According to the World Health Organization (WHO), viral diseases continue to emerge and represent a serious issue to public health In the last twenty years, several viral epidemics such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002 to 2003, and H1N1 influenza in 2009, have been recorded Most recently, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 In a timeline that reaches the present day, an epidemic of cases with unexplained low respiratory infections detected in Wuhan, the largest metropolitan area in China's Hubei province, was first reported to the WHO Country Office in China, on December 31, 2019 Published literature can trace the beginning of symptomatic individuals back to the beginning of December 2019 As they were unable to identify the causative agent, these first cases were classified as "pneumonia of unknown etiology " The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local CDCs organized an intensive outbreak investigation program The etiology of this illness is now attributed to a novel virus belonging to the coronavirus (CoV) family, COVID-19 On February 11, 2020, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced that the disease caused by this new CoV was a "COVID-19," which is the acronym of "coronavirus disease 2019" In the past twenty years, two additional coronavirus epidemics have occurred  SARS-CoV provoked a large-scale epidemic beginning in China and involving two dozen countries with approximately 8000 cases and 800 deaths, and the MERS-CoV that began in Saudi Arabia and has approximately 2,500 cases and 800 deaths and still causes as sporadic cases This new virus seems to be very contagious and has quickly spread globally In a meeting on January 30, 2020, per the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), the outbreak was declared by the WHO a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as it had spread to 18 countries with four countries reporting human-to-human transmission An additional landmark occurred on February 26, 2020, as the first case of the disease, not imported from China, was recorded in the United States Initially, the new virus was called 2019-nCoV Subsequently, the task of experts of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) termed it the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it is very similar to the one that caused the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoVs) The CoVs have become the major pathogens of emerging respiratory disease outbreaks They are a large family of single-stranded RNA viruses (+ssRNA) that can be isolated in different animal species  For reasons yet to be explained, these viruses can cross species barriers and can cause, in humans, illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as MERS and SARS  Interestingly, these latter viruses have probably originated from bats and then moving into other mammalian hosts — the Himalayan palm civet for SARS-CoV, and the dromedary camel for MERS-CoV — before jumping to humans The dynamics of SARS-Cov-2 are currently unknown, but there is speculation that it also has an animal origin The potential for these viruses to grow to become a pandemic worldwide seems to be a serious public health risk Concerning COVID-19, the WHO raised the threat to the CoV epidemic to the "very high" level, on February 28, 2020 Probably, the effects of the epidemic caused by the new CoV has yet to emerge as the situation is quickly evolving World governments are at work to establish countermeasures to stem possible devastating effects Health organizations coordinate information flows and issues directives and guidelines to best mitigate the impact of the threat At the same time, scientists around the world work tirelessly, and information about the transmission mechanisms, the clinical spectrum of disease, new diagnostics, and prevention and therapeutic strategies are rapidly developing Many uncertainties remain with regard to both the virus-host interac ion and the evolution of the epidemic, with specific reference to the times when the epidemic will reach its peak At the moment, the therapeutic strategies to deal with the infection are only supportive, and prevention aimed at reducing transmission in the community is our best weapon Aggressive isolation measures in China have led to a progressive reduction of cases in the last few days In Italy, in geographic regions of the north of the peninsula, political and health authorities are making incredible efforts to contain a shock wave that is severely testing the health system In the midst of the crisis, the authors have chosen to use the "Statpearls" platform because, within the PubMed scenario, it represents a unique tool that may allow them to make updates in real-time  The aim, therefore, is to collect information and scientific evidence and to provide an overview of the topic that will be continuously updated

/pdf/features-evaluation-and-treatment-coronavirus-covid-19-20k4uevtsr.pdf

Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2980.full.pdf

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/mL, in plasma diluted 1 to 10) of IFN-α and/or -ω are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, but not in subjects with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω (100 pg/mL, in 1/10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3,595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients > 80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1,124 deceased patients (aged 20 days-99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-β. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected subjects from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of subjects carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals 80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-β do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over-80s, and total fatal COVID-19 cases.

/pdf/autoantibodies-neutralizing-type-i-ifns-are-present-in-4-of-56paztxjtl.pdf

Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~ 4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~ 20% of COVID-19 deaths.

Since the initial reports of a cluster of pneumonia cases of unidentified origin in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, the novel coronavirus that causes this disease — severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) — has spread throughout the world, igniting the twenty-first century’s deadliest pandemic. Over the past 12 months, a dizzying array of information has emerged from numerous laboratories, covering everything from the putative origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the development of numerous candidate vaccines. Many immunologists quickly pivoted from their existing research to focus on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and, owing to this unprecedented convergence of efforts on one viral infection, a remarkable body of work has been produced and disseminated, through both preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals. Here, we take readers through the timeline of key discoveries during the first year of the pandemic, which showcases the extraordinary leaps in our understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and highlights gaps in our knowledge as well as areas for future investigations. A timeline of the major scientific discoveries during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic showcases the collaborative efforts that enabled the key aspects of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 to be reported at unprecedented speed.

/pdf/the-first-12-months-of-covid-19-a-timeline-of-immunological-2sdtnozheu.pdf

The first 12 months of COVID-19: a timeline of immunological insights.

To the Editor :

The majority of asthma exacerbations are associated with respiratory virus infections, mostly rhinoviruses (RVs) [1], due to enhanced inflammation in the airways [2]. These occur despite symptom control with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) [3]. Experimental RV infection is a valuable tool for studying virus-induced exacerbations [2, 4], but has, to date, involved only corticosteroid-naive asthmatics. We have, therefore, modified a validated infection protocol [4] to inoculate 11 subjects whose asthma was well controlled with ICS. As this was the first experimental infection in patients at risk of severe exacerbations, a cautious study design was implemented. All subjects were followed-up twice daily by SMS text messages during the study. We used RV16, a strain used safely in previous studies, which replicates in vitro to a similar extent but induces less inflammation and cell death than other strains [5]. We also chose a 10-fold lower inoculation dose of the same stock used in previous studies [6]. The design allowed for dose escalation if necessary (this proved to be unnecessary as all subjects developed cold symptoms at this dose). As a final precaution, the delivery device generated particles of 30–100 μm, restricting delivery to the nose (aerosols ≥16 μm are deposited in the upper respiratory tract (URT) [7]), thus closely mimicking natural infection, i.e. limiting direct lung exposure during inoculation.

Symptoms of URT infection, asthma, and measurements of lower respiratory tract (LRT) function were recorded post-inoculation. Infection was confirmed by quantitative (q)PCR for RV16 in nasal lavage and sputum and by determining serum anti-RV16 titres. At least a ≥four-fold increase in titres in convalescent serum or shedding of RV16 in the airways was evidence of successful infection. We also studied innate immune responses …

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/43/4/1186.full.pdf

Experimental rhinovirus 16 infection in moderate asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids

Introduction: SG005 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: [NCT01126177][1]) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study, comparing the efficacy and safety of inhaled SNG001 to placebo administered to asthmatic subjects after the onset of a respiratory viral infection (RVI) for the prevention or attenuation of asthma symptoms caused by respiratory viruses.

Aim: To follow antiviral biomarkers in sputum and blood samples collected during clinical study SG005.

Methods: Samples for biomarker analysis were collected at clinic visits before and after initiation of dosing at the onset of an RVI (Day 1). Blood samples (serum and PAXgene RNA tubes) were collected at screening and on days 1,4,7,10,13 and 17 (3 days post final dose). Gene expression from whole blood was assessed using Agilent whole genome arrays. Serum protein markers were measured by ELISA or Luminex platform. Induced sputum was collected at screening and on days 4 and 7 at selected sites. Sputum cell antiviral gene expression was determined by qPCR.

Results: Serum protein levels and blood cell gene expression of antiviral markers were increased in both SNG001 and placebo groups on Day 1, compared to screening, prior to initiation of treatment. Levels were maintained in subjects receiving SNG001 throughout the treatment period whereas levels decreased in the placebo group from Day 1. Antiviral gene expression in sputum followed a similar trend.

Conclusions: Sputum and blood antiviral biomarkers were upregulated in response to an RVI. SNG001 maintained antiviral responses during the treatment period suggesting that SNG001 treatment had boosted antiviral responses.

 [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01126177&atom=%2Ferj%2F42%2FSuppl_57%2FP4369.atom

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/42/Suppl_57/P4369.full.pdf

Effect of inhaled SNG001 (interferon-beta 1a) on sputum and blood antiviral biomarkers following a respiratory virus infection in asthmatic subjects

Background: Interferon beta (IFN-β) plays a key role in host defence against viruses, triggering the expression of interferon stimulated genes (ISG) which restrict viral replication and promote antiviral immune responses. Inhaled IFN-β is being developed as a treatment for viral exacerbations of lung disease. In previous studies, treatment with inhaled IFN-β boosted lung antiviral defences (sputum cell ISG expression) and improved lung function and symptoms in ‘difficult-to-treat’ asthmatics with a cold or flu infection (Djukanovic AJRCCM 2014 190(2):145-54). SG015 (NCT03570359) is an ongoing study in COPD patients, without (Part 1) and with (Part 2) a confirmed respiratory virus infection, assessing antiviral biomarker responses and clinical effects of inhaled IFN-β compared to placebo. Results from Part 1 are presented. Methods: 10 patients received three daily doses of IFN-β (6MIU) or placebo (8:2 ratio) via a nebuliser. Sputum was collected prior to dosing (baseline), 24hrs post first and third dose and 4-6 days after their third dose. Sputum cell gene expression (Mx1, OAS1, IFIT2, GBP1 and CXCL10) was determined by RT-qPCR. Results: Inhaled IFN-β was well tolerated. All antiviral biomarkers were significantly upregulated 24hrs post dose compared to baseline (p Conclusions: Antiviral biomarkers were significantly upregulated in the lungs of COPD patients following the administration of inhaled IFN-β, supporting the proposed mechanism-of-action as a treatment for virus-induced exacerbations.

Rona Beegan

Papers

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Experimental rhinovirus 16 infection in moderate asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids

Effect of inhaled SNG001 (interferon-beta 1a) on sputum and blood antiviral biomarkers following a respiratory virus infection in asthmatic subjects

Antiviral biomarkers are upregulated in sputum cells following administration of inhaled interferon beta to COPD patients