Search

Background: We evaluated the fully human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 trial for COVID-19., Methods: Nonhospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Noninferiority comparison was undertaken for pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. A secondary outcome was time to sustained symptom resolution., Results: Enrollment ended early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence; 255 adults were in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms (absolute difference 2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3%-8.6%); and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0%; 95% CI, -2.3%-4.5%) for Omicron. All risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were not significant. Time to symptom resolution was significantly shorter for SAB-185 for Omicron only: 18 versus >25 days; P =.006., Conclusions: SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. K. W. C. has consulted for Pardes Biosciences. B. O. T. has received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research; and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. J. Z. L. has consulted for Abbvie. W. F. has received research funding to the institution from Ridgeback Biopharmaceuticals; served on adjudication committees for Janssen and Syneos; and consulted for Inhalon Biopharmaceuticals and Merck. A. L. G. reports contract testing from Abbott, Cepheid, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, and Hologic; and research support from Gilead and Merck, outside of the described work. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR; and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio (now Invivyd) phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, and Bayer Pharmaceuticals. C. B. and T. L. are employees of SAB Biotherapeutics. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: SAB-185, a novel fully human IgG polyclonal immunoglobulin product, underwent phase 2 evaluation for nonhospitalized adults with mild-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Participants received intravenous SAB-185 3840 units/kg (low-dose) or placebo, or 10 240 units/kg (high-dose) or placebo. Primary outcome measures were nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at study days 3, 7, and 14, time to symptomatic improvement, and safety through day 28., Results: Two-hundred thirteen participants received low-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 107/106) and 215 high-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 110/105). The proportions with SARS-CoV-2 RNA < LLOQ were higher for SAB-185 versus placebo at days 3 and 7 and similar at day 14, and significantly higher at day 7 for high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo only, relative risk 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.49). At day 3, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels were lower with low-dose and high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo: differences in medians of -0.78 log10 copies/mL (P = .08) and -0.71 log10 copies/mL (P = .10), respectively. No difference was observed in time to symptom improvement: median 11/10 days (P = .24) for low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 8/10 days (P = .50) for high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 5%/13% of low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 9%/12% of high-dose SAB-185/placebo., Conclusions: SAB-185 was safe and generally well tolerated and demonstrated modest antiviral activity in predominantly low-risk nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. T. has received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. K. W. C. has received research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and consulted for Pardes Biosciences. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV; and research support through the institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. D. A. W. has received funding to the institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. J. Z. L. has consulted for Abbvie. A. L. G. reports contract testing from Abbott, Cepheid, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, and Hologic; and research support from Gilead and Merck, outside of the described work. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR; and data monitoring committee chair for Adagio phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. C. B. and T. L. are employees of SAB Biotherapeutics. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE-2), Transmembrane Serine Protease 2 (TMPRSS-2) and Neuropilin-1 cellular receptors support the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into susceptible human target cells and are characterized at the molecular level. Some evidence on the expression of entry receptors at mRNA and protein levels in brain cells is available, but co-expression of these receptors and confirmatory evidence on brain cells is lacking. SARS-CoV-2 infects some brain cell types, but infection susceptibility, multiple entry receptor density, and infection kinetics are rarely reported in specific brain cell types. Highly sensitive Taqman ddPCR, flow-cytometry and immunocytochemistry assays were used to quantitate the expression of ACE-2, TMPRSS-2 and Neuropilin-1 at mRNA and protein levels on human brain-extracted pericytes and astrocytes, which are an integral part of the Blood-Brain-Barrier (BBB). Astrocytes showed moderate ACE-2 (15.9 ± 1.3%, Mean ± SD, n = 2) and TMPRSS-2 (17.6%) positive cells, and in contrast show high Neuropilin-1 (56.4 ± 39.8%, n = 4) protein expression. Whereas pericytes showed variable ACE-2 (23.1 ± 20.7%, n = 2), Neuropilin-1 (30.3 ± 7.5%, n = 4) protein expression and higher TMPRSS-2 mRNA (667.2 ± 232.3, n = 3) expression. Co-expression of multiple entry receptors on astrocytes and pericytes allows entry of SARS-CoV-2 and progression of infection. Astrocytes showed roughly four-fold more virus in culture supernatants than pericytes. SARS-CoV-2 cellular entry receptor expression and "in vitro" viral kinetics in astrocytes and pericytes may improve our understanding of viral infection "in vivo". In addition, this study may facilitate the development of novel strategies to counter the effects of SARS-CoV-2 and inhibit viral infection in brain tissues to prevent the spread and interference in neuronal functions.

Background: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab., Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410)., Setting: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines., Patients: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression., Intervention: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo., Measurements: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death., Results: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events ( P  < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) ( P  < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events., Limitation: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants., Conclusion: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-3428.

Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority., Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021., Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days., Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route., Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed., Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021., Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants., Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days)., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) is the causative agent of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Lower production of type I and III interferons and higher levels of inflammatory mediators upon SARS-CoV2 infection contribute to COVID-19 pathogenesis. Optimal interferon production and controlled inflammation are essential to limit COVID-19 pathogenesis. However, the aggravated inflammatory response observed in COVID-19 patients causes severe damage to the host and frequently advances to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Toll-like receptor 7 and 8 (TLR7/8) signaling pathways play a central role in regulating induction of interferons (IFNs) and inflammatory mediators in dendritic cells. Controlled inflammation is possible through regulation of TLR mediated response without influencing interferon production to reduce COVID-19 pathogenesis. This review focuses on inflammatory mediators that contribute to pathogenic effects and the role of TLR pathways in the induction of interferon and inflammatory mediators and their contribution to COVID-19 pathogenesis. We conclude that potential TLR7/8 agonists inducing antiviral interferon response and controlling inflammation are important therapeutic options to effectively eliminate SARS-CoV2 induced pathogenesis. Ongoing and future studies may provide additional evidence on their safety and efficacy to treat COVID-19 pathogenesis., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

The emergence and rapid spread of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused over 180 million confirmed cases resulting in over 4 million deaths worldwide with no clear end in sight for the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most SARS-CoV-2 exposed individuals experience mild to moderate symptoms, including fever, cough, fatigue, and loss of smell and taste. However, many individuals develop pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction. In addition to these primarily respiratory symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 can also infiltrate the central nervous system, which may damage the blood-brain barrier and the neuron's synapses. Resultant inflammation and neurodegeneration in the brain stem can further prevent efferent signaling to cranial nerves, leading to the loss of anti-inflammatory signaling and normal respiratory and gastrointestinal functions. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 can infect enterocytes resulting in gut damage followed by microbial dysbiosis and translocation of bacteria and their byproducts across the damaged epithelial barrier. As a result, this exacerbates pro-inflammatory responses both locally and systemically, resulting in impaired clinical outcomes. Recent evidence has highlighted the complex interactions that mutually modulate respiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal function. In this review, we discuss the ways SARS-CoV-2 potentially disrupts the gut-brain-lung axis. We further highlight targeting specific responses to SARS-CoV-2 for the development of novel, urgently needed therapeutic interventions. Finally, we propose a prospective related to the individuals from Low- and Middle-Income countries. Here, the underlying propensity for heightened gut damage/microbial translocation is likely to result in worse clinical outcomes during this COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article., (©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundOutpatient COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment via subcutaneous delivery, if effective, overcomes the logistical burdens of intravenous administration.MethodsACTIV-2/A5401 was a randomized, masked placebo-controlled platform trial where participants with COVID-19 at low risk for progression were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneously administered BMS-986414 (C135-LS) 200 mg, plus BMS-986413 (C144-LS) 200 mg, (BMS mAbs), or placebo. Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events (TEAEs) through 28 days.ResultsA total of 211 participants (105 BMS mAbs and 106 placebo) initiated study product. Time to symptom improvement favored the active therapy but was not significant (median 8 vs 10 days, P=0.19). There was no significant difference in the proportion with SARS-CoV-2 RNA ConclusionsWhile safe, the BMS mAbs delivered subcutaneously were not effective at treating COVID-19 at low risk for progression. The lack of clinically significant activity may relate to the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous administration of mAbs.

BackgroundWith the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants resistant to monoclonal antibody therapies and limited global access to therapeutics, the evaluation of novel therapeutics to prevent progression to severe COVID-19 remains a critical need.MethodsSafety, clinical and antiviral efficacy of inhaled interferon-β1a (SNG001) were evaluated in a phase II randomized controlled trial on the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04518410). Adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 10 days of symptom onset were randomized and initiated either orally inhaled nebulized SNG001 given once daily for 14 days (n = 110) or blinded pooled placebo (n = 110) between February 10 and August 18, 2021.FindingsThe proportion of participants reporting premature treatment discontinuation was 9% among SNG001 and 13% among placebo participants. There were no differences between participants who received SNG001 or placebo in the primary outcomes of treatment emergent Grade 3 or higher adverse events (3.6% and 8.2%, respectively), time to symptom improvement (median 13 and 9 days, respectively), or proportion with unquantifiable nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA at days 3 (28% [26/93] vs. 39% [37/94], respectively), 7 (65% [60/93] vs. 66% [62/94]) and 14 (91% [86/95] vs. 91% [83/81]). There were fewer hospitalizations with SNG001 (n = 1; 1%) compared with placebo (n = 7; 6%), representing an 86% relative risk reduction (p = 0.07). There were no deaths in either arm.InterpretationIn this trial, SNG001 was safe and associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia.FundingThe ACTIV-2 platform study is funded by the NIH. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UM1 AI068634, UM1 AI068636 and UM1 AI106701. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Background Bemnifosbuvir (AT-527) is a novel oral guanosine nucleotide antiviral drug for the treatment of persons with COVID-19. Direct assessment of drug disposition in the lungs, via bronchoalveolar lavage, is necessary to ensure antiviral drug levels at the primary site of SARS-CoV-2 infection are achieved. Objectives This Phase 1 study in healthy subjects aimed to assess the bronchopulmonary pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of repeated doses of bemnifosbuvir. Methods A total of 24 subjects were assigned to receive bemnifosbuvir twice daily at doses of 275, 550 or 825 mg for up to 3.5 days. Results AT-511, the free base of bemnifosbuvir, was largely eliminated from the plasma within 6 h post dose in all dosing groups. Antiviral drug levels of bemnifosbuvir were consistently achieved in the lungs with bemnifosbuvir 550 mg twice daily. The mean level of the guanosine nucleoside metabolite AT-273, the surrogate of the active triphosphate metabolite of the drug, measured in the epithelial lining fluid of the lungs was 0.62 µM at 4–5 h post dose. This exceeded the target in vitro 90% effective concentration (EC90) of 0.5 µM for antiviral drug exposure against SARS-CoV-2 replication in human airway epithelial cells. Bemnifosbuvir was well tolerated across all doses tested, and most treatment-emergent adverse events reported were mild in severity and resolved. Conclusions The favourable pharmacokinetics and safety profile of bemnifosbuvir demonstrates its potential as an oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19, with 550 mg bemnifosbuvir twice daily currently under further clinical evaluation in persons with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three years after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global infectious threat, the virus has become endemic. The neurological complications such as depression, anxiety, and other CNS complications after COVID-19 disease are increasing. The brain, and CSF have been shown as viral reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2, yielding a potential hypothesis for CNS effects. Thus, we investigated the CNS pharmacology of orally dosed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMR/RTV). Using both an in vitro and an in vivo rodent model, we investigated CNS penetration and potential pharmacodynamic activity of NMR. Through pharmacokinetic modeling, we estimated the median CSF penetration of NMR to be low at 18.11% of plasma with very low accumulation in rodent brain tissue. Based on the multiples of the 90% maximal effective concentration (EC90) for SARS-CoV-2, NMR concentrations in the CSF and brain do not achieve an exposure level similar to that of plasma. A median of only 16% of all the predicted CSF concentrations in rats were > 3xEC90 (unadjusted for protein binding). This may have implications for viral persistence and neurologic post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 if increased NMR penetration in the CNS leads to decreased CNS viral loads and decreased CNS inflammation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The NIH Virtual SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Summit, held on 6 November 2020, was organized to provide an overview on the status and challenges in developing antiviral therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including combinations of antivirals. Scientific experts from the public and private sectors convened virtually during a live videocast to discuss severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) targets for drug discovery as well as the preclinical tools needed to develop and evaluate effective small-molecule antivirals. The goals of the Summit were to review the current state of the science, identify unmet research needs, share insights and lessons learned from treating other infectious diseases, identify opportunities for public-private partnerships, and assist the research community in designing and developing antiviral therapeutics. This report includes an overview of therapeutic approaches, individual panel summaries, and a summary of the discussions and perspectives on the challenges ahead for antiviral development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]