Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 14(7)2022 06 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911648

ABSTRACT

New variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to emerge, causing surges, breakthrough infections, and devastating losses-underscoring the importance of identifying SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. A simple, accessible human cell culture model permissive to SARS-CoV-2 variants is critical for identifying and assessing antivirals in a high-throughput manner. Although human alveolar A549 cells are a valuable model for studying respiratory virus infections, they lack two essential host factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2). SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor for viral entry and TMPRSS2 to prime the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, both of which are negligibly expressed in A549 cells. Here, we report the generation of a suitable human cell line for SARS-CoV-2 studies by transducing human ACE2 and TMPRSS2 into A549 cells. We show that subclones highly expressing ACE2 and TMPRSS2 ("ACE2plus" and the subclone "ACE2plusC3") are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2, including the delta and omicron variants. These subclones express more ACE2 and TMPRSS2 transcripts than existing commercial A549 cells engineered to express ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Additionally, the antiviral drugs EIDD-1931, remdesivir, nirmatrelvir, and nelfinavir strongly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 variants in our infection model. Our data show that ACE2plusC3 cells are highly permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection and can be used to identify anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , COVID-19 , A549 Cells , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/genetics , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Humans , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Serine Endopeptidases/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism
2.
Cell Rep ; 39(11): 110952, 2022 Jun 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1866957

ABSTRACT

Sequence homology between SARS-CoV-2 and common-cold human coronaviruses (HCoVs) raises the possibility that memory responses to prior HCoV infection can affect T cell response in COVID-19. We studied T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 and HCoVs in convalescent COVID-19 donors and identified a highly conserved SARS-CoV-2 sequence, S811-831, with overlapping epitopes presented by common MHC class II proteins HLA-DQ5 and HLA-DP4. These epitopes are recognized by low-abundance CD4 T cells from convalescent COVID-19 donors, mRNA vaccine recipients, and uninfected donors. TCR sequencing revealed a diverse repertoire with public TCRs. T cell cross-reactivity is driven by the high conservation across human and animal coronaviruses of T cell contact residues in both HLA-DQ5 and HLA-DP4 binding frames, with distinct patterns of HCoV cross-reactivity explained by MHC class II binding preferences and substitutions at secondary TCR contact sites. These data highlight S811-831 as a highly conserved CD4 T cell epitope broadly recognized across human populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Alleles , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes , COVID-19 Vaccines , Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte , HLA Antigens , Humans , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell , mRNA Vaccines
3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 2022 May 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1864689

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib 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. METHODS: In 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. FINDINGS: Between 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). INTERPRETATION: In 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. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

4.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(12): ofab563, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566044

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is used to treat influenza, and studies demonstrate that it has antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 proof-of-concept trial of favipiravir in hospitalized adult patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients were randomized to standard of care (SOC) or favipiravir treatment (1800mg per os twice a day [b.i.d.] on day 1, followed by 1000mg b.i.d. for 13 days). The primary end point was time to viral clearance on day 29. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and stratified by disease severity (critical disease, severe disease, or mild to moderate disease). Nineteen patients were censored from the event of viral clearance based on being SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative at the study outset, being PCR-positive at day 29, or because of loss to follow-up. Data from the 31 remaining patients who achieved viral clearance show enhanced viral clearance in the favipiravir group compared with the SOC group by day 29, with 72% of the favipiravir group and 52% of the SOC group being evaluable for viral clearance through day 29. The median time to viral clearance was 16.0 days (90% CI, 12.0 to 29.0) in the favipiravir group and 30.0 days (90% CI, 12.0 to 31.0) in the SOC group. A post hoc analysis revealed an effect in the subgroup of patients who were neutralizing antibody-negative at randomization. Treatment-emergent adverse events were equally distributed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that favipiravir can be safely administered to hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and believe that further studies are warranted. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION: NCT04358549.

5.
JCI Insight ; 6(22)2021 11 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528615

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDInfluenza A virus (IAV) and SARS-CoV-2 are pandemic viruses causing millions of deaths, yet their clinical manifestations are distinctly different.METHODSWith the hypothesis that upper airway immune and epithelial cell responses are also distinct, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-Seq) on nasal wash cells freshly collected from adults with either acute COVID-19 or influenza or from healthy controls. We focused on major cell types and subtypes in a subset of donor samples.ResultsNasal wash cells were enriched for macrophages and neutrophils for both individuals with influenza and those with COVID-19 compared with healthy controls. Hillock-like epithelial cells, M2-like macrophages, and age-dependent B cells were enriched in COVID-19 samples. A global decrease in IFN-associated transcripts in neutrophils, macrophages, and epithelial cells was apparent in COVID-19 samples compared with influenza samples. The innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 appears to be maintained in macrophages, despite evidence for limited epithelial cell immune sensing. Cell-to-cell interaction analyses revealed a decrease in epithelial cell interactions in COVID-19 and highlighted differences in macrophage-macrophage interactions for COVID-19 and influenza.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that scRNA-Seq can define host and viral transcriptional activity at the site of infection and reveal distinct local epithelial and immune cell responses for COVID-19 and influenza that may contribute to their divergent disease courses.FundingMassachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness, the Mathers Foundation, and the Department of Defense (W81XWH2110029) "COVID-19 Expansion for AIRe Program."


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunity, Innate , Influenza A virus , Influenza, Human , Macrophages , RNA-Seq , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Influenza A virus/genetics , Influenza A virus/immunology , Influenza, Human/genetics , Influenza, Human/immunology , Macrophages/immunology , Macrophages/virology , Male , Nasal Lavage , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
7.
Virology ; 559: 165-172, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1198236

ABSTRACT

SARS coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) causes a respiratory infection that can lead to acute respiratory distress characterized by inflammation and high levels of cytokines in the lung tissue. In this study we constructed a herpes simplex virus 1 replication-defective mutant vector expressing SARS-CoV-1 spike protein as a potential vaccine vector and to probe the effects of spike protein on host cells. The spike protein expressed from this vector is functional in that it localizes to the surface of infected cells and induces fusion of ACE2-expressing cells. In immunized mice, the recombinant vector induced antibodies that bind to spike protein in an ELISA assay and that show neutralizing activity. The spike protein expressed from this vector can induce the expression of cytokines in an ACE2-independent, MyD88-dependent process. These results argue that the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein intrinsically activates signaling pathways that induce cytokines and contribute directly to the inflammatory process of SARS.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Herpesvirus 1, Human/genetics , Immunity, Innate , SARS Virus/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Animals , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Cell Fusion , Cell Line , Cytokines/immunology , Genetic Vectors , Humans , Mice , SARS Virus/genetics , Signal Transduction , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Vaccines, Virus-Like Particle/immunology , Viral Vaccines/immunology
10.
N Engl J Med ; 384(9): 795-807, 2021 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-972740

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azetidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Azetidines/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Purines/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Sulfonamides/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
11.
N Engl J Med ; 383(19): 1813-1826, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-884844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL