Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Biomaterials ; : 121671, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1936091

ABSTRACT

Because oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is 3–5 orders of magnitude higher than nasal transmission, we investigated debulking of oral viruses using viral trap proteins (CTB-ACE2, FRIL) expressed in plant cells, delivered through the chewing gum. In omicron nasopharyngeal (NP) samples, the microbubble count (based on N-antigen) was significantly reduced by 20 μg of FRIL (p < 0.0001) and 0.925 μg of CTB-ACE2 (p = 0.0001). Among 20 delta or omicron NP samples, 17 had virus load reduced below the detection level of spike protein in the RAPID assay, after incubation with the CTB-ACE2 gum powder. A dose-dependent 50% plaque reduction with 50–100 ng FRIL or 600–800 μg FRIL gum against Influenza strains H1N1, H3N2, and Coronavirus HCoV-OC43 was observed with both purified FRIL, lablab bean powder or gum. In electron micrographs, large/densely packed clumps of overlapping influenza particles and FRIL protein were observed. Chewing simulator studies revealed that CTB-ACE2 release was time/dose-dependent and release was linear up to 20 min chewing. Phase I/II placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial (IND 154897) is in progress to evaluate viral load in saliva before or after chewing CTB-ACE2/placebo gum. Collectively, this study advances the concept of chewing gum to deliver proteins to debulk oral viruses and decrease infection/transmission.

2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac219, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931882

ABSTRACT

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

3.
JCI Insight ; 7(11)2022 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832826

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 remains a global health emergency with limited treatment options, lagging vaccine rates, and inadequate healthcare resources in the face of an ongoing calamity. The disease is characterized by immune dysregulation and cytokine storm. Cyclosporine A (CSA) is a calcineurin inhibitor that modulates cytokine production and may have direct antiviral properties against coronaviruses.METHODSTo test whether a short course of CSA was safe in patients with COVID-19, we treated 10 hospitalized, oxygen-requiring, noncritically ill patients with CSA (starting at a dose of 9 mg/kg/d). We evaluated patients for clinical response and adverse events, measured serum cytokines and chemokines associated with COVID-19 hyperinflammation, and conducted gene-expression analyses.RESULTSFive participants experienced adverse events, none of which were serious; transaminitis was most common. No participant required intensive care unit-level care, and all patients were discharged alive. CSA treatment was associated with significant reductions in serum cytokines and chemokines important in COVID-19 hyperinflammation, including CXCL10. Following CSA administration, we also observed a significant reduction in type I IFN gene expression signatures and other transcriptional profiles associated with exacerbated hyperinflammation in the peripheral blood cells of these patients.CONCLUSIONShort courses of CSA appear safe and feasible in patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen and may be a useful adjunct in resource-limited health care settings.TRIAL REGISTRATIONThis trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Investigational New Drug Application no. 149997; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04412785).FUNDINGThis study was internally funded by the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cyclosporine/therapeutic use , Cytokines , Humans , Oxygen , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Pers Med ; 12(2)2022 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1715471

ABSTRACT

Frequent viral load testing is necessary during analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs) in HIV cure-directed clinical trials, though such may be burdensome and inconvenient to trial participants. We implemented a national, cross-sectional survey in the United States to examine the acceptability of a novel home-based peripheral blood collection device for HIV viral load testing. Between June and August 2021, we distributed an online survey to people with HIV (PWH) and community members, biomedical HIV cure researchers and HIV care providers. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize the results. We received 73 survey responses, with 51 from community members, 12 from biomedical HIV cure researchers and 10 from HIV care providers. Of those, 51 (70%) were cisgender men and 50 (68%) reported living with HIV. Most (>80% overall) indicated that the device would be helpful during ATI trials and they would feel comfortable using it themselves or recommending it to their patients/participants. Of the 50 PWH, 42 (84%) indicated they would use the device if they were participating in an ATI trial and 27 (54%) also expressed a willingness to use the device outside of HIV cure studies. Increasing sensitivity of viral load tests and pluri-potency of the device (CD4 count, chemistries) would augment acceptability. Survey findings provide evidence that viral load home testing would be an important adjunct to ongoing HIV cure-directed trials involving ATIs. Survey findings may help inform successful implementation and uptake of the device in the context of personalized HIV care.

5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1706701

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91) and increased clinical improvement (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

6.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327776

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), a passive polyclonal antibody therapeutic, has exhibited mixed results in the treatment of COVID-19. Given that the therapeutic effect of CCP may extend beyond the ability of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody binding and neutralization to influence the evolution of the endogenous antibody response, we took a systematic and comprehensive approach to analyze SARS-CoV-2 functional antibody profiles of participants in a randomized controlled trial of CCP treatment of individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia where CCP was associated with both decreased mortality and improved clinical severity. Using systems serology, we found that the clinical benefit of CCP is related to a shift towards reduced inflammatory Spike (S) responses and enhanced Nucleocapsid (N) humoral responses. We found CCP had the greatest clinical benefit in participants with low pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody function, rather than S or N antibody levels or participant demographic features. Further, CCP induced immunomodulatory changes to recipient humoral profiles persisted for at least two months, marked by the selective evolution of anti-inflammatory Fc-glycan profiles and persistently expanded nucleocapsid-specific humoral immunity following CCP therapy. Together, our findings identify a novel mechanism of action of CCP, suggest optimal patient characteristics for CCP treatment, identify long-last immunomodulatory effects of CCP, and provide guidance for development of novel N-focused antibody therapeutics for severe COVID-19 hyperinflammation.

7.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(1): e2147331, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1648384

ABSTRACT

Importance: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective: To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources: From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection: Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results: Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Pandemics , Patient Selection , Plasma , Aged , Bayes Theorem , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , World Health Organization
8.
J Clin Invest ; 131(24)2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591538

ABSTRACT

BackgroundAntibody-based strategies for COVID-19 have shown promise in prevention and treatment of early disease. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been widely used but results from randomized trials supporting its benefit in hospitalized patients with pneumonia are limited. Here, we assess the efficacy of CCP in severely ill, hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe performed a randomized control trial (PennCCP2), with 80 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, comparing up to 2 units of locally sourced CCP plus standard care versus standard care alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was comparison of a clinical severity score. Key secondary outcomes include 14- and 28-day mortality, 14- and 28-day maximum 8-point WHO ordinal score (WHO8) score, duration of supplemental oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, respiratory SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsEighty hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled at median day 6 of symptoms and day 1 of hospitalization; 60% were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. Participants had a median of 3 comorbidities, including risk factors for severe COVID-19 and immunosuppression. CCP treatment was safe and conferred significant benefit by clinical severity score (median [MED] and interquartile range [IQR] 10 [5.5-30] vs. 7 [2.75-12.25], P = 0.037) and 28-day mortality (n = 10, 26% vs. n = 2, 5%; P = 0.013). All other prespecified outcome measures showed weak evidence toward benefit of CCP.ConclusionTwo units of locally sourced CCP administered early in hospitalization to majority seronegative participants conferred a significant benefit in clinical severity score and 28-day mortality. Results suggest CCP may benefit select populations, especially those with comorbidities who are treated early.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397757.FundingUniversity of Pennsylvania.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immune Tolerance , Immunization, Passive/methods , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/therapeutic use , RNA, Viral , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
12.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):387-388, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564905

ABSTRACT

Background DNA vaccines are safe, tolerable, elicit humoral and cellular responses, allow for repeated dosing over time, are thermostable at room temperature, and are easy to manufacture. We present a compilation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 data of Inovio’s US COVID-19 DNA Vaccine (INO-4800) targeting the full-length Spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2. A South Korean Phase 2 study is ongoing. Methods Participants in the open-label Phase 1 trial received 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg intradermally (ID) followed by electroporation (EP) at Days 0 and 28. An optional booster dose was administered >6 months post-dose 2. The Phase 2 further compared the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg doses against placebo in a total of 401 participants randomized at a 3:3:1:1 ratio. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT04336410 and NCT04642638 Results The majority of adverse events (AEs) related to INO-4800 across both trials were mild in severity and did not increase in frequency with age and subsequent doses. In Phase 1, 78% (14/18) and 84% (16/19) of subjects generated neutralizing antibody responses with geometric mean titers (GMTs) of 17.4 (95%CI 8.3, 36.5) and 62.3 (95% CI 36.4, 106.7) in the 1.0 and 2.0 groups, respectively (Figure 1). By week 8, 74% (14/19) and 100% (19/19) subjects generated T cell responses by Th1- associated IFNγ ELISPOT assay . Following a booster dose, neutralizing GMTs rose to 82.2 (95% CI 38.2, 176.9) and 124.7 (95% CI 62.8, 247.7) in the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg groups, respectively, demonstrating the ability of INO-4800 to boost (Figure 2). In Phase 2, neutralizing antibody responses demonstrated GMTs of 93.6 (95%CI 77.3, 113.4) in the 1.0 mg dose group and 150.6 (95%CI 123.8, 183.1) in the 2.0 mg dose group (Figure 3). Conclusion INO-4800 appears safe and tolerable as a primary series and as a booster with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses. In addition to eliciting neutralizing antibodies, INO-4800 also induced T cell immune responses as demonstrated by IFNγ ELISpot. Finally, as a homologous booster, INO-4800, when administered 6-10.5 months following the primary series, resulted in an increased immune response without increase in reactogenicity. The 2.0 mg dose was selected for Phase 3 evaluation. Disclosures Joseph Agnes, PhD, Inovio (Employee, Shareholder) Mary Giffear, BS, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Kimberly A. Kraynyak, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options) Dinah Amante, BS, Inovio (Employee) Emma Reuschel, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Aaron Christensen-Quick, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc (Employee) Viviane M. Andrade, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Employee) Gabriella Garufi, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Albert Sylvester, MS, Inovio (Employee, Shareholder) Matthew P. Morrow, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Patrick P. Pezzoli, BS, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Jan Pawlicki, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Elisabeth Gillespie, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Katherine Schultheis, MSc, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Hedieh Badie, PhD, INOVIO Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Timothy A. Herring, MPH, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Other Financial or Material Support, Own stock in the company) Keiko O. Simon, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Trevor R. F. Smith, PhD, Inovio (Employee, Shareholder) Stephanie Ramos, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Jessica Lee, MPH, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Michael Dallas, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Ami Shah Brown, PhD, Abbot Laboratories (Shareholder)IBB Biotech ETF (Shareholder)Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee)J & J (Shareholder)Moderna (Shareholder) Jacqueline E. Shea, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee, Shareholder) J Joseph Kim, PhD, Inovio (Employee) David Weiner, PhD, Inovio (Board Member, Grant/Research Support, Shareholder, I serve on the SAB in addition to the above activities) Kate Broderick, PhD, Inovio (Employee) Trevor Mc ullan, MSc, Inovio (Shareholder) Jean Boyer, PhD, Inovio (Employee) Laurent Humeau, PhD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee) Mammen P. Mammen Jr., MD, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (Employee)

13.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):367-367, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564224

ABSTRACT

Background SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (SMA) have demonstrated efficacy in treatment of early, mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. We created an SMA infusion clinic at a large, urban academic medical center using both internal and community-based referral mechanisms to promote the equitable distribution of treatment. Methods Data were analyzed from clinic referrals from December 13, 2020 through April 20, 2021. Patient demographics, census-based area deprivation index (ADI) scores (scale of 1-10, with 1 representing least socioeconomic deprivation and 10 representing most), and relevant comorbidities were collected. Outcomes included days of symptoms until referral, patient receipt of SMA therapy after referral, adverse events, and ER visits and hospitalizations within 14 days of SMA administration. Association between demographic factors and relevant outcomes were determined using chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests as appropriate. Results 47/433 (11%) referred patients were ineligible based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of eligible patients, 310/386 (80%) received treatment;patients who did not receive treatment either declined (93%), could not be contacted (5%), no-showed (1%), or were admitted for hypoxia (1%). Of treated patients, only 3 (1%) had adverse reactions. Within 14 days of SMA administration, 28 (9%) patients visited the ER or were admitted for COVID-19. Black patients had a longer median duration of symptoms prior to referral compared to White patients (5 vs. 3 days, p < 0.01) (Figure 1). White patients were more likely to receive SMA after referral compared to Black patients (88% vs. 64%, p < 0.01), as were patients with ADI score 1-5 compared to those with ADI score 6-10 (88% vs. 70%, p < 0.01) (Figures 2 and 3). Black patients who received SMA had a higher rate of ER visits or admissions than White patients, although the difference was not statistically significant (14% vs. 7%, p = 0.10). Figure 1. Bar graph displaying number of patients per race (White, Black, or Other) by duration of symptoms prior to referral. Figure 2. Bar graph displaying number of patients who did and did not receive SMA by race Figure 3. Bar graph displaying number of patients who did and did not receive SMA by ADI. Conclusion Rate of adverse reactions and COVID-related ER visits or admissions were low in patients who received SMA. Despite efforts to promote the equitable distribution of treatment through multiple referral mechanisms, racial and socioeconomic disparities still exist. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

14.
J Clin Invest ; 131(24)2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523124

ABSTRACT

BackgroundAntibody-based strategies for COVID-19 have shown promise in prevention and treatment of early disease. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been widely used but results from randomized trials supporting its benefit in hospitalized patients with pneumonia are limited. Here, we assess the efficacy of CCP in severely ill, hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe performed a randomized control trial (PennCCP2), with 80 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, comparing up to 2 units of locally sourced CCP plus standard care versus standard care alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was comparison of a clinical severity score. Key secondary outcomes include 14- and 28-day mortality, 14- and 28-day maximum 8-point WHO ordinal score (WHO8) score, duration of supplemental oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, respiratory SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsEighty hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled at median day 6 of symptoms and day 1 of hospitalization; 60% were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. Participants had a median of 3 comorbidities, including risk factors for severe COVID-19 and immunosuppression. CCP treatment was safe and conferred significant benefit by clinical severity score (median [MED] and interquartile range [IQR] 10 [5.5-30] vs. 7 [2.75-12.25], P = 0.037) and 28-day mortality (n = 10, 26% vs. n = 2, 5%; P = 0.013). All other prespecified outcome measures showed weak evidence toward benefit of CCP.ConclusionTwo units of locally sourced CCP administered early in hospitalization to majority seronegative participants conferred a significant benefit in clinical severity score and 28-day mortality. Results suggest CCP may benefit select populations, especially those with comorbidities who are treated early.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397757.FundingUniversity of Pennsylvania.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immune Tolerance , Immunization, Passive/methods , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/therapeutic use , RNA, Viral , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
15.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother ; 65(12): e0077221, 2021 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522896

ABSTRACT

Antivirals are urgently needed to combat the global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, supplement existing vaccine efforts, and target emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Small molecules that interfere with binding of the viral spike receptor binding domain (RBD) to the host angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) receptor may be effective inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. Here, we screened 512 pure compounds derived from natural products using a high-throughput RBD/ACE2 binding assay and identified (-)-hopeaphenol, a resveratrol tetramer, in addition to vatalbinoside A and vaticanol B, as potent and selective inhibitors of RBD/ACE2 binding and viral entry. For example, (-)-hopeaphenol disrupted RBD/ACE2 binding with a 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of 0.11 µM, in contrast to an IC50 of 28.3 µM against the unrelated host ligand/receptor binding pair PD-1/PD-L1 (selectivity index, 257.3). When assessed against the USA-WA1/2020 variant, (-)-hopeaphenol also inhibited entry of a VSVΔG-GFP reporter pseudovirus expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike into ACE2-expressing Vero-E6 cells and in vitro replication of infectious virus in cytopathic effect and yield reduction assays (50% effective concentrations [EC50s], 10.2 to 23.4 µM) without cytotoxicity and approaching the activities of the control antiviral remdesivir (EC50s, 1.0 to 7.3 µM). Notably, (-)-hopeaphenol also inhibited two emerging variants of concern, B.1.1.7/Alpha and B.1.351/Beta in both viral and spike-containing pseudovirus assays with similar or improved activities over the USA-WA1/2020 variant. These results identify (-)-hopeaphenol and related stilbenoid analogues as potent and selective inhibitors of viral entry across multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stilbenes , Humans , Pandemics , Phenols , Protein Binding , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism
16.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(8): 1151-1158, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1481184

ABSTRACT

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Advisory Committees , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Drug Approval , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2 , Stakeholder Participation , United States
17.
NPJ Vaccines ; 6(1): 121, 2021 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1469970

ABSTRACT

Global surveillance has identified emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) associated with broadened host specificity, pathogenicity, and immune evasion to vaccine-induced immunity. Here we compared humoral and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 VOC in subjects immunized with the DNA vaccine, INO-4800. INO-4800 vaccination induced neutralizing antibodies against all variants tested, with reduced levels detected against B.1.351. IFNγ T cell responses were fully maintained against all variants tested.

18.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364781

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91) and increased clinical improvement (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

20.
EClinicalMedicine ; 31: 100689, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987565

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is of high urgency. Here the safety and immunogenicity induced by a DNA vaccine (INO-4800) targeting the full length spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 are described. METHODS: INO-4800 was evaluated in two groups of 20 participants, receiving either 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg of vaccine intradermally followed by CELLECTRA® EP at 0 and 4 weeks. Thirty-nine subjects completed both doses; one subject in the 2.0 mg group discontinued trial participation prior to receiving the second dose. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04336410. FINDINGS: The median age was 34.5, 55% (22/40) were men and 82.5% (33/40) white. Through week 8, only 6 related Grade 1 adverse events in 5 subjects were observed. None of these increased in frequency with the second administration. No serious adverse events were reported. All 38 subjects evaluable for immunogenicity had cellular and/or humoral immune responses following the second dose of INO-4800. By week 6, 95% (36/38) of the participants seroconverted based on their responses by generating binding (ELISA) and/or neutralizing antibodies (PRNT IC50), with responder geometric mean binding antibody titers of 655.5 [95% CI (255.6, 1681.0)] and 994.2 [95% CI (395.3, 2500.3)] in the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg groups, respectively. For neutralizing antibody, 78% (14/18) and 84% (16/19) generated a response with corresponding geometric mean titers of 102.3 [95% CI (37.4, 280.3)] and 63.5 [95% CI (39.6, 101.8)], in the respective groups. By week 8, 74% (14/19) and 100% (19/19) of subjects generated T cell responses by IFN-É£ ELISpot assay with the median SFU per 106 PBMC of 46 [95% CI (21.1, 142.2)] and 71 [95% CI (32.2, 194.4)] in the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg groups, respectively. Flow cytometry demonstrated a T cell response, dominated by CD8+ T cells co-producing IFN-É£ and TNF-α, without increase in IL-4. INTERPRETATION: INO-4800 demonstrated excellent safety and tolerability and was immunogenic in 100% (38/38) of the vaccinated subjects by eliciting either or both humoral or cellular immune responses. FUNDING: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL