314 individuals positive on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing are reported.

Interventions

Individuals were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg (600 mg of each; n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of seronegative participants who developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the 28-day efficacy assessment period. The key secondary efficacy end points were the number of weeks of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and the number of weeks of high viral load (>4 log10 copies/mL).

Results

Among 314 randomized participants (mean age, 41.0 years; 51.6% women), 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period; 204 were asymptomatic and seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg, significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, -13.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to -0.3%]). Casirivimab and imdevimab reduced the number of symptomatic weeks per 1000 participants (895.7 weeks vs 1637.4 weeks with placebo; P = .03), an approximately 5.6-day reduction in symptom duration per symptomatic participant. Treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab also reduced the number of high viral load weeks per 1000 participants (489.8 weeks vs 811.9 weeks with placebo; P = .001). The proportion of participants receiving casirivimab and imdevimab who had 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event was 33.5% vs 48.1% for placebo, including events related (25.8% vs 39.7%) or not related (11.0% vs 16.0%) to COVID-19.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive individuals living with an infected household contact, treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination vs placebo significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04452318.

[Antiviral drugs : Potent agents, promising therapies for COVID‑19 and therapeutic limitations]

Antiviral drugs inhibit viral replication by interaction with specific elements of the viral replication cycle. Directly acting antiviral agents have revolutionized the therapeutic options for chronic infections with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Pharmacological developments constantly improve therapeutic and prophylactic options for diseases caused by herpes viruses, which is of particular relevance for immunocompromised patients. While infections with persistent viruses, such as HIV, HBV or herpes viruses principally so far cannot be cured, complete elimination of viruses that cause acute infections is possible; however, acute infections, such as influenza or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) offer only a small therapeutic window for antiviral strategies due to their pathophysiological dynamics. The optimal time point for antiviral agents is immediately after exposure to the virus, which frequently limits its application in practice. An effective pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis has been established for infections with HIV and influenza A/B and also gains relevance for infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Malin J, Fichtner F, J. Müller O, Skoetz N, Karagiannidis C. Clinical Practice Guideline: Recommendations on the In-hospital Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care.

METHODS

The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations.

RESULTS

Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Intermediate- and Therapeutic-Dose Anticoagulation for Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear.

METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.

Passive immune therapies: another tool against COVID-19

Passive immune therapy consists of several different therapies, convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Although these treatments were not part of any pandemic planning prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to the absence of high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in other severe respiratory infections, a large amount of research has now been performed to demonstrate their benefit or lack of benefit in different patient groups. This review summarizes the evidence up to July 2021 on their use and also when they should not be used or when additional data are required. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most important method of preventing severe and fatal COVID-19 in people who have an intact immune system. Passive immune therapy should only be considered for patients at high risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. The only therapy that has received full regulatory approval is the casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal cocktail; all other treatments are being used under emergency use authorizations. In Japan, it has been licensed to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, and in the United Kingdom, it has also been licensed to prevent infection.

Monoclonal Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: Current Scenario and Future Perspectives

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been known since the 1970s. However, their therapeutic potential in the medical field has recently emerged, with the advancement of manufacturing techniques. Initially exploited mainly in the oncology field, mAbs have become increasingly relevant in Infectious Diseases. Numerous mAbs have been developed against SARS-CoV 2 and have proven their effectiveness, especially in the management of the mild-to-moderate disease. In this review, we describe the monoclonal antibodies currently authorized for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and offer an insight into the clinical trials that led to their approval. We discuss the mechanisms of action and methods of administration as well as the prophylactic and therapeutic labelled indications (both in outpatient and hospital settings). Furthermore, we address the critical issues regarding mAbs, focusing on their effectiveness against the variants of concern (VoC) and their role now that a large part of the population has been vaccinated. The purpose is to offer the clinician an up-to-date overview of a therapeutic tool that could prove decisive in treating patients at high risk of progression to severe disease.

An update on drugs with therapeutic potential for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st century with more than 257 million cases and over 5.17 million deaths reported worldwide (as of November 23, 2021. Various agents were initially proclaimed to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin are all examples of therapeutic agents, whose efficacy against COVID-19 was later disproved. Meanwhile, concentrated efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide have led to the identification of novel therapeutic options to control the disease including PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332). Although COVID-19 cases are currently treated using a comprehensive approach of anticoagulants, oxygen, and antibiotics, the novel Pfizer agent PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332), an investigational COVID-19 oral antiviral candidate, significantly reduced hospitalization time and death rates, based on an interim analysis of the phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis demonstrated an 89 % reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint). However, there still exists a great need for the development of additional treatments, as the recommended therapeutic options are insufficient in many cases. Thus far, mRNA and vector vaccines appear to be the most effective modalities to control the pandemic. In the current review, we provide an update on the progress that has been made since April 2020 in clinical trials concerning the effectiveness of therapies available to combat COVID-19. We focus on currently recommended therapeutic agents, including steroids, various monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, baricitinib, anticoagulants and PAXLOVID™ summarizing the latest original studies and meta-analyses. Moreover, we aim to discuss other currently and previously studied agents targeting COVID-19 that either show no or only limited therapeutic activity. The results of recent studies report that hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma demonstrate no efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lastly, we summarize the studies on various drugs with incoherent or insufficient data concerning their effectiveness, such as amantadine, ivermectin, or niclosamide.

Effectiveness of monoclonal antibody therapy for COVID-19 patients using a risk scoring system

Introduction

Monoclonal antibody therapy has been reported to be highly effective for preventing hospitalisation and severe cases in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, since the drug is not readily available, it is important to rapidly and appropriately identify high-risk patients who can benefit most from therapy. Therefore, we designed a risk scoring system to identify at-risk COVID-19 patients in our region during the largest surge of COVID-19, from July to September 2021.

Methods

According to the risk scores, confirmed COVID-19 patients were introduced to receive REGN-CoV-2 to our hospital by regional health centre from 18th August (Term 3). The primary outcome was the comparison of the number of hospitalisation and severe condition with other periods, the 4th wave (Term 1) and the early part of the 5th wave (Term 2) in Japan.

Results

During Term 3, 115 patients were stratified with the scoring system and administered REGN-COV-2. The number of hospitalisation vs severe cases were 60 (5.2%) vs 14 (1.2%), 8 (1.5%) vs 3 (0.6%) and 21 (1.2%) vs 2 (0.1%), in term 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among those aged <60 years, compared with term 1, the relative risk of hospitalisation and severe condition were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.12–0.53) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01–0.80), respectively, in term 3. Drug adverse events were fever (3: 2.6%), headache (1: 0.9%) and neck rash (1: 0.9%), all events were resolved within 24 h wth no serious adverse event.

Conclusions

The administration of monoclonal antibody therapy using a risk scoring system significantly reduced the number of hospitalisation and disease severity of COVID-19 without any serious adverse events and avoided regional medical collapse.

Regdanvimab: First Approval

Regdanvimab (Regkirona™) is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeted against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. It is being developed by Celltrion Inc. for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In September 2021, regdanvimab received full approval in South Korea for the treatment of COVID-19 in elderly patients aged > 50 years with at least one underlying medical condition (obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, and patients on immunosuppressive agents) and mild symptoms of COVID-19 and in adult patients with moderate symptoms of COVID-19. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of regdanvimab leading to this first approval for COVID-19.

Myeloid cells in COVID-19 microenvironment

Varying differentiation of myeloid cells is common in tumors, inflammation, autoimmune diseases, and metabolic diseases. The release of cytokines from myeloid cells is an important driving factor that leads to severe COVID-19 cases and subsequent death. This review briefly summarizes the results of single-cell sequencing of peripheral blood, lung tissue, and cerebrospinal fluid of COVID-19 patients and describes the differentiation trajectory of myeloid cells in patients. Moreover, we describe the function and mechanism of abnormal differentiation of myeloid cells to promote disease progression. Targeting myeloid cell-derived cytokines or checkpoints is essential in developing a combined therapeutic strategy for patients with severe COVID-19.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.