Search

The prevalence of "long COVID" is just one of the conundrums highlighting how little we know about the lung's response to viral infection, particularly to syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), for which the lung is the point of entry. We used an in vitro human lung system to enable a prospective, unbiased, sequential single-cell level analysis of pulmonary cell responses to infection by multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains. Starting with human induced pluripotent stem cells and emulating lung organogenesis, we generated and infected three-dimensional, multi-cell-type-containing lung organoids (LOs) and gained several unexpected insights. First, SARS-CoV-2 tropism is much broader than previously believed: Many lung cell types are infectable, if not through a canonical receptor-mediated route (e.g., via Angiotensin-converting encyme 2(ACE2)) then via a noncanonical "backdoor" route (via macropinocytosis, a form of endocytosis). Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved endocytosis blockers can abrogate such entry, suggesting adjunctive therapies. Regardless of the route of entry, the virus triggers a lung-autonomous, pulmonary epithelial cell-intrinsic, innate immune response involving interferons and cytokine/chemokine production in the absence of hematopoietic derivatives. The virus can spread rapidly throughout human LOs resulting in mitochondrial apoptosis mediated by the prosurvival protein Bcl-xL. This host cytopathic response to the virus may help explain persistent inflammatory signatures in a dysfunctional pulmonary environment of long COVID. The host response to the virus is, in significant part, dependent on pulmonary Surfactant Protein-B, which plays an unanticipated role in signal transduction, viral resistance, dampening of systemic inflammatory cytokine production, and minimizing apoptosis. Exogenous surfactant, in fact, can be broadly therapeutic.

Virulent infectious agents such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) induce tissue damage that recruits neutrophils, monocyte, and macrophages, leading to T cell exhaustion, fibrosis, vascular leak, epithelial cell depletion, and fatal organ damage. Neutrophils, monocytes, and macrophages recruited to pathogen-infected lungs, including SARS-CoV-2-infected lungs, express phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase gamma (PI3Kγ), a signaling protein that coordinates both granulocyte and monocyte trafficking to diseased tissues and immune-suppressive, profibrotic transcription in myeloid cells. PI3Kγ deletion and inhibition with the clinical PI3Kγ inhibitor eganelisib promoted survival in models of infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2 and MRSA, by suppressing inflammation, vascular leak, organ damage, and cytokine storm. These results demonstrate essential roles for PI3Kγ in inflammatory lung disease and support the potential use of PI3Kγ inhibitors to suppress inflammation in severe infectious diseases.

Findings from this study provide further reassuring evidence that infant exposure through human milk received from lactating individuals who require treatment with remdesivir is negligible.

Here, an in vitro characterization of a family of prazole derivatives that covalently bind to the C73 site on Tsg101 and assay their ability to inhibit viral particle production is presented. Structurally, increased steric bulk on the 4-pyridyl of the prazole expands the prazole site on the UEV domain toward the β-hairpin in the Ub-binding site and is coupled to increased inhibition of virus-like particle production in HIV-1. Increased bulk also increased toxicity, which is alleviated by increasing flexibility. Further, the formation of a novel secondary Tsg101 adduct for several of the tested compounds and the commercial drug lansoprazole. The secondary adduct involved the loss of the 4-pyridyl substituent to form an irreversible species, with implications for increasing the half-life of the active species or its specificity toward Tsg101 UEV. It is also determined that sulfide derivatives display effective viral inhibition, presumably through cellular sulfoxidation, allowing for delayed conversion within the cellular environment, and identify SARS-COV-2 as a target of prazole inhibition. These results open multiple avenues for the design of prazole derivatives for antiviral applications.

The ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 to evade vaccines and therapeutics underlines the need for innovative therapies with high genetic barriers to resistance. Therefore, there is pronounced interest in identifying new pharmacological targets in the SARS-CoV-2 viral life cycle. The small molecule PAV-104, identified through a cell-free protein synthesis and assembly screen, was recently shown to target host protein assembly machinery in a manner specific to viral assembly. In this study, we investigate the capacity of PAV-104 to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in human airway epithelial cells (AECs). We show that PAV-104 inhibits >99% of infection with diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants in immortalized AECs, and in primary human AECs cultured at the air-liquid interface (ALI) to represent the lung microenvironment in vivo. Our data demonstrate that PAV-104 inhibits SARS-CoV-2 production without affecting viral entry, mRNA transcription, or protein synthesis. PAV-104 interacts with SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and interferes with its oligomerization, blocking particle assembly. Transcriptomic analysis reveals that PAV-104 reverses SARS-CoV-2 induction of the type-I interferon response and the maturation of nucleoprotein signaling pathway known to support coronavirus replication. Our findings suggest that PAV-104 is a promising therapeutic candidate for COVID-19 with a mechanism of action that is distinct from existing clinical management approaches.

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a 'highly transmissible respiratory pathogen, leading to severe multi-organ damage. However, knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2-induced cellular alterations is limited. In this study, we report that SARS-CoV-2 aberrantly elevates mitochondrial bioenergetics and activates the EGFR-mediated cell survival signal cascade during the early stage of viral infection. SARS-CoV-2 causes an increase in mitochondrial transmembrane potential via the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-nucleocapsid cluster, thereby abnormally promoting mitochondrial elongation and the OXPHOS process, followed by enhancing ATP production. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 activates the EGFR signal cascade and subsequently induces mitochondrial EGFR trafficking, contributing to abnormal OXPHOS process and viral propagation. Approved EGFR inhibitors remarkably reduce SARS-CoV-2 propagation, among which vandetanib exhibits the highest antiviral efficacy. Treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells with vandetanib decreases SARS-CoV-2-induced EGFR trafficking to the mitochondria and restores SARS-CoV-2-induced aberrant elevation in OXPHOS process and ATP generation, thereby resulting in the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 propagation. Furthermore, oral administration of vandetanib to SARS-CoV-2-infected hACE2 transgenic mice reduces SARS-CoV-2 propagation in lung tissue and mitigates SARS-CoV-2-induced lung inflammation. Vandetanib also exhibits potent antiviral activity against various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including alpha, beta, delta and omicron, in in vitro cell culture experiments. Taken together, our findings provide novel insight into SARS-CoV-2-induced alterations in mitochondrial dynamics and EGFR trafficking during the early stage of viral infection and their roles in robust SARS-CoV-2 propagation, suggesting that EGFR is an attractive host target for combating COVID-19.

To mitigate the loss of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with variants susceptible to mAb therapy. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3-4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response antiviral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods. METHODS: Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods. RESULTS: A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

New lead drugs to treat COVID-19 are beginning to emerge.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID. METHODS: We conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30-85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37-54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0-34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2-8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8-12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39-0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15-0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78-2·34) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe. FUNDING: Parsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

BackgroundIn the USA, oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is authorised for use in patients aged 12 years or older with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk of progression to severe disease and hospitalisation. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions and death in people with COVID-19 in an outpatient prescribing context in the USA.MethodsIn this matched observational outpatient cohort study in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (CA, USA) health-care system, data were extracted from electronic health records of non-hospitalised patients aged 12 years or older who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result (their index test) between April 8 and Oct 7, 2022, and had not received another positive test result within the preceding 90 days. We compared outcomes between people who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who did not receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir by matching cases by date, age, sex, clinical status (including care received, the presence or absence of acute COVID-19 symptoms at testing, and time from symptom onset to testing), vaccination history, comorbidities, health-care seeking during the previous year, and BMI. Our primary endpoint was the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2.Findings7274 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 126 152 non-recipients with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were included in our study. 5472 (75·2%) treatment recipients and 84 657 (67·1%) non-recipients were tested within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had an overall estimated effectiveness of 53·6% (95% CI 6·6-77·0) in preventing hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, which increased to 79·6% (33·9-93·8) when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was dispensed within 5 days of symptom onset. Within the subgroup of patients tested within 5 days of symptom onset and whose treatment was dispensed on the day of their test, the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was 89·6% (50·2-97·8).InterpretationIn a setting with high levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectively reduced the risk of hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2 test.FundingUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and US National Institutes of Health.

Medical treatment of coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) is a therapeutic challenge. The available data strongly suggest that calcifediol treatment may reduce the severity of COVID-19, and corticosteroids are the treatment of choice worldwide for severe COVID-19. Both have a very similar action profile, and their combined use in patients may modify the contribution of each administered compound. Objective: To evaluate how treatment with calcifediol and/or corticosteroids in medical practice modified the need for ICU admission, death, or poor prognosis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first outbreaks. Design, patients and setting: A retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted for COVID-19 to the Pneumology Unit of the Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía (Córdoba, Spain). Interventions: Patients were treated with calcifediol or/and corticosteroids with the best available therapy and standard care, according to clinical practice guidelines. Measurements: Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or death during hospitalization and poor prognosis. Results: Seven hundred and twenty-eight patients were included. According to the treatment received, they were included in four groups: calcifediol (n = 68), glucocorticoids (n = 112), both (n = 510), or neither (n = 38). Of the 578 patients treated with calcifediol, 88 were admitted to the ICU (15%), while of the 150 not treated with calcifediol, 39 required ICU admission (26%) (p < 0.01). Among the patients taking calcifediol without glucocorticoids, only 4 of 68 (5.8%) required ICU admission, compared to 84 of 510 (16.5%) treated with both (p = 0.022). Of the 595 patients who had a good prognosis, 568 (82.01%) had received treatment with calcifediol versus the 133 patients with a poor prognosis, of whom 90 (67.66%) had received calcifediol (p < 0.001). This difference was not found for corticosteroids. Interpretation: The treatment of choice for hospitalized patients with moderate or mild COVID-19 could be calcifediol, not administering corticosteroids, until the natural history of the disease reaches a stage of hyperinflammation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This phase 2b/3, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial explored the efficacy and evaluated the safety of ensitrelvir. This trial involved individuals with asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods: The trial was conducted at 57 medical institutions in Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam (study period: January 6–August 14, 2022). Eligible participants were randomized (1:1:1) to the ensitrelvir 125‐mg, ensitrelvir 250‐mg, or placebo group, received the allocated intervention orally, and were followed up until Day 28. Participants self‐rated the severity of 14 typical COVID‐19 symptoms and recorded the data in an electronic diary. Results: In total, 572 participants (194, 189, and 189 in the ensitrelvir 125‐mg, ensitrelvir 250‐mg, and placebo groups, respectively) were included in the intention‐to‐treat population. Ensitrelvir 125‐mg group observed a 77% reduction in the risk of developing any of the 14 COVID‐19 symptoms or fever and a 29% reduction in the risk of worsening of such symptoms or fever versus placebo (statistically nonsignificant). The viral RNA, viral titer, and time to infectious viral clearance observed a statistically significant decrease versus placebo. Most treatment‐related adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate in severity, and the most common TEAE observed across groups was a decrease in high‐density lipoprotein. Conclusions: Our exploratory results suggest a potential reduction in the risk of development or worsening of COVID‐19 symptoms with ensitrelvir. Ensitrelvir showed antiviral efficacy and was well tolerated. Trial Registration: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRCT2031210350. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundInformation about the effectiveness of oral antivirals in preventing short- and long-term COVID-19-related outcomes in the setting of Omicron variant transmission and COVID-19 vaccination is limited.ObjectiveTo measure the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir for outpatient treatment of COVID-19.DesignThree retrospective target trial emulation studies comparing matched cohorts of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment, molnupiravir versus no treatment, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus molnupiravir.SettingVeterans Health Administration (VHA).ParticipantsNonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022.InterventionNirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir pharmacotherapy.MeasurementsIncidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days and from 31 to 180 days.ResultsEighty-seven percent of participants were male; the median age was 66 years, and 18% were unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated control participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 9607) had lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (22.07 vs. 30.32 per 1000 participants; risk difference [RD], -8.25 [95% CI, -12.27 to -4.23] per 1000 participants) and death (1.25 vs. 5.47 per 1000 participants; RD, -4.22 [CI, -5.45 to -3.00] per 1000 participants). Among persons alive at day 31, reductions were seen in 31- to 180-day incidence of death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.49 to 0.89]) but not hospitalization (subhazard ratio, 0.90 [CI, 0.79 to 1.02]). Molnupiravir-treated participants (n = 3504) had lower 30-day and 31- to 180-day risks for death (3.14 vs. 13.56 per 1000 participants at 30 days; RD, -10.42 [CI, -13.49 to -7.35] per 1000 participants; hazard ratio at 31 to 180 days, 0.67 [CI, 0.48 to 0.95]) but not hospitalization. A difference in 30-day or 31- to 180-day risk for hospitalization or death was not observed between matched nirmatrelvir- or molnupiravir-treated participants.LimitationThe date of COVID-19 symptom onset for most veterans was unknown.ConclusionNirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death. Molnupiravir was associated with a benefit for 30-day mortality but not hospitalization. Further reductions in mortality from 31 to 180 days were observed with both antivirals.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) serves as a highly promising antiviral drug target such as for a Remdesivir nucleotide analogue (RDV-TP or RTP). In this work, we mainly used alchemical all-atom simulations to characterize relative binding free energetics between the nucleotide analogue RTP and natural cognate substrate ATP upon initial binding and pre-catalytic insertion into the active site of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp. Natural non-cognate substrate dATP and mismatched GTP were also examined for computation control. We first identified significant differences in dynamical responses between nucleotide initial binding and subsequent insertion configurations to the open and closed active sites of the RdRp, respectively, though the RdRp protein conformational changes between the active site's open and closed states are subtle. Our alchemical simulations indicated that upon initial binding (active site open), RTP and ATP show similar binding free energies to the active sites while in the insertion state (active site closed), ATP is more stabilized (∼-2.4 kcal mol-1) than RTP in free energetics. Additional analyses show, however, that RTP is more stabilized in binding energetics than ATP, in both the insertion and initial binding states, with RTP more stabilized due to the electrostatic energy in the insertion state and due to vdW energy in the initial binding state. Hence, it appears that natural cognate ATP still excels at association stability with the RdRp active site due to that ATP maintains sufficient flexibilities e.g., in base pairing with the template, which exemplifies an entropic contribution to the cognate substrate stabilization. These findings highlight the importance of substrate flexibilities in addition to energetic stabilization in antiviral nucleotide analogue design.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) is recommended to reduce the risk of hospitalization from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pregnancy. Data on use in pregnancy, including prescribing patterns and patient experience (adverse effects, incidence of rebound), are limited. We performed a cross-sectional study in which we surveyed a cohort of vaccinated pregnant or lactating individuals with breakthrough COVID-19. Of 35 pregnant respondents, 51.4% were prescribed and 34.3% took nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; of these, 91.7% experienced dysgeusia and 50.0% had rebound (50.0% positive test result, 33.3% return of symptoms). Three of five lactating respondents were prescribed and two took nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. There were no significant adverse outcomes. Unknown risk was the most common reason for declining nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. More research is needed to establish the safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in pregnancy and lactation, to improve public health messaging, and to increase uptake of this treatment.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection is caused when Spike-protein (S-protein) present on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cell surface receptor, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This binding facilitates SARS-CoV-2 genome entry into the human cells, which in turn causes infection. Since the beginning of the pandemic, many different therapies have been developed to combat COVID-19, including treatment and prevention. This review is focused on the currently adapted and certain other potential therapies for COVID-19 treatment, which include drug repurposing, vaccines and drug-free therapies. The efficacy of various treatment options is constantly being tested through clinical trials and in vivo studies before they are made medically available to the public.

ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCWs).MethodsIn a 1: 1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial at 34 US clinical centers, 1360 HCWs at risk for COVID-19 infection were enrolled between April and November 2020. Participants were randomized to HCQ or matched placebo. The HCQ dosing included a loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on day 1, followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days. The primary outcome was a composite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by day 30, defined as new-onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected).ResultsStudy enrollment closed before full accrual due to recruitment challenges. The primary end point occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6-0.9%, P = 0.20) was identified nor any significant safety issues.ConclusionOral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared safe among HCWs. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was not powered to detect a small but potentially important reduction in infection.Trial registrationNCT04334148.

We isolated a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) BA.2 variant from a person with coronavirus disease 2019 recrudescence after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment. Antiviral sensitivity and neutralizing antibody testing were performed with both parental SARS-CoV-2 and multiple variants of concern. We found that neither nirmatrelvir resistance nor absence of neutralizing immunity was a likely cause of the recrudescence.

Pregnant individuals are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and there is an urgent need to identify safe and effective therapeutics for this population. Remdesivir (RDV) is a SARS-CoV-2 nucleotide analog RNA polymerase inhibitor. Limited RDV pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety data are available for pregnant women receiving RDV. The aims of this study were to translate a previously published nonpregnant adult physiologically based PK (PBPK) model for RDV to pregnancy and evaluate model performance with emerging clinical PK data in pregnant women with COVID-19. The pregnancy model was built in the Open Systems Pharmacology software suite (Version 10) including PK-Sim® and MoBi® with pregnancy-related changes of relevant enzymes applied. PK were predicted in a virtual population of 1000 pregnant subjects, and prediction results were compared with in vivo PK data from the International Maternal, Pediatric, Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials (IMPAACT) Network  2032 study. The developed PBPK model successfully captured RDV and its metabolites' plasma concentrations during pregnancy. The ratios of prediction versus observation for RDV area under the curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) and maximum concentration (Cmax ) were 1.61 and 1.17, respectively. For GS-704277, the ratios of predicted versus observed were 0.94 for AUC0-∞ and 1.20 for Cmax . For GS-441524, the ratios of predicted versus observed were 1.03 for AUC0-24 , 1.05 for Cmax , and 1.07 for concentrations at 24 h. All predictions of AUC and Cmax for RDV and its metabolites were within a twofold error range, and about 60% of predictions were within a 10% error range. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of translating PBPK models to pregnant women to potentially guide trial design, clinical decision making, and drug development.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed considerable challenges to the health of lactating individuals. Vaccination remains one of the most important strategies for prevention of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection and is associated with protective benefits for lactating individuals and their breastfed infants with overall mild side effects. The current recommendations for COVID-19 treatment in lactating individuals includes remdesivir and dexamethasone for hospitalized patients and Paxlovid® (nirmatrelavir + ritonavir) as outpatient treatment in those with mild disease. As the pandemic continues to evolve with new COVID-19 variants, alternative therapeutic options are potentially needed, and it is critical to include lactating individuals in research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 treatment options in this population.

COVID-19 oral treatments require initiation within 5 days of symptom onset. Although antigen tests are less sensitive than RT-PCR, rapid results could facilitate entry to treatment. We collected anterior nasal swabs for BinaxNOW and RT-PCR testing and clinical data at a walk-up, community site in San Francisco, California between January and June 2022. SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences were generated from positive samples and classified according to subtype and variant. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to estimate the expected proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons who would have been diagnosed within 5 days of symptom onset using RT-PCR versus BinaxNOW testing. Among 25,309 persons tested with BinaxNOW, 2,799 had concomitant RT-PCR. 1137/2799 (40.6%) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive. We identified waves of predominant omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12, BA.4, and BA.5 among 720 sequenced samples. Among 1,137 RT-PCR positive samples, 788/1137 (69%) were detected by BinaxNOW; 94% (669/711) of those with Ct value

Abstract Background In vitro data suggested reduced neutralizing capacity of sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, against Omicron BA.2 subvariant. However, limited in vivo data exist regarding clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to Omicron BA.2. Methods A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at three Canadian academic tertiary centres. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥ 18 years with mild COVID-19 (sequencing-confirmed Omicron BA.1 or BA.2) treated with sotrovimab between February 1 to April 1, 2022. Thirty-day co-primary outcomes included hospitalization due to moderate or severe COVID-19; all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality. Risk differences (BA.2 minus BA.1 group) for co-primary outcomes were adjusted with propensity score matching (e.g., age, sex, vaccination, immunocompromised status). Results Eighty-five patients were included (15 BA.2, 70 BA.1) with similar baseline characteristics between groups. Adjusted risk differences were non-statistically significant between groups for 30-day hospitalization (− 14.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI): − 32.6 to 4.0%), ICU admission (− 7.1%; 95%CI: − 20.6 to 6.3%), and mortality (− 7.1%; 95%CI: − 20.6 to 6.3%). Conclusions No differences were demonstrated in hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates within 30 days between sotrovimab-treated patients with BA.1 versus BA.2 infection. More real-world data may be helpful to properly assess sotrovimab’s effectiveness against infections due to specific emerging COVID-19 variants.

Background/Aims The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV. Results A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77–1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events. Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

Available drugs have been used as an urgent attempt through clinical trials to minimize severe cases of hospitalizations with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), however, there are limited data on common pharmacogenomics affecting concomitant medications response in patients with comorbidities. To identify the genomic determinants that influence COVID-19 susceptibility, we use a computational, statistical, and network biology approach to analyze relationships of ineffective concomitant medication with an adverse effect on patients. We statistically construct a pharmacogenetic/biomarker network with significant drug-gene interactions originating from gene-disease associations. Investigation of the predicted pharmacogenes encompassing the gene-disease-gene pharmacogenomics (PGx) network suggests that these genes could play a significant role in COVID-19 clinical manifestation due to their association with autoimmune, metabolic, neurological, cardiovascular, and degenerative disorders, some of which have been reported to be crucial comorbidities in a COVID-19 patient.

A man in his 20s with a history of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) was brought into the emergency department (ED) after his family found him at home collapsed on the floor unresponsive with a blood glucose of 28 mg/dL at the field. In the ED, the patient was tachycardic, tachypnoeic and hypotensive, requiring pressors and intubation at 9 hours and 12 hours after arrival, respectively. Laboratory results revealed a positive COVID-19 test, serum sodium of 125 mmol/L and persistent hypoglycaemia. The patient was given a high dose of dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment 1 hour before pressors were started. He was then continued on a stress dose of intravenous hydrocortisone with rapid clinical improvement leading to his extubation, and discontinuation of vasopressors and glucose on day 2 of admission. The patient received his last dose of intravenous hydrocortisone on day 4 in the early afternoon with the plan to order adrenal testing the following morning prior to discharge. On day 5, the aldosterone 1250 pg/mL, and ACTH stimulation test showed cortisol levels of 3 and 3 µg/dL at 30 and 60 min, respectively. The anti-21-hydroxylase antibody was positive. The patient was discharged on hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone. The patient's symptoms, elevated ACTH, low cortisol and presence of 21-hydroxylase antibodies are consistent with autoimmune Addison's disease. This is the first case reporting autoimmune Addison's disease in a patient with COVID-19 with a history of ADEM. The case highlights the importance of considering adrenal insufficiency as a diagnostic differential in haemodynamically unstable patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Colchicine, because of its anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral properties, has been proposed as potential therapeutic option for COVID-19. The role of colchicine to mitigate cytokine storm and to decrease the severity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has been evaluated in many studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of colchicine on morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. The literature search was conducted in 6 medical databases from inception to February 17, 2021 to identify studies evaluating colchicine as a therapeutic agent in COVID-19. All included studies were evaluated for risk of bias (ROB) using the Revised Cochrane ROB tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case-control and cohort studies. RESULTS: Four RCTs and four observational studies were included in the final analysis. One study evaluated colchicine in outpatients, while all others evaluated inpatient use of colchicine. There was significant variability in treatment protocols for colchicine and standard of care in all studies. A statistically significant decrease in all-cause mortality was observed in three observational studies. The risk of mechanical ventilation was significantly reduced only in one observational study. Length of hospitalisation was significantly reduced in two RCTs. Risk for hospitalisation was not significantly decreased in the study evaluating colchicine in outpatients. Very few studies had low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data, colchicine shall not be recommended to treat COVID-19. Further high-quality and multi-center RCTs are required to assess the meaningful impact of this drug in COVID-19.KEY MESSAGESColchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent has demonstrated anti-viral properties in in-vitro studies by degrading the microtubules, as well as by inhibiting the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines.Colchicine has been studied as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19, with variable results.Until further research can establish the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19, the use of colchicine in COVID-19 shall be restricted to clinical trials.

Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for either postexposure prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using data from these studies, we calculated the time-weighted average change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load and demonstrated that HCQ did not affect viral clearance.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial).DesignACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]).Setting94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants).ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionSOC.Measurements28-day mortality and recovery.ResultsAlthough outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages.LimitationUnmeasured confounding.ConclusionChanges in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Covalent drugs have been used to treat diseases for more than a century, but tools that facilitate the rational design of covalent drugs have emerged more recently. The purposeful addition of reactive functional groups to existing ligands can enable potent and selective inhibition of target proteins, as demonstrated by the covalent epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors used to treat various cancers. Moreover, the identification of covalent ligands through 'electrophile-first' approaches has also led to the discovery of covalent drugs, such as covalent inhibitors for KRAS(G12C) and SARS-CoV-2 main protease. In particular, the discovery of KRAS(G12C) inhibitors validates the use of covalent screening technologies, which have become more powerful and widespread over the past decade. Chemoproteomics platforms have emerged to complement covalent ligand screening and assist in ligand discovery, selectivity profiling and target identification. This Review showcases covalent drug discovery milestones with emphasis on the lessons learned from these programmes and how an evolving toolbox of covalent drug discovery techniques facilitates success in this field.

AZD7442 (Evusheld) is a combination of two human anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), tixagevimab (AZD8895) and cilgavimab (AZD1061). Route of administration is an important consideration to improve treatment access. We assessed pharmacokinetics (PKs) of AZD7442 absorption following 600 mg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) in the thigh compared with 300 mg intravenously (i.v.) in ambulatory adults with symptomatic COVID-19. PK analysis included 84 of 110 participants randomized to receive i.m. AZD7442 and 16 of 61 randomized to receive i.v. AZD7442. Serum was collected prior to AZD7442 administration and at 24 hours and 3, 7, and 14 days later. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Following 600 mg i.m., the geometric mean maximum concentration (Cmax ) was 38.19 μg/mL (range: 17.30-60.80) and 37.33 μg/mL (range: 14.90-58.90) for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Median observed time to maximum concentration (Tmax ) was 7.1 and 7.0 days for tixagevimab and cilgavimab, respectively. Serum concentrations after i.m. dosing were similar to the i.v. dose (27-29 μg/mL each component) at 3 days. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)0-7d geometric mean ratio was 0.9 for i.m. vs. i.v. Participants with higher weight or body mass index were more likely to have lower concentrations with either route. Women appeared to have higher interparticipant variability in concentrations compared with men. The concentrations of tixagevimab and cilgavimab after administration i.m. to the thigh were similar to those achieved with i.v. after 3 days from dosing. Exposure in the i.m. group was 90% of i.v. over 7 days. Administration to the thigh can be considered to provide consistent mAb exposure and improve access.

SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused an ongoing global pandemic with significant mortality and morbidity. At this time, the only FDA-approved therapeutic for COVID-19 is remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral nucleoside analog. Efficacy is only moderate, and improved treatment strategies are urgently needed. To accomplish this goal, we devised a strategy to identify compounds that act synergistically with remdesivir in preventing SARS-CoV-2 replication. We conducted combinatorial high-throughput screening in the presence of submaximal remdesivir concentrations, using a human lung epithelial cell line infected with a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2. This identified 20 approved drugs that act synergistically with remdesivir, many with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Strongest effects were observed with established antivirals, Hepatitis C virus nonstructural protein 5A (HCV NS5A) inhibitors velpatasvir and elbasvir. Combination with their partner drugs sofosbuvir and grazoprevir further increased efficacy, increasing remdesivir's apparent potency > 25-fold. We report that HCV NS5A inhibitors act on the SARS-CoV-2 exonuclease proofreader, providing a possible explanation for the synergy observed with nucleoside analog remdesivir. FDA-approved Hepatitis C therapeutics Epclusa® (velpatasvir/sofosbuvir) and Zepatier® (elbasvir/grazoprevir) could be further optimized to achieve potency and pharmacokinetic properties that support clinical evaluation in combination with remdesivir.

SARS-CoV-2 mutations that cause resistance to monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy have been reported. However, it remains unclear whether in vivo emergence of SARS-CoV-2 resistance mutations alters viral replication dynamics or therapeutic efficacy in the immune-competent population. As part of the ACTIV-2/A5401 randomized clinical trial (NCT04518410), non-hospitalized participants with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were given bamlanivimab (700 mg or 7,000 mg) or placebo treatment. Here¸ we report that treatment-emergent resistance mutations [detected through targeted Spike (S) gene next-generation sequencing] were significantly more likely to be detected after bamlanivimab 700 mg treatment compared with the placebo group (7% of 111 vs 0% of 112 participants, P = 0.003). No treatment-emergent resistance mutations among the 48 participants who received 7,000 mg bamlanivimab were recorded. Participants in which emerging mAb resistant virus mutations were identified showed significantly higher pretreatment nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal viral loads. Daily respiratory tract viral sampling through study day 14 showed the dynamic nature of in vivo SARS-CoV-2 infection and indicated a rapid and sustained viral rebound after the emergence of resistance mutations. Participants with emerging bamlanivimab resistance often accumulated additional polymorphisms found in current variants of concern/interest that are associated with immune escape. These results highlight the potential for rapid emergence of resistance during mAb monotherapy treatment that results in prolonged high-level respiratory tract viral loads. Assessment of viral resistance should be prioritized during the development and clinical implementation of antiviral treatments for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab-cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg-cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab-cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97-1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97-1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68-1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab-cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed.

ObjectivesTo determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingMulticenter, international COVID-19 registry.SubjectsAdult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsData were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Background: In vitro data suggested reduced neutralizing capacity of sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, against Omicron BA.2 subvariant. However, limited in vivo data exist regarding clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to Omicron BA.2. Methods: A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at three Canadian academic tertiary centres. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥ 18 years with mild COVID-19 (sequencing-confirmed Omicron BA.1 or BA.2) treated with sotrovimab between February 1 to April 1, 2022. Thirty-day co-primary outcomes included hospitalization due to moderate or severe COVID-19; all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality. Risk differences (BA.2 minus BA.1 group) for co-primary outcomes were adjusted with propensity score matching (e.g., age, sex, vaccination, immunocompromised status). Results: Eighty-five patients were included (15 BA.2, 70 BA.1) with similar baseline characteristics between groups. Adjusted risk differences were non-statistically significant between groups for 30-day hospitalization (− 14.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI): − 32.6 to 4.0%), ICU admission (− 7.1%; 95%CI: − 20.6 to 6.3%), and mortality (− 7.1%; 95%CI: − 20.6 to 6.3%). Conclusions: No differences were demonstrated in hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates within 30 days between sotrovimab-treated patients with BA.1 versus BA.2 infection. More real-world data may be helpful to properly assess sotrovimab's effectiveness against infections due to specific emerging COVID-19 variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children has fortunately been lower than what has been seen in adults. However, even previously healthy children have developed severe disease, sometimes with subsequent mortality, and those who are infants or adolescents, are from racial and ethnic minority groups, or have certain chronic conditions are at higher risk of these outcomes. During the pandemic, extensive studies of therapeutic agents, including antivirals and immunomodulators, were conducted in adults. Few trials included children, and most were in older children and adolescents. Thus, the potential benefits of therapies in children must be extrapolated from adult evidence. Despite these limitations, advisory committees of the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS) were constituted, and expert consensus guidelines were developed. This review provides a synthesis of those comprehensive recommendations for therapy in children. These address treatment during the early infectious period with antiviral agents, including remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, as well as treatment in the later period of immune dysregulation with corticosteroids and immunomodulators. In addition, the therapeutic approach for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), also referred to as Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS), is also provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/aim: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has been the major health concern in 2019 globally. Considering the severity and phase of the disease, various pharmacotherapy schedules were proposed. Here, we set out to provide close-up insights on the clinical utility of Tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologic monoclonal antibody in this regard. Methods: In this comprehensive review, various databases, including Scopus, PubMed Central, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and preprint publishers (med/bioRxiv) were searched until January 30, 2024, according to the keywords and search criteria. Results: Besides the pros and cons, compelling evidence purported the safety and efficacy of TCZ and indicated that it exhibits great potential to reduce short-term and all-cause (28-30-day) mortality. TCZ significantly drops the adverse events if administered in the right time course (in the inflammatory phase) during critical/severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Despite contradictory results, the benefits of TCZ appear significant, especially in combination with add-on therapies, such as corticosteroids. Although the safety of TCZ is acceptable, solid data is lacking as to its benefits during pregnancy. There are limited data on TCZ combination therapies, such as hemoperfusion, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), simple O2 therapy, vasopressor support, convalescent plasma therapy, and even in vaccinated patients and COVID-19 reinfection, especially in elderly persons. In addition, the impact of TCZ therapy on the long-lasting COVID-19 is unclear. Conclusion: Personalized medicine based on individual characteristics and pertinent clinical conditions must be considered in the clinicians’ decision-making policy. Finally, to mitigate the risk-to-benefit ratio of TCZ, a treatment algorithm, based on available literature and updated national institute of health (NIH) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, is also proposed.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was slower growth in the number of new waivers authorizing clinicians to provide buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. However, treatment capacity grew at a stable rate as a result of already authorized clinicians obtaining waivers for larger patient panels. Advanced practice nurses accounted for the largest portion of capacity growth during the pandemic.

BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

ObjectiveWe sought to determine if corticosteroid administration is associated with a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test-positive result and to describe therapies administered to SARS-CoV-2 infected children.MethodsWe collected cross-sectional data from participants recruited in 41 pediatric emergency departments (ED) in 10 countries between March 2020 and June 2021. Participants were

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are among the treatments recommended for high-risk ambulatory persons with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we study viral culture dynamics post-treatment in a subset of participants receiving the mAb bamlanivimab in the ACTIV-2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). Viral load by qPCR and viral culture are performed from anterior nasal swabs collected on study days 0 (day of treatment), 1, 2, 3, and 7. Treatment with mAbs results in rapid clearance of culturable virus. One day after treatment, 0 of 28 (0%) participants receiving mAbs and 16 of 39 (41%) receiving placebo still have culturable virus (p

BackgroundDexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS.MethodsWe included patients admitted to US Veterans Affairs hospitals between 7 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 within 14 days after a positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality.ResultsOf 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71 years, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514 out of 9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472 out of 5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) only received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.47-2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC only (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.36).ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC only in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS.

Background and Objectives: Drugs used in treating patients who contracted the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) include chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (CQ, HCQ), antiviral, steroid, and antibiotic. Treatment outcomes were characterized by positive and adverse reactions as therapeutic options were based on clinical trials coupled with diagnostic constraints. This study assesses the diagnostic processes and critically examines the drugs used in the clinical settings to treat COVID-19 in Nigeria. Methods: The search was conducted on various databases with a focus on diagnoses and drugs used to treat COVID-19. Articles that did not meet selection criteria were excluded and the data collected from sampled articles were collated, analyzed, and evaluated. Results: The finding showed a lack of sufficient evidence-based data to support the use of CQ/HCQ, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and antibiotics, such as azithromycin as treatment options for COVID-19, even though patients responded partly to the drugs probably due to their action mechanisms. Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence-based scientific data to guide the definitive treatment of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. Drugs used in the emergency were based on clinical trials. The efficacy of the drugs depends partly on the innate capability of the immune system of an affected individual.

Rationale: GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) has emerged as a promising target against the hyperactive host immune response associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of gimsilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of hospitalized patients with elevated inflammatory markers and hypoxemia secondary to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Treatment Help Empower), at 21 locations in the United States. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of intravenous gimsilumab or placebo 1 week apart. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality rate at Day 43. Key secondary outcomes were ventilator-free survival rate, ventilator-free days, and time to hospital discharge. Enrollment was halted early for futility based on an interim analysis. Measurements and Main Results: Of the planned 270 patients, 225 were randomized and dosed; 44.9% of patients were Hispanic or Latino. The gimsilumab and placebo groups experienced an all-cause mortality rate at Day 43 of 28.3% and 23.2%, respectively (adjusted difference = 5% vs. placebo; 95% confidence interval [-6 to 17]; P = 0.377). Overall mortality rates at 24 weeks were similar across the treatment arms. The key secondary endpoints demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Despite the high background use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants, adverse events were generally balanced between treatment groups. Conclusions: Gimsilumab did not improve mortality or other key clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and evidence of systemic inflammation. The utility of anti-GM-CSF therapy for COVID-19 remains unclear. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04351243).