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

CD73: agent development potential and its application in diabetes and atherosclerosis

CD73, an important metabolic and immune escape-promoting gene, catalyzes the hydrolysis of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to adenosine (ADO). AMP has anti-inflammatory and vascular relaxant properties, while ADO has a strong immunosuppressive effect, suggesting that CD73 has pro-inflammatory and immune escape effects. However, CD73 also decreased proinflammatory reaction, suggesting that CD73 has a positive side to the body. Indeed, CD73 plays a protective role in diabetes, while with age, CD73 changes from anti-atherosclerosis to pro-atherosclerosis. The upregulation of CD73 with agents, including AGT-5, Aire-overexpressing DCs, Aspirin, BAFFR-Fc, CD4+ peptide, ICAs, IL-2 therapies, SAgAs, sCD73, stem cells, RAD51 inhibitor, TLR9 inhibitor, and VD, decreased diabetes and atherosclerosis development. However, the downregulation of CD73 with agents, including benzothiadiazine derivatives and CD73 siRNA, reduced atherosclerosis. Notably, many CD73 agents were investigated in clinical trials. However, no agents were used to treat diabetes and atherosclerosis. Most agents were CD73 inhibitors. Only FP-1201, a CD73 agonist, was investigated in clinical trials but its further development was discontinued. In addition, many lncRNAs, circRNAs, and genes are located at the same chromosomal location as CD73. In particular, circNT5E promoted CD73 expression. circNT5E may be a promising target for agent development. This mini-review focuses on the current state of knowledge of CD73 in diabetes, atherosclerosis, and its potential role in agent development.

The role of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulins in the COVID-19 pandemic, including implications for future preparedness

Introduction

When Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) struck the world in December 2019, initiatives started to investigate the efficacy of convalescent plasma, a readily available source of passive antibodies, collected from recovered patients as a therapeutic option. This was based on historical observational data from previous virus outbreaks.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulins for COVID-19 treatment. This review included the latest Cochrane systematic review update on 30-day mortality and safety. We also covered use in pediatric and immunocompromised patients, as well as the logistic challenges faced in donor recruitment and plasma collection in general. Challenges for low resource countries were specifically highlighted.

Results

A major challenge is the high donation frequency required from first-time donors to ensure a safe product, which minimizes the risk of transfusion-transmitted infectious. This is particularly difficult in low- and middle- income countries due to inadequate infrastructure and insufficient blood product supplies. High-certainty evidence indicates that convalescent plasma does not reduce mortality or significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. However, CCP may provide a viable treatment for patients unable to mount an endogenous immune response to SARS-CoV-2, based on mostly observational studies and subgroup data of published and ongoing randomized trials. Convalescent plasma has been shown to be safe in adults and children with COVID-19 infection. However, the efficacy in pediatric patients remains unclear.

Discussion

Data on efficacy and safety of CCP are still underway in ongoing (randomized) studies and by reporting the challenges, limitations and successes encountered to-date, research gaps were identified to be addressed for the future.

Conclusion

This experience serves as a valuable example for future pandemic preparedness, particularly when therapeutic options are limited, and vaccines are either being developed or ineffective due to underlying immunosuppression.

SARS-CoV-2-associated lymphopenia: possible mechanisms and the role of CD147

T lymphocytes play a primary role in the adaptive antiviral immunity. Both lymphocytosis and lymphopenia were found to be associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While lymphocytosis indicates an active anti-viral response, lymphopenia is a sign of poor prognosis. T-cells, in essence, rarely express ACE2 receptors, making the cause of cell depletion enigmatic. Moreover, emerging strains posed an immunological challenge, potentially alarming for the next pandemic. Herein, we review how possible indirect and direct key mechanisms could contribute to SARS-CoV-2-associated-lymphopenia. The fundamental mechanism is the inflammatory cytokine storm elicited by viral infection, which alters the host cell metabolism into a more acidic state. This "hyperlactic acidemia" together with the cytokine storm suppresses T-cell proliferation and triggers intrinsic/extrinsic apoptosis. SARS-CoV-2 infection also results in a shift from steady-state hematopoiesis to stress hematopoiesis. Even with low ACE2 expression, the presence of cholesterol-rich lipid rafts on activated T-cells may enhance viral entry and syncytia formation. Finally, direct viral infection of lymphocytes may indicate the participation of other receptors or auxiliary proteins on T-cells, that can work alone or in concert with other mechanisms. Therefore, we address the role of CD147-a novel route-for SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants. CD147 is not only expressed on T-cells, but it also interacts with other co-partners to orchestrate various biological processes. Given these features, CD147 is an appealing candidate for viral pathogenicity. Understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms behind SARS-CoV-2-associated-lymphopenia will aid in the discovery of potential therapeutic targets to improve the resilience of our immune system against this rapidly evolving virus.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of severe COVID-19: a retrospective study during Omicron BA.1 variant surge

Among treatment options for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) showed to be effective in preventing disease progression, but real-world data during the Omicron variant surge are still lacking. Multicentre retrospective study evaluating the effectiveness of sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in fragile patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection between November 2021 and March 2022. Unfavourable outcome was defined as increased need for oxygen supplementation and/or death. Of 268 study-participants, 12 (4.48%) previously needed supplemental oxygen, while 6 (2.24%) had active solid neoplasia (2.24%); 186 (69%) have previously received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Overall, 22 (8%) had unfavourable outcomes (42% versus 6% of patients with and without previous oxygen need and 50% versus 7% of patients with and without active solid neoplasia). Both supplemental oxygen therapy before SARS-CoV-2 infection and solid malignant tumour have shown to be risk factors for treatment failure. Log-rank test did not identify differences between sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab treatment. Despite diffusion of Omicron variant, the rate of unfavourable outcome was higher than expected. The presence of underlying risk factors, including solid cancer and previous oxygen therapy are independently associated with risk of COVID-19 progression, suggesting the need for antiviral treatments not limited to mAbs and implementation of vaccine campaign.

Efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab for preventing and treating COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The ongoing global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a serious public health problem. The selection of safe and effective therapeutic agents is of paramount importance. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab in the treatment of global cases of COVID-19.

Methods

To identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the combined administration of casirivimab and imdevimab for COVID-19 management, a comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to September 10, 2022. Data on the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab were extracted. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 851 articles were searched. Twelve studies were finally included in the meta-analysis, with 27,179 participants. Dichotomous and continuous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. Compared to placebo or alternative medications, the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load (WMD: -0.73, 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.38, P<0.01), all-cause mortality (OR =0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.99, P=0.03), the incidence of any serious adverse events (OR =0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95, P=0.01), the incidence of Grade 3 or more severe adverse events (OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.62-0.92, P=0.01), the likelihood of contracting COVID-19, the incidence of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and mortality (OR =0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.93, P=0.03).

Conclusions

The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab is effective in treating patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as they can reduce viral load, all-cause mortality, infection rates, and the incidence of clinical outcomes of special interest after treatment, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Combined prevention and treatment measures are essential to control nosocomial infections during the COVID-19 pandemic

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is a highly contagious positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus that has rapidly spread worldwide. As of December 17, 2023, 772838745 confirmed cases including 6988679 deaths have been reported globally. This virus primarily spreads through droplets, airborne transmission, and direct contact. Hospitals harbor a substantial number of confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and asymptomatic carriers, accompanied by high population density and a larger susceptible population. These factors serve as potential triggers for nosocomial infections, posing a threat during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nosocomial infections occur to varying degrees across different countries worldwide, emphasizing the urgent need for a practical approach to prevent and control the intra-hospital spread of COVID-19. This study primarily concentrated on a novel strategy combining preventive measures with treatment for combating COVID-19 nosocomial infections. It suggests preventive methods, such as vaccination, disinfection, and training of heathcare personnel to curb viral infections. Additionally, it explored therapeutic strategies targeting cellular inflammatory factors and certain new medications for COVID-19 patients. These methods hold promise in rapidly and effectively preventing and controlling nosocomial infections during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide a reliable reference for adopting preventive measures in the future pandemic.

A comprehensive examination of ACE2 receptor and prediction of spike glycoprotein and ACE2 interaction based on in silico analysis of ACE2 receptor

The ACE2 receptor plays a vital role not only in the SARS-CoV-induced epidemic but also in various other diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and ARDS. While studies have explored the interactions between ACE2 and SARS-CoV proteins, comprehensive research utilizing bioinformatic tools on the ACE2 protein has been lacking. The one aim of present study was to extensively analyze the regions of the ACE2 protein. After utilizing all bioinformatics tools especially G104 and L108 regions on ACE2 were come forward. The results of our analysis revealed that possible mutations or deletions in the G104 and L108 regions play a critical role in both the biological functioning and the determination of the chemical-physical properties of ACE2. Additionally, these regions were found to be more susceptible to mutations or deletions compared to other regions of the ACE2 protein. Notably, the randomly selected peptide, LQQNGSSVLS (100-109), which includes G104 and L108, exhibited a crucial role in binding the RBD of the spike protein, as supported by docking scores. Furthermore, both MDs and iMODs results provided evidence that G104 and L108 influence the dynamics of ACE2-spike complexes. This study is expected to offer a new perspective on the ACE2-SARS-CoV interaction and other research areas where ACE2 plays a significant role, such as biotechnology (protein engineering, enzyme optimization), medicine (RAS, pulmonary and cardiac diseases), and basic research (structural motifs, stabilizing protein folds, or facilitating important inter molecular contacts, protein's proper structure and function).Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Lipid Nanoparticle-Based Inhibitors for SARS-CoV-2 Host Cell Infection

Purpose

The global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the lingering threat to public health has fueled the search for effective therapeutics to treat SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to develop lipid nanoparticle (LNP) inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 entry to reduce viral infection in the nose and upper airway.

Methods

Two types of LNP formulations were prepared following a microfluidic mixing method. The LNP-Trap consisted of DOPC, DSPC, cholesterol, and DSPE-PEG-COOH modified with various spike protein binding ligands, including ACE2 peptide, recombinant human ACE2 (rhACE2) or monoclonal antibody to spike protein (mAb). The LNP-Trim consisted of ionizing cationic DLin-MC3-DMA, DSPC, cholesterol, and DMG-PEG lipids encapsulating siACE2 or siTMPRSS2. Both formulations were assayed for biocompatibility and cell uptake in airway epithelial cells (Calu-3). Functional assessment of activity was performed using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding assays (LNP-Trap), host receptor knockdown (LNP-Trim), and SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay (LNP-Trap and LNP-Trim). Localization and tissue distribution of fluorescently labeled LNP formulations were assessed in mice following intranasal administration.

Results

Both LNP formulations were biocompatible based on cell impedance and MTT cytotoxicity studies in Calu-3 cells at concentrations as high as 1 mg/mL. LNP-Trap formulations were able to bind spike protein and inhibit pseudovirus infection by 90% in Calu-3 cells. LNP-Trim formulations reduced ACE2 and TMPRSS2 at the mRNA (70% reduction) and protein level (50% reduction). The suppression of host targets in Calu-3 cells treated with LNP-Trim resulted in over 90% inhibition of pseudovirus infection. In vivo studies demonstrated substantial retention of LNP-Trap and LNP-Trim in the nasal cavity following nasal administration with minimal systemic exposure.

Conclusion

Both LNP-Trap and LNP-Trim formulations were able to safely and effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviral infection in airway epithelial cells. These studies provide proof-of-principle for a localized treatment approach for SARS-CoV-2 in the upper airway.

Retrospective Cohort Study on Determinants of Mechanical Ventilation Duration of COVID-19 ICU Patients

Background In the face of the ongoing global health crisis posed by COVID-19, it becomes imperative to understand the disease's dynamics, particularly in specific regions. This study provides a detailed examination of the factors influencing mechanical ventilation (MV) duration among COVID-19 patients in an intensive care setting, focusing on a diverse patient cohort from the Al Hassa region of Saudi Arabia. The primary aim of this study was to identify key demographic factors, clinical outcomes, and comorbidities that affect the duration of MV among ICU patients with COVID-19. This understanding is crucial for enhancing patient care and informing healthcare strategies in the context of the pandemic. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to the ICU in the Al Hassa region. The total number of participants was 1,259. Using a systematic sampling method, these participants were chosen to create a representative sample that reflects the prevailing treatment protocols in ICUs across these hospitals. Data encompassed patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical outcomes, and MV duration. Statistical analyses were employed to explore the associations between these variables. Results Our findings reveal a total of 1,259 participants significant associations between MV duration and various factors, including nationality, legal status, travel history, and comorbidities like heart failure and immunocompromised status. These insights are instrumental in understanding the nuances of COVID-19 management in critical care. Conclusion The study provides valuable insights into the determinants of MV duration in severe COVID-19 cases, emphasizing the need for individualized patient care approaches. It highlights the complexity of managing COVID-19 in ICU settings and underscores the importance of tailored healthcare responses to this global health challenge, particularly in the Al Hassa region.

Strategies for the development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics in the post-pandemic period

The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in significant casualties and put immense strain on public health systems worldwide, leading to economic recession and social unrest. In response, various prevention and control strategies have been implemented globally, including vaccine and drug development and the promotion of preventive measures. Implementing these strategies has effectively curbed the transmission of the virus, reduced infection rates, and gradually restored normal social and economic activities. However, the mutations of SARS-CoV-2 have led to inevitable infections and reinfections, and the number of deaths continues to rise. Therefore, there is still a need to improve existing prevention and control strategies, mainly focusing on developing novel vaccines and drugs, expediting medical authorization processes, and keeping epidemic surveillance. These measures are crucial to combat the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and achieve sustained, long-term prevention, management, and disease control. Here, we summarized the characteristics of existing COVID-19 vaccines and drugs and suggested potential future directions for their development. Furthermore, we discussed the COVID-19-related policies implemented over the past years and presented some strategies for the future.

Antiviral Drugs and Vaccines for Omicron Variant: A Focused Review

The Omicron variant of concern (VOC) replaced the delta variant rapidly and became the predominant strain due to more mutations in spike protein and receptor-binding domain (RBD) enhancing its infectivity and binding affinity. The severity of the illness is less than that of the delta variant. Omicron is nonsusceptible to REGEN-COV™ and bamlanivimab with etesevimab. Drugs that are effective against the Omicron variant are oral antiviral drugs such as Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir. The potency of sotrovimab is reduced to 3-fold against Omicron, and 8-fold reduction in potency with sotrovimab is found in a particular variant of Omicron with a R346K substitution in spike protein. There are neither clinical trials comparing the efficacy of these 4 therapies with each other nor any data on a combination of two or more therapies. The current recommendation for mild-moderate, nonhospitalized patients who are at a high risk of disease progression is to use Paxlovid as the first-line option. If Paxlovid is not available or cannot be administered due to drug interactions, then the next best choice is sotrovimab. The third choice is remdesivir if sotrovimab is also not available and molnupiravir is to be given if the other three options are not available or cannot be administered. For prevention, 2130 (cilgavimab) in combination with COV2-2196 (tixagevimab) has been effective against BA.2 only. LY-CoV1404 (bebtelovimab) is recently authorized as it is effective against all sublineages of the Omicron variant. Regarding vaccine efficacy (VE), the 3-dose VE with mRNA vaccines at 14-60 days was found to be 71.6%, and after 60 days, it is 47.4%. There is a 34-38-fold reduction of neutralizing activity with prebooster sera and a 19-fold reduction with booster sera for the Omicron variant. This probably explains the reason for worldwide breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant with waning immunity. The neutralizing antibody response against Omicron elicited by the bivalent vaccine is superior to that of the ancestral Wuhan strain, without any safety concerns. For future advances, the ribosome display technology can be applied for the generation of human single-chain fragment variable (scFv) antibodies from B cells of recovered patients against Omicron and other Coronavirus variants as they are easier and faster to produce and have high affinity and high specificity.

Does monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 impact short and long-term outcomes in a large generalisable population? A retrospective cohort study in the USA

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether monoclonal antibodies (MAb) administered to high-risk patients with COVID-19 during the first week of illness prevent postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 3809 individuals who received MAbs and a matched one-to-one comparison group from a set of 327 079 eligible patients who did not receive MAb treatment were selected from a deidentified administrative data set from commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan enrollees in the USA, including claims and outpatient laboratory data.

RESULTS

Individuals who received MAb were 28% less likely to be hospitalised (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89) and 41% less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89) 30 days from SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis compared with individuals who did not receive MAb. A higher proportion of individuals given MAb therapy received care for clinical sequelae in the postacute phase (p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

While MAb therapy was associated with benefits in the acute period, the benefit of therapy did not extend into the postacute period and did not reduce risk for clinical sequelae.

Reduction in the risk of progression of solid organ transplant recipients infected by SARS-CoV-2 treated with monoclonal antibodies

Recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) are at higher risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 virus especially due to chronic immunosuppression therapy and frequent multiple comorbid conditions. COVID-19 is a potentially life-threatening disease in SOT recipients, with an increased likelihood of progressing to severe disease, with the need of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilatory support. This article presents an updated review of different aspects related to the outcome of COVID-19 in SOT recipients. In nvaccinated SOT recipients, COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate, in-patient care and ICU admission, and impaired graft function or rejection in severe disease. In vaccinated SOT recipients even after full vaccination, there is a reduction of the risk of mortality, but the course of COVID-19 may continue to be severe, influenced by the time from transplant, the net state of immunosuppression and having suffered graft rejection or dysfunction. SOT recipients develop lower immunity from mRNA vaccines with suboptimal response. Treatment with mAbs provides favorable outcomes in non-hospitalized SOT recipients at high risk for severe disease, with lower rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, ICU care, progression to severe disease, and death. However, broad vaccination and therapeutic options are required, particularly in light of the tendency of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to adapt and evade both natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

A Comparison of the Adverse Effects and Utility of Different Monoclonal Antibodies for SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction Multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments have been developed to combat the growing number of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains. These treatments have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection with a low risk of adverse effects; however, more data is required to evaluate the comparative efficacy of mAbs. The primary objective of this study is to describe the hospitalization rate, length of stay (LOS), and mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with four different mAb treatments, including bamlanivimab plus etesevimab, casirivimab plus imdevimab, sotrovimab, and bebtelovimab. Methods A retrospective chart review and prospective phone surveys of SARS-CoV-2 patients treated with mAbs in a 400-bed tertiary, suburban medical center were conducted between June 2020 and April 2022. Eligibility criteria for mAbs included non-hospitalized patients over the age of 18 with less than 10 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and no oxygen requirement on emergency department (ED) admission. Data were collected from the retrospective chart review and subjective patient surveys. A chi-squared test was used. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05. Results The study population included 3249 patients, with 1537 males and 1712 females and an average age of 62.48 ± 17.54 years. Five hundred forty-two patients received bamlanivimab plus etesevimab; 849 received bebtelovimab; 1577 received casirivimab plus imdevimab; and 281 received sotrovimab. The overall hospitalization rate was 1.0%, and the mortality rate was 0.2% following mAb treatment. The hospitalization rate was greatest among patients administered Sotrovimab (2.1%) and least among patients administered Bebtelovimab (0.1%) (p = 0.010). 2.4% of patients who were discharged from the ED after receiving one of the four mAbs returned within 30 days with SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. The average length of stay was 4.75 ± 4.56 days, with no significant differences between the mAbs. The provider-reported adverse event rate was 2.2%, with significant differences in adverse event rates between mAbs. Bamlanivimab-etesevimab was associated with the highest adverse event rate (4.6%), and sotrovimab was associated with the lowest adverse event rate (1.4%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion This study shows a low hospitalization and mortality rate following mAb infusion in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19. However, there were significant differences in hospitalization and mortality among patients receiving each of the four mAb treatments. There was a high degree of patient-reported symptom improvement, and adverse reactions were reported in only 2.2% of patients with no severe reactions. Multiple monoclonal antibody treatments are not effective as monotherapy; however, this study shows the potential benefits of including a mAb infusion as part of a SARS-CoV-2 treatment plan.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three 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.

Emerging Landscape of Nanobodies and Their Neutralizing Applications against SARS-CoV-2 Virus

The new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly altered people's way of life. Despite widespread knowledge of vaccination, mask use, and avoidance of close contact, COVID-19 is still spreading around the world. Numerous research teams are examining the SARS-CoV-2 infection process to discover strategies to identify, prevent, and treat COVID-19 to limit the spread of this chronic coronavirus illness and restore lives to normalcy. Nanobodies have advantages over polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies (Ab) and Ab fragments, including reduced size, high stability, simplicity in manufacture, compatibility with genetic engineering methods, and lack of solubility and aggregation issues. Recent studies have shown that nanobodies that target the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain and disrupt ACE2 interactions are helpful in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected animal models, despite the lack of evidence in human patients. The creation and evaluation of nanobodies, as well as their diagnostic and therapeutic applications against COVID-19, are discussed in this paper.

Effect of the Timing of Amubarvimab/Romlusevimab (BRII-196/198) Administration on Progression to Severe Disease in Elderly Patients with COVID-19 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

Early intervention with neutralizing antibodies is considered to be effective in preventing disease progression in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Elderly patients are the most susceptible and at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The present study aimed to assess the necessity and possible clinical benefits of the early administration of Amubarvimab/Romlusevimab (BRII-196/198) in the elderly population.

Methods

The present study was designed as a retrospective, multi-center cohort study conducted with 90 COVID-19 patients aged over 60, who were divided into two groups based on the timing of the administration of BRII-196/198 (administration at ≤ 3 days or > 3 days from the onset of infection symptoms).

Results

The ≤ 3 days group exhibited a greater positive effect (HR 5.94, 95% CI, 1.42-24.83; P < 0.01), with only 2 patients among 21 patients (9.52%) exhibiting disease progression, compared to the 31 patients among the 69 patients (44.93%) of the > 3 days group who exhibited disease progression. The multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed low flow oxygen support prior to BRII-196/198 administration (HR 3.53, 95% CI 1.42-8.77, P < 0.01) and PLT class (HR 3.68, 95% CI 1.37-9.91, P < 0.01) as independent predictors of disease progression.

Conclusions

In elderly patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 disease, who do not require oxygen support and had the risk factors for disease progression to severe COVID-19 disease, the administration of BRII-196/198 within 3 days resulted in a beneficial trend in terms of preventing disease progression.

Use of sotrovimab in vaccinated versus unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in a resource-limited emergency department during the omicron surge

Objective

The treatment of outpatient COVID-19 patients at high risk of disease progression has been challenging, as both the virus and available therapeutics change. Here, we sought to evaluate the effect of vaccination status on the use of sotrovimab during the early phase of the Omicron surge.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study performed at El Centro Regional Medical Center, a rural hospital on the southern Californian border. The electronic medical record was queried for all emergency department (ED) patients who received an infusion of sotrovimab between January 6 and February 6, 2022. We obtained patient demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, medical comorbidities, and whether patients returned to the ED within 30 days. We stratified our cohort according to vaccination status and performed a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the relationship between these factors.

Results

One hundred seventy patients received an infusion of sotrovimab in the ED. The patient cohort had a median age of 65 years, 78.2% were Hispanic, and obesity (63.5%) was the most common comorbidity. A total of 73.5% of patients were vaccinated against COVID-19. A total of 12/125 (9.6%) of vaccinated patients returned to the ED within 30 days, versus 10/45 (22.2%) in the unvaccinated cohort, which was statically significant (P = 0.03). The presence of medical comorbidities was not associated with the primary outcome.

Conclusion

Of patients who received sotrovimab, those who were vaccinated were less likely to return to the ED within 30 days compared to those who were unvaccinated. Given the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and with the emergence of new variants, it is unclear what role monoclonal antibody therapy should play in the treatment of outpatient COVID-19 patients.

A Systematic Review of the Role of Purinergic Signalling Pathway in the Treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years since its origin, despite the approval of vaccines and specific treatments against this new coronavirus, there are still high rates of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in some countries. COVID-19 is characterised by a high inflammatory state and coagulation disturbances that may be linked to purinergic signalling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), adenosine (ADO), and purinergic receptors (P1 and P2). These nucleotides/nucleosides play important roles in cellular processes, such as immunomodulation, blood clot formation, and vasodilation, which are affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, drugs targeting this purinergic pathway, currently used for other pathologies, are being evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials for COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the potential of these drugs to control the release, degradation, and reuptake of these extracellular nucleotides and nucleosides to treat COVID-19. Drugs targeting the P1 receptors could have therapeutic efficacy due to their capacity to modulate the cytokine storm and the immune response. Those acting in P2X7, which is linked to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, are also valuable candidates as they can reduce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, according to the available preclinical and clinical data, the most promising medications to be used for COVID-19 treatment are those that modulate platelets behaviour and blood coagulation factors, mainly through the P2Y12 receptor.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies: An Updated Review

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) had received emergency use authorization for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or for prophylaxis against COVID-19, including casirivimab plus imdevimab (C+I), bamlanivimab plus etesevimab (B+E), tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (T+CG), and sotrovimab (S) and bebtelovimab (BEB). This systematic review was done to assess the efficacy and safety of the same. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and FDA fact sheets were searched for the studies published between January 2021 and May 2022, and appropriate search terms related to the mentioned mAbs were used for data collection. Review included original research including randomized clinical trials and observational studies published or preprints. Studies included in the review had compared with placebo or standard of care or no treatment or mAbs with each other and also of various doses. Data extraction was done and reviewed the same for both efficacy and safety. Total of 20 studies were included in this review. The rate of hospitalization within 30 days showed ∼2% in comparison to ∼7% with placebo. Significant reduction in viral load was more observed with combination mAbs. Combination therapy showed faster virological cure against the Gamma variant. With C + I as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), 29.0% of asymptomatic participants developed symptomatic COVID-19. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with T+CG reduced the incidence of infection by 77%. Infusion-related reaction was the most common adverse event (AE). The neutralizing mAbs reduced hospitalization in mild-to-moderate patients with infusion-related reactions as common AE. The response was better in the seronegative patients. Most of these studies were conducted in unvaccinated individuals and against Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants.

COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment impact on symptoms and post-COVID conditions among high-risk patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, there is limited information regarding the impact of treatment on symptoms and the prevalence of post-COVID Conditions (PCC). Understanding of the association between time to mAb infusion and the development of PCC is also limited.

METHODS

This longitudinal study was conducted among patients with COVID-19 who received mAb infusions at a Federally Qualified Health Center in San Diego, CA. A series of telephone interviews were conducted at baseline and follow-up (14 days and 28+ days). A comprehensive symptom inventory was completed and physical and mental health status were measured using PROMIS-29 and PHQ-2. Pearson's Chi-squared tests and independent two-sample t-tests were performed to test for association between time to mAb infusion and outcomes at follow-up. A Poisson regression model was used to analyze whether time to mAb infusion predicts risk of developing PCC.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 411) were 53% female, ranged in age from 16 to 92 years (mean 50), and a majority (56%) were Latino/Hispanic. Cross-sectional findings revealed a high symptom burden at baseline (70% of patients had cough, 50% had fever, and 44% had headache). The prevalence of many symptoms decreased substantially by the final follow-up survey (29% of patients had cough, 3% had fever, and 28% had headache). Longitudinal findings indicated that 10 symptoms decreased in prevalence from baseline to final follow-up, 2 remained the same, and 14 increased. The severity of symptoms and most patient-reported physical and mental health measure scores decreased over time. The prevalence of PCC was 69% when PCC was defined as ≥ 1 symptom at final follow-up. Time to mAb infusion was not significantly associated with any outcome at follow-up. Time to infusion was not associated with PCC status at final follow-up in the crude or adjusted Poisson regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of PCC was high among this patient population following COVID-19 mAb treatment. Time to mAb infusion did not predict the development of PCC. Further research in these areas is essential to answer urgent clinical questions about effective treatments of COVID-19.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

Haploidentical CD3+ TCR αβ/CD19+-depleted HSCT for MHC class II deficiency and persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection leads to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which can range from a mild illness to a severe phenotype characterized by acute respiratory distress needing mechanical ventilation. Children with combined immunodeficiencies might be unable to mount a sufficient cellular and humoral immune response against COVID-19 and have persistent disease.

Objective

Our aim was to describe a child with combined immunodeficiency and a favorable post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) course following a haploidentical HSCT in the presence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

A 13-month-old girl with MHC class II deficiency developed persistent pre-HSCT SARS-CoV-2 infection. Faced with a significant challenge of balancing the risk of progressive infection due to an incompetent immune system with the danger of inflammatory pneumonitis peri-immune reconstitution after HSCT, the patient's physicians performed a maternal (with a recent history of COVID-19 infection) haploidentical HSCT. The patient received regdanvimab (after stem cell infusion) and remdesivir (before and after stem cell infusion).

Results

The patient exhibited a gradual increase in her cycle threshold values, implying a reduction in viral RNA with concomitant expansion in the CD3 lymphocyte subset and clinical and radiologic improvement.

Conclusions

Combination of adoptive transfer of maternal CD45RO⁺ memory addback T lymphocytes after haploidentical HSCT and use of regdanvimab (a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing mAb) and remdesivir may have led to the successful outcome in our patient with severe immunodeficiency after she had undergone HSCT. This case highlights the role of novel antiviral strategies (mAbs and CD45RO⁺ memory T lymphocytes) in contributing to viral clearance in a challenging clinical scenario.

Convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients: Efficacy and risk of thromboembolism

Background

Although early evidence concluded a lack of clinical benefit of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in COVID-19 management, recent trials have demonstrated the therapeutic potential of CPT in ambulatory care. CPT may also potentiate thromboembolic events, given the presence of coagulation factors and the prothrombotic state of COVID-19.

Objectives

The present study aimed to assess and compare the clinical efficacy and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)/arterial thromboembolism (ATE) of CPT in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from December 2019 to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of CPT against placebo or standard of care in adult patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was nonmortality disease progression. Secondary outcomes include VTE, ATE, 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, length of hospitalization, sepsis/fever, and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results

Twenty randomized controlled trials, with 21,340 patients, were included. CPT significantly reduced nonmortality disease progression in ambulatory patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009) but not in hospitalized patients (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.12; P = .58). The risk of VTE and ATE did not differ between the CPT and the control group (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.66; P = .40; and OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.37-2.79; P = .98, respectively). No conclusive differences between CPT and control groups were noted in 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, length of hospitalization, risk of sepsis/fever, and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Conclusion

In conclusion, treatment of COVID-19 with CPT prevents the progression of COVID-19 in the ambulatory care. It is not associated with an increased risk of VTE, ATE, or other adverse events.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Engineered soluble ACE2 receptor: Responding to change with change

SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) invades the human body by binding to major receptors such as ACE2 via its S-spike protein, so the interaction of receptor-binding sites has been a hot topic in the development of coronavirus drugs. At present, the clinical progress in monoclonal antibody therapy that occurred early in the pandemic is gradually showing signs of slowing. While recombinant soluble ACE2, as an alternative therapy, has been modified by many engineering methods, both the safety and functional aspects are approaching maturity, and this therapy shows great potential for broadly neutralizing coronaviruses, but its progress in clinical development remains stalled. Therefore, there are still several key problems to be considered and solved for recombinant soluble ACE2 to be approved as a clinical treatment as soon as possible.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Model exploration for discovering COVID-19 targeted traditional Chinese medicine

In terms of treatment, a particularly targeted drug is needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there are currently no specific drugs for COVID-19, traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) is clearly effective. It is recommended that through data analysis and mining of TCM cases (expert experience) and population evidence (RCT and cohort studies), core prescriptions for various efficacy can be obtained. Starting from a multidimensional model of regulating immunity, improving inflammation, and protecting multiple organs, this paper constructs a multidimensional model of targeted drug discovery, integrating molecular, cellular, and animal efficacy evaluation. Through functional activity testing, biophysical detection of compound binding to target proteins, multidimensional pharmacodynamic evaluation systems of cells (Vero E6, Vero, Vero81, Huh7, and caca2) and animals (mice infected with the new coronavirus, rhesus macaques, and hamsters), the effectiveness of effective preparations was evaluated, and various efficacy effects including lung moisturizing, dehumidification and detoxification were obtained. Using modern technology, it is now possible to understand how the immune system is controlled, how inflammation is reduced, and how various organs are protected. Complete early drug characterization and finally obtain effective targeted TCM. This article provides a demonstration resource for the development of new drugs specifically for TCM.

An Executed Plan to Combat COVID-19 in the United States

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019. To date, this coronavirus is responsible for greater than 90 million cases in the United States and more than 1 million confirmed deaths. When this virus came to the United States, testing was unorganized, no effective treatments were known, and no vaccines had been discovered. A plan to correct these deficiencies through cooperative science and efficient clinical trials was implemented to combat this novel virus. This plan developed efficient and inexpensive tests, highly effective medicines to treat and prevent disease progression, and vaccines to immunize the population.

Repertoires of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes targeted by antibodies vary according to severity of COVID-19

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are central to recovery and immunity from COVID-19. However, the relationship between disease severity and the repertoire of antibodies against specific SARS-CoV-2 epitopes an individual develops following exposure remains incompletely understood. Here, we studied seroprevalence of antibodies to specific SARS-CoV-2 and other betacoronavirus antigens in a well-annotated, community sample of convalescent and never-infected individuals obtained in August 2020. One hundred and twenty-four participants were classified into five groups: previously exposed but without evidence of infection, having no known exposure or evidence of infection, seroconverted without symptoms, previously diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19, and recovered after hospitalization with COVID-19. Prevalence of IgGs specific to the following antigens was compared between the five groups: recombinant SARS-CoV-2 and betacoronavirus spike and nucleocapsid protein domains, peptides from a tiled array of 22-mers corresponding to the entire spike and nucleocapsid proteins, and peptides corresponding to predicted immunogenic regions from other proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Antibody abundance generally correlated positively with severity of prior illness. A number of specific immunogenic peptides and some that may be associated with milder illness or protection from symptomatic infection were identified. No convincing association was observed between antibodies to Receptor Binding Domain(s) (RBDs) of less pathogenic betacoronaviruses HKU1 or OC43 and COVID-19 severity. However, apparent cross-reaction with SARS-CoV RBD was evident and some predominantly asymptomatic individuals had antibodies to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV RBDs. Findings from this pilot study may inform development of diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutic antibodies, and provide insight into viral pathogenic mechanisms.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines and levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody in the Bruneian population: Protocol for a national longitudinal study

INTRODUCTION

Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) have been shown to be correlative of immune protection against SARS-CoV-2. We report the protocol for a national longitudinal study to assess and compare the level of NAbs generated in response to COVID-19 vaccines in Brunei Darussalam in adults 2-6 weeks post primary series (BBIBP-CorV, AZD1222, or mRNA-1273 vaccines) and their subsequent follow-up after administration of a third (booster-1) dose (BBIBP-CorV, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Participant data will be extracted and processed from the national electronic health record system (Bru-HIMS) and the national mobile health application (BruHealth) into a research data platform. Eligible adults who have received their primary or booster vaccine will be invited using a stratified random sampling strategy based on age, gender and vaccine type (baseline target population, n=3000; 2-6 weeks post last dose). Blood serum will be isolated, and NAb levels assessed using the cPass surrogate virus neutralisation test. Baseline participants will then be screened for eligibility for subsequent longitudinal analysis. Those who have received a third dose will be followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9 and up to 12 months. NAb levels will be evaluated across the participant population according to vaccine platform/booster type, time since the last dose and correlated with demographic data. The study period is from December 2021 to January 2023 and aims to evaluate how NAb levels wane following a third vaccine dose across different vaccine platforms and determine the impact and rate of breakthrough infections.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Medical and Ethical Research Committee of Ministry of Health, Brunei Darussalam. Individual NAb test results will be shared with each participant by text message. The findings from this study will help policy-makers in Brunei develop future vaccination strategies and establish regulations across multiple agencies.

Comparative effectiveness of neutralising monoclonal antibodies in high risk COVID-19 patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

The purpose of this work was to review and synthesise the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of neutralising monoclonal antibody (nMAB) therapies in individuals exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV-2 and at high risk of developing severe COVID-19. Outcomes of interest were mortality, healthcare utilisation, and safety. A rapid systematic review was undertaken to identify and synthesise relevant RCT evidence using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Relative treatment effects for individual nMABs (compared with placebo and one another) were estimated. Pooled effects for the nMAB class compared with placebo were estimated. Relative effects were combined with baseline natural history models to predict the expected risk reductions per 1000 patients treated. Eight articles investigating four nMABs (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab) were identified. All four therapies were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation (70-80% reduction in relative risk; absolute reduction of 35-40 hospitalisations per 1000 patients). For mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation, the risk was lower for all nMABs compared with placebo with moderate to high uncertainty due to small event numbers. Rates of serious AEs and infusion reactions were comparable between nMABs and placebo. Pairwise comparisons between nMABs were typically uncertain, with broadly comparable efficacy. In conclusion, nMABs are effective at reducing hospitalisation among infected individuals at high-risk of severe COVID-19, and are likely to reduce mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation rates; the effect on these latter outcomes is more uncertain. Widespread vaccination and the emergence of nMAB-resistant variants make the generalisability of these results to current patient populations difficult.

Long-term cellular immune response in immunocompromised unvaccinated COVID-19 patients undergoing monoclonal antibody treatment

Immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for a severe course of COVID-19. Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has become widely accepted. However, the effects of mAb treatment on the long-term primary cellular response to SARS-CoV-2 are unknown. In the following study, we investigated the long-term cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1, Membrane (M) and Nucleocapsid (N) antigens using the ELISpot assay in unvaccinated, mAb-treated immunocompromised high-risk patients. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb untreated though vaccinated COVID-19 immunocompromised patients, vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 immunocompromised patients without COVID-19 and vaccinated healthy control subjects served as control groups. The cellular immune response was determined at a median of 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data suggest that immunocompromised patients develop an endogenous long-term cellular immune response after COVID-19, although at low levels. A better understanding of the cellular immune response will help guide clinical decision making for these vulnerable patient cohorts.

Druggable targets and therapeutic development for COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which is caused by SARS-CoV-2, is the biggest challenge to the global public health and economy in recent years. Until now, only limited therapeutic regimens have been available for COVID-19 patients, sparking unprecedented efforts to study coronavirus biology. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 encodes 16 non-structural, four structural, and nine accessory proteins, which mediate the viral life cycle, including viral entry, RNA replication and transcription, virion assembly and release. These processes depend on the interactions between viral polypeptides and host proteins, both of which could be potential therapeutic targets for COVID-19. Here, we will discuss the potential medicinal value of essential proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and key host factors. We summarize the most updated therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 patients, including those approved clinically or in clinical trials.

Impact of COVID-19 on the liver and on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and liver transplantation: An updated EASL position paper

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a serious challenge to the hepatology community, particularly healthcare professionals and patients. While the rapid development of safe and effective vaccines and treatments has improved the clinical landscape, the emergence of the omicron variant has presented new challenges. Thus, it is timely that the European Association for the Study of the Liver provides a summary of the latest data on the impact of COVID-19 on the liver and issues guidance on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and previous liver transplantation, as the world continues to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Engineering ACE2 decoy receptors to combat viral escapability

Decoy receptor proteins that trick viruses to bind to them should be resistant to viral escape because viruses that require entry receptors cannot help but bind decoy receptors. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the major receptor for coronavirus cell entry. Recombinant soluble ACE2 was previously developed as a biologic against acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and verified to be safe in clinical studies. The emergence of COVID-19 reignited interest in soluble ACE2 as a potential broad-spectrum decoy receptor against coronaviruses. In this review, we summarize recent developments in preclinical studies using various high-affinity mutagenesis and Fc fusion approaches to achieve therapeutic efficacy of recombinant ACE2 decoy receptor against coronaviruses. We also highlight the relevance of stimulating effector immune cells through Fc-receptor engagement and the potential of using liquid aerosol delivery of ACE2 decoy receptors for defense against ACE2-utilizing coronaviruses.

Coagulopathy during COVID-19 infection: a brief review

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread rapidly due to its virulence and ability to be transmitted by asymptomatic infected persons. If they are present, the symptoms of COVID-19 may include rhinorrhea (runny nose), headache, cough, and fever. Up to 5% of affected persons may experience more severe COVID-19 illness, including severe coagulopathy, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) characterized by respiratory failure that requires supplementary oxygen and mechanical ventilation, and multi-organ failure. Interestingly, clinical evidence has highlighted the distinction between COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Patients with CAC exhibit different laboratory values than DIC patients for activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT) which may be normal or shortened, varying platelet counts, altered red blood cell morphology, unique bleeding complications, a lack of schistocytes in the peripheral blood, and no decrease in fibrinogen levels. In this review, we consider the search for 1) laboratory results that can diagnose or predict development of CAC, including serum levels of D-dimers, fibrinogen, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the growth factor angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), 2) mechanisms of CAC induction, and 3) novel therapeutic regimens that will successfully treat COVID-19 before development of CAC.

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Narrative Review

The World Health Organisation has reported that the viral disease known as COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is the leading cause of death by a single infectious agent. This narrative review examines certain components of the pandemic: its origins, early clinical data, global and UK-focussed epidemiology, vaccination, variants, and long COVID.

Insights on the Quantitative Concurrent Fluorescence-Based Analysis of Anti-COVID-19 Drugs Remdesivir and Favipiravir

We hereby introduce a sensitive fast straightforward spectrofluorometric method for the estimation of remdesivir and favipiravir. The two drugs are prescribed in some regimens to treat COVID-19 pandemic disease, which is caused by SARS-CoV-2. The method is based on the first derivative synchronous spectrofluorimetry approach for the measurement of remdesivir and favipiravir. This was accomplished at 251 nm and 335 nm respectively using the first derivative order at delta lambda of 140 nm. A linear response with a correlation coefficient 0.9994 was achieved between the concentration and the derivative amplitudes in the ranges of 20.0-100.0 ng ml-1 and 40.0-100.0 ng ml-1 for remdesivir and favipiravir, respectively. The methods were validated for different parameters as stated by the pharmacopeial rules and were applied successfully for estimation of the studied drugs in their synthetic mixtures and in spiked human plasma samples. No significant difference was observed between the proposed and comparison methods as revealed from the analysis of data.

IgM antibodies derived from memory B cells are potent cross-variant neutralizers of SARS-CoV-2

Humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be supplemented with polyclonal sera from convalescent donors or an engineered monoclonal antibody (mAb) product. While pentameric IgM antibodies are responsible for much of convalescent sera's neutralizing capacity, all available mAbs are based on the monomeric IgG antibody subtype. We now show that IgM mAbs derived from immune memory B cell receptors are potent neutralizers of SARS-CoV-2. IgM mAbs outperformed clonally identical IgG antibodies across a range of affinities and SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain epitopes. Strikingly, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 viral variants was retained for IgM but not for clonally identical IgG. To investigate the biological role for IgM memory in SARS-CoV-2, we also generated IgM mAbs from antigen-experienced IgM+ memory B cells in convalescent donors, identifying a potent neutralizing antibody. Our results highlight the therapeutic potential of IgM mAbs and inform our understanding of the role for IgM memory against a rapidly mutating pathogen.

Biologics in COVID-19 So Far: Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to reevaluate the available evidence of the use of biologics as treatment candidates for the treatment of severe and advanced COVID-19 disease; what are the rationale for their use, which are the most studied, and what kind of efficacy measures are described? A search through Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Medline, medrxiv.org, and Google scholar was performed on the use of biologic interventions in COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and sepsis, until 11 January 2022. Throughout the research, we identified 4821 records, of which 90 were selected for qualitative analysis. Amongst the results, we identified five popular targets of use: IL6 and IL1 inhibitors, interferons, mesenchymal stem cells treatment, and anti-spike antibodies. None of them offered conclusive evidence of their efficacy with consistency and statistical significance except for some studies with anti-spike antibodies; however, Il6 and IL1 inhibitors as well as interferons show encouraging data in terms of increased survival and favorable clinical course that require further studies with better methodology standardization.

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700–1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200–1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30–0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing 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, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

Cell deaths: Involvement in the pathogenesis and intervention therapy of COVID-19

The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has dramatically influenced various aspects of the world. It is urgent to thoroughly study pathology and underlying mechanisms for developing effective strategies to prevent and treat this threatening disease. It is universally acknowledged that cell death and cell autophagy are essential and crucial to maintaining host homeostasis and participating in disease pathogenesis. At present, more than twenty different types of cell death have been discovered, some parts of which have been fully understood, whereas some of which need more investigation. Increasing studies have indicated that cell death and cell autophagy caused by coronavirus might play an important role in virus infection and pathogenicity. However, the knowledge of the interactions and related mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 between cell death and cell autophagy lacks systematic elucidation. Therefore, in this review, we comprehensively delineate how SARS-CoV-2 manipulates diverse cell death (including apoptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and NETosis) and cell autophagy for itself benefits, which is simultaneously involved in the occurrence and progression of COVID-19, aiming to provide a reasonable basis for the existing interventions and further development of novel therapies.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity 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 (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).