Search

In a large observational study in patients with COVID-19 and cancer, survival was not significantly influenced by receipt of COVID-19 treatments, except hydroxychloroquine plus any other treatment, which was associated with reduced survival., Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

Summary Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. Findings Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. Funding American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Background: Pneumonia due to herpes simplex virus (HSV) is uncommon but can be seen in immunocompromised patients and has been associated with poor prognosis in this population. Aim: The aim was to study the results, outcome and mortality of HSV pneumonia in immunocompromised patients and patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it has been unclear whether to initiate prophylactic treatment with acyclovir or not. Methods: We have conducted a literature search using the keywords herpes simplex pneumonia, critically ill patients and intensive care unit for identification of relevant publications. Findings: HSV pneumonia can cause severe infection or even death in immunocompromised patients and critically ill patients. A clear diagnosis of HSV pneumonia can be difficult to establish. Respiratory condition may improve after initiation of acyclovir but data is scarce. Conclusion: HSV pneumonia should be considered in the immunocompromised patient and/or the intensive care patient who continues to deteriorate despite appropriate treatment. The value of prophylactic treatment with acyclovir is unproven but should be considered.

Nano-formulating dexamethasone, and administering it via intravenous injection or inhalation, may help to improve anti-COVID-19 treatment efficacy by targeting the potent corticosteroid drug to hyper-activated immune cells, by potentiating its anti-oedema activity and by exploiting its anti-fibrotic effects.

Therapeutic options for the highly pathogenic human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the current pandemic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are urgently needed. COVID-19 is associated with viral pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome causing significant morbidity and mortality. The proposed treatments for COVID-19 have shown little or no effect in the clinic so far. Additionally, bacterial and fungal pathogens contribute to the SARS-CoV-2-mediated pneumonia disease complex. The antibiotic resistance in pneumonia treatment is increasing at an alarming rate. Therefore, carbon-based nanomaterials (CBNs), such as fullerene, carbon dots, graphene, and their derivatives constitute a promising alternative due to their wide-spectrum antimicrobial activity, biocompatibility, biodegradability, and capacity to induce tissue regeneration. Furthermore, the antimicrobial mode of action is mainly physical (e.g., membrane distortion), characterized by a low risk of antimicrobial resistance. In this Review, we evaluated the literature on the antiviral activity and broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties of CBNs. CBNs had antiviral activity against 13 enveloped positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. CBNs with low or no toxicity to humans are promising therapeutics against the COVID-19 pneumonia complex with other viruses, bacteria, and fungi, including those that are multidrug-resistant.

Supported by a grant (MC_PC_19056) to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation and the NIHR and by core funding provided by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department for International Development, Health Data Research UK, the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, the NIHR Health Protection Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding. BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. Publisher PDF

Objectives Stage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage. Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage. Trial design ACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols. Participants The study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised – mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale. Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Intervention and comparator Comparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of COVID-19. Current candidate experimental arms include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin with others to be added over time. Bemcentinib could potentially reduce viral infection and blocks SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; MEDI3506 is a clinic-ready anti-IL-33 monoclonal antibody with the potential to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID; acalabrutinib is a BTK inhibitor which is anti-viral and anti-inflammatory; zilucoplan is a complement C5 inhibitor which may block the severe inflammatory response in COVID-19 and; nebulised heparin has been shown to bind with the spike protein. ACCORD is linked with the UK national COVID therapeutics task force to help prioritise candidate agents. Main outcomes Time to sustained clinical improvement of at least 2 points (from randomisation) on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale, live discharge from the hospital, or considered fit for discharge (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the ordinal scale), whichever comes first, by Day 29 (this will also define the “responder” for the response rate analyses). Randomisation An electronic randomization will be performed by Cenduit using Interactive Response Technology (IRT). Randomisation will be stratified by baseline severity grade. Randomisation will proceed with an equal allocation to each arm and a contemporaneous SoC arm (e.g. 1:1 if control and 1 experimental arm; 1:1:1 if two experimental candidate arms etc) but will be reviewed as the trial progresses and may be changed to 2:1 in favour of the candidate agents. Blinding (masking) The trial is open label and no blinding is currently planned in the study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) This will be in the order of 60 patients per candidate agent for Stage 1, and 126 patients for Stage 2. However, sample size re-estimation may be considered after Stage 1. It is estimated that up to 1800 patients will participate in the overall study. Trial Status Master protocol version ACCORD-2-001 - Master Protocol (Amendment 1) 22nd April 2020, the trial has full regulatory approval and recruitment is ongoing in the bemcentinib (first patient recruited 6/5/2020), MEDI3506 (first patient recruited 19/5/2020), acalabrutinib (first patient recruited 20/5/2020) and zilucoplan (first patient recruited 19/5/2020) candidates (and SoC). The recruitment dates of each arm will vary between candidate agents as they are added or dropped from the trial, but will have recruited and reported within a year. Trial registration EudraCT 2020-001736-95, registered 28th April 2020. Full protocol The full protocol (Master Protocol with each of the candidate sub-protocols) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Objectives The OVID study will demonstrate whether prophylactic-dose enoxaparin improves survival and reduces hospitalizations in symptomatic ambulatory patients aged 50 or older diagnosed with COVID-19, a novel viral disease characterized by severe systemic, pulmonary, and vessel inflammation and coagulation activation. Trial design The OVID study is conducted as a multicentre open-label superiority randomised controlled trial. Participants Inclusion Criteria 1. Signed patient informed consent after being fully informed about the study’s background. 2. Patients aged 50 years or older with a positive test for SARS-CoV2 in the past 5 days and eligible for ambulatory treatment. 3. Presence of respiratory symptoms (i.e. cough, sore throat, or shortness of breath) or body temperature >37.5° C. 4. Ability of the patient to travel to the study centre by private transportation, performed either by an accompanying person from the same household or by the patient themselves 5. Ability to comply with standard hygiene requirements at the time of in-hospital visit, including a face mask and hand disinfectant. 6. Ability to walk from car to study centre or reach it by wheelchair transport with the help of an accompanying person from the same household also complying with standard hygiene requirements. 7. Ability to self-administer prefilled enoxaparin injections after instructions received at the study centre or availability of a person living with the patient to administer enoxaparin. Exclusion Criteria 1. Any acute or chronic condition posing an indication for anticoagulant treatment, e.g. atrial fibrillation, prior venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute confirmed symptomatic VTE, acute coronary syndrome. 2. Anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis deemed necessary in view of the patient's history, comorbidity or predisposing strong risk factors for thrombosis: a. Any of the following events occurring in the prior 30 days: fracture of lower limb, hospitalization for heart failure, hip/knee replacement, major trauma, spinal cord injury, stroke, b. previous VTE, c. histologically confirmed malignancy, which was diagnosed or treated (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) in the past 6 months, or recurrent, or metastatic, or inoperable. 3. Any clinically relevant bleeding (defined as bleeding requiring hospitalization, transfusion, surgical intervention, invasive procedures, occurring in a critical anatomical site, or causing disability) within 30 days prior to randomization or sign of acute bleeding. 4. Intracerebral bleeding at any time in the past or signs/symptoms consistent with acute intracranial haemorrhage. 5. Haemoglobin 9 cells/L confirmed by recent laboratory test ( 6. Subjects with any known coagulopathy or bleeding diathesis, including known significant liver disease associated with coagulopathy. 7. Severe renal insufficiency (baseline creatinine clearance 8. Contraindications to enoxaparin therapy, including prior heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and known hypersensitivity. 9. Current use of dual antiplatelet therapy. 10. Participation in other interventional studies over the past 30 days. 11. Non-compliance or inability to adhere to treatment or lack of a family environment or support system for home treatment. 12. Cognitive impairment and/or inability to understand information provided in the study information. Patient enrolment will take place at seven Swiss centres, including five university hospitals and two large cantonal hospitals. Intervention and comparator Patients randomized to the intervention group will receive subcutaneous enoxaparin at the recommended dose of 4,000 IU anti-Xa activity (40 mg/0.4 ml) once daily for 14 days. Patients randomized to the comparator group will receive no anticoagulation. Main outcomes Primary outcome: a composite of any hospitalization or all-cause death occurring within 30 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes: (i) a composite of cardiovascular events, including deep vein thrombosis (including catheter-associated), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction/myocarditis, arterial ischemia including mesenteric and extremities, acute splanchnic vein thrombosis, or ischemic stroke within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of randomization; (ii) each component of the primary efficacy outcome, within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of randomization; (iii) net clinical benefit (accounting for the primary efficacy outcome, composite cardiovascular events, and major bleeding), within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of enrolment; (iv) primary efficacy outcome, within 14 days, and 90 days of enrolment; (v) disseminated intravascular coagulation (ISTH criteria, in-hospital diagnosis) within 14 days, 30 days, and 90 days of enrolment. Randomisation Patients will undergo block stratified randomization (by age: 50-70 vs. >70 years; and by study centre) with a randomization ratio of 1:1 with block sizes varying between 4 and 8. Randomization will be performed after the signature of the informed consent for participation and the verification of the eligibility criteria using the electronic data capture software (REDCAP, Vanderbilt University, v9.1.24). Blinding (masking) In this open-label study, no blinding procedures will be used. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The sample size calculation is based on the parameters α = 0.05 (2-sided), power: 1−β = 0.8, event rate in experimental group, pexp = 0.09 and event rate in control group, pcon = 0.15. The resulting total sample size is 920. To account for potential dropouts, the total sample size was fixed to 1000 with 500 patients in the intervention group and 500 in the control group. Trial Status Protocol version 1.0, 14 April 2020. Protocol version 3.0, 18 May 2020 Recruiting start date: June 2020. Last Patient Last Visit: March 2021. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04400799 First Posted: May 26, 2020 Last Update Posted: July 16, 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Background The World Health Organization declared on March 11, 2020, that the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) has escalated from epidemic into pandemic. As the initial outbreak area, China has taken multiple active measures to deal with the epidemic. Updated versions of diagnosis and treatment guideline for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients have been issued, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine has been recommended as a treatment. The objective of this study will be to summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines about the use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19 patients. We will also evaluate and report on the methodological and reporting quality of these guidelines. Methods In this systematic review, we will search for guidelines, expert consensuses, and policy documents published since December 2019 in electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese databases) and on websites of governments or organizations (e.g., The National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], Guidelines International Network [GIN], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN], and WHO). Eligible documents will be independently selected, and relevant data will be independently extracted by two reviewers. We will also independently evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement, respectively. Any discrepancies will be discussed and resolved through discussion among the reviewers. We will use the extracted information to summarize their recommendations for traditional Chinese herbal formulae and Chinese patent medicine for COVID-19 patients and to summarize the strength and quality of these recommendations with reference to the results of AGREE II and RIGHT tools. Discussion This review will summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines and provide insight into the implementation strategies for traditional Chinese herbal medicine in COVID-19 patients. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020179205

There is an urgent need to identify optimal antiviral therapies for COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. We have conducted a rapid and comprehensive review of relevant pharmacological evidence, focusing on (1) the pharmacokinetics (PK) of potential antiviral therapies; (2) coronavirus-specific pharmacodynamics (PD); (3) PK and PD interactions between proposed combination therapies; (4) pharmacology of major supportive therapies; and (5) anticipated drug–drug interactions (DDIs). We found promising in vitro evidence for remdesivir, (hydroxy)chloroquine and favipiravir against SARS-CoV-2; potential clinical benefit in SARS-CoV-2 with remdesivir, the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) plus ribavirin; and strong evidence for LPV/r plus ribavirin against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) for post-exposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers. Despite these emerging data, robust controlled clinical trials assessing patient-centred outcomes remain imperative and clinical data have already reduced expectations with regard to some drugs. Any therapy should be used with caution in the light of potential drug interactions and the uncertainty of optimal doses for treating mild versus serious infections., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It was first identified in Wuhan, China, and has since spread causing a global pandemic. Various studies have been performed to understand the molecular mechanisms of viral infection for predicting drug repurposing candidates. However, such information is spread across many publications and it is very time-consuming to access, integrate, explore, and exploit. We developed CoVex, the first interactive online platform for SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 host interactome exploration and drug (target) identification. CoVex integrates 1) experimentally validated virus-human protein interactions, 2) human protein-protein interactions and 3) drug-target interactions. The web interface allows user-friendly visual exploration of the virus-host interactome and implements systems medicine algorithms for network-based prediction of drugs. Thus, CoVex is an important resource, not only to understand the molecular mechanisms involved in SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 pathogenicity, but also in clinical research for the identification and prioritization of candidate therapeutics. We apply CoVex to investigate recent hypotheses on a systems biology level and to systematically explore the molecular mechanisms driving the virus life cycle. Furthermore, we extract and discuss drug repurposing candidates involved in these mechanisms. CoVex renders COVID-19 drug research systems-medicine-ready by giving the scientific community direct access to network medicine algorithms integrating virus-host-drug interactions. It is available at https://exbio.wzw.tum.de/covex/., Comment: 15 pages, 4 figures

Background: Current outbreaks of COVID-19 are threatening the health care systems of several countries around the world. Control measures, based on isolation, contact tracing, and quarantine, can decrease and delay the burden of the ongoing epidemic. With respect to the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic, recent modeling work shows that these interventions may be inadequate to control local outbreaks, even when perfect isolation is assumed. The effect of infectiousness prior to symptom onset combined with asymptomatic infectees further complicates the use of contact tracing. We aim to study whether antivirals, which decrease the viral load and reduce infectiousness, could be integrated into control measures in order to augment the feasibility of controlling the epidemic. Methods: Using a simulation-based model of viral transmission, we tested the efficacy of different intervention measures to control local COVID-19 outbreaks. For individuals that were identified through contact tracing, we evaluate two procedures: monitoring individuals for symptoms onset and testing of individuals. Additionally, we investigate the implementation of an antiviral compound combined with the contact tracing process. Results: For an infectious disease in which asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections are plausible, an intervention measure based on contact tracing performs better when combined with testing instead of monitoring, provided that the test is able to detect infections during the incubation period. Antiviral drugs, in combination with contact tracing, quarantine, and isolation, result in a significant decrease of the final size and the peak incidence, and increase the probability that the outbreak will fade out. Conclusion: In all tested scenarios, the model highlights the benefits of control measures based on the testing of traced individuals. In addition, the administration of an antiviral drug, together with quarantine, isolation, and contact tracing, is shown to decrease the spread of the epidemic. This control measure could be an effective strategy to control local and re-emerging outbreaks of COVID-19. This work is funded by the EpiPose project from the European Union's SC1-PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme, project number 101003688, by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 682540-TransMID), the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101003627 (SCORE project), and the Stichting Antoine Faes. A.T. acknowledges support from the special research fund of the University of Antwerp. P.L. was supported by funding from the Flemish Government under the "Onderzoeksprogramma Artificiele Intelligentie (AI) Vlaanderen" programme. Hens, N (corresponding author), Univ Antwerp, Ctr Hlth Econ Res & Modelling Infect Dis, Antwerp, Belgium; Hasselt Univ, Interuniv Inst Biostatist & Stat Bioinformat, Data Sci Inst, Hasselt, Belgium. niel.hens@uhasselt.be

The hypoxia and profound inflammatory response associated with the pneumonitis observed with the severe acute respiratory virus coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) virus responsible for the recent COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed intensive care facilities in the epicenters of infection including Wuhan

Cases of the 2019 novel coronavirus also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to rise worldwide. To date, there is no effective treatment. Clinical management is largely symptomatic, with organ support in intensive care for critically ill patients. The first phase I trial to test the efficacy of a vaccine has recently begun, but in the meantime there is an urgent need to decrease the morbidity and mortality of severe cases. It is known that patients with cancer are more susceptible to infection than individuals without cancer because of their systemic immunosuppressive state caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments. Therefore, these patients might be at increased risk of pulmonary complications from COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 could in some case induce excessive and aberrant non-effective host immune responses that are associated with potentially fatal severe lung injury and patients can develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cytokine release syndrome and viral ARDS result from uncontrolled severe acute inflammation. Acute lung injury results from inflammatory monocyte and macrophage activation in the pulmonary luminal epithelium which lead to a release of proinflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1 and tumor necrosis factor-α. These cytokines play a crucial role in immune-related pneumonitis, and could represent a promising target when the infiltration is T cell predominant or there are indirect signs of high IL-6-related inflammation, such as elevated C-reactive protein. A monoclonal anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab has been administered in a number of cases in China and Italy. Positive clinical and radiological outcomes have been reported. These early findings have led to an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial in China and Italy. While data from those trials are eagerly awaited, patients’ management will continue to rely for the vast majority on local guidelines. Among many other aspects, this crisis has proven that different specialists must join forces to deliver the best possible care to patients.

ACE2 is not only an enzyme that counters the effects of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) but is also the entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, the virus of the Covid-19 pandemic. Some experimental data suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase ACE2 levels, thus raising concerns on their security in Covid-19 positive patients. However, some studies have shown protection by these drugs in lower tract respiratory infections and ARDS. The actual consensus is to continue the treatment with RAAS inhibitors, abrupt withdrawal, especially in patients with cardiac or renal conditions, being hazardous in terms of cardiovascular outcomes, except in patients hospitalized in intensive care with hemodynamic instability. This position statement is actually unanimous among all international learned societies.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) pandemic has attracted interest because of its global rapid spread, clinical severity, high mortality rate, and capacity to overwhelm healthcare systems [1, 2]. SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs mainly through droplets, although surface contamination contributes and debate continues on aerosol transmission [3–5].

Objectives Primary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events. Study design Prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible. Participants Hospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Intervention and comparator Intervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization. The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo. Main outcome All-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Search methods Systematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials. Risk of bias assessments These will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis. Summary of findings We will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Statistical analyses Trial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify inconsistency in effects between trials using I2 statistics. Evidence for subgroup effects will be quantified by ratios of odds ratios comparing effects in the subgroups, and corresponding interaction p-values. Comparisons between subgroups defined by trial characteristics will be made using random-effects meta-regression. Comparisons between subgroups defined by patient characteristics will be made by estimating trial-specific ratios of odds ratios comparing intervention effects between subgroups then combining these using random-effects meta-analysis. Steroid interventions will be classified as high or low dose according to whether the dose is greater or less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone per day or equivalent. We will use network meta-analysis methods to make comparisons between the effects of high and low dose steroid interventions (because one trial randomized participants to both low and high dose steroid arms). PROSPERO registration number CRD42020197242 Full protocol The full protocol for this prospective meta-analysis is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). To expedite dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol for the systematic review.