Biomarkers of COVID-19 and technologies to combat SARS-CoV-2.

Due to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID-19, our first contribution to the newly launching journal, Advances in Biomarker Sciences and Technology, has abruptly diverted to focus on the current pandemic. As the number of new COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to rise steadily around the world, the common goal of healthcare providers, scientists, and government officials worldwide has been to identify the best way to detect the novel coronavirus, named SARS-CoV-2, and to treat the viral infection - COVID-19. Accurate detection, timely diagnosis, effective treatment, and future prevention are the vital keys to management of COVID-19, and can help curb the viral spread. Traditionally, biomarkers play a pivotal role in the early detection of disease etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. To assist myriad ongoing investigations and innovations, we developed this current article to overview known and emerging biomarkers for SARS-CoV-2 detection, COVID-19 diagnostics, treatment and prognosis, and ongoing work to identify and develop more biomarkers for new drugs and vaccines. Moreover, biomarkers of socio-psychological stress, the high-technology quest for new virtual drug screening, and digital applications are described.

A Narrative Review of Emerging Therapeutics for COVID-19.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causal agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), quickly spread around the world, resulting in the most aggressive pandemic experienced in more than 100 years. Research on targeted therapies and vaccines has been initiated on an unprecedented scale and speed but will take months and even years to come to fruition. Meanwhile, the efficacy of emerging therapeutics for use in treating COVID-19 is feverishly being investigated to identify the best available treatment options for dealing with the current wave of disease. This review of publications with a "treatment" tag through June 29, 2020 in the National Library of Medicine's LitCovid literature hub, provides frontline clinicians with a pragmatic summary of the current state of the rapidly evolving evidence supporting emerging candidate therapeutics for COVID-19. Two main categories of pharmaceutical therapeutics are showing promise: those with antiviral activity directly addressing infection and those that counteract the inflammatory cytokine storm induced by severe disease. Preliminary results suggest that other approaches such as convalescent plasma therapy and lung radiation therapy may have some efficacy. The current clinical evidence for potential treatments is preliminary-often small retrospective series or early results of randomized trials-and the science is evolving rapidly. The long-term results from large, well-designed randomized controlled trials will provide definitive evidence for therapeutic effectiveness and are likely months away. The trial landscape for promising therapies is described.

Development of a SARS-CoV-2-derived receptor-binding domain-based ACE2 biosensor.

The global outbreak of coronavirus disease and rapid spread of the causative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represent a significant threat to human health. A key mechanism of human SARS-CoV-2 infection is initiated by the combination of human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2-derived spike glycoprotein. Despite the importance of these protein interactions, there are still insufficient detection methods to observe their activity at the cellular level. Herein, we developed a novel fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based hACE2 biosensor to monitor the interaction between hACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 RBD. This biosensor facilitated the visualization of hACE2-RBD activity with high spatiotemporal resolutions at the single-cell level. Further studies revealed that the FRET-based hACE2 biosensors were sensitive to both exogenous and endogenous hACE2 expression, suggesting that they might be safely applied to the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection without direct virus use. Therefore, our novel biosensor could potentially help develop drugs that target SARS-CoV-2 by inhibiting hACE2-RBD interaction.

Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and COVID-19: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of efficacy and safety.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to urgently identify new treatment options or the re-purposing of existing drugs. Of particular interest are chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The aims of this systematic review are to systematically identify and collate 24 studies describing the use of CQ and HCQ in human clinical trials and to provide a detailed synthesis of evidence of its efficacy and safety. Of clinical trials, 100% showed no significant difference in the probability of viral transmission or clearance in prophylaxis or therapy, respectively, compared to the control group. Among observational studies employing an endpoint specific to efficacy, 58% concurred with the finding of no significant difference in the attainment of outcomes. Three-fifths of clinical trials and half of observational studies examining an indicator unique to drug safety discovered a higher probability of adverse events in those treated patients suspected of, and diagnosed with, COVID-19. Of the total papers focusing on cardiac side-effects, 44% found a greater incidence of QTc prolongation and/or arrhythmias, 44% found no evidence of a significant difference, and 11% mixed results. The strongest available evidence points towards the inefficacy of CQ and HCQ in prophylaxis or in the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Cardiac Toxicity of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and to estimate the risk of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cardiac toxicity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We searched multiple data sources including PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science and medrxiv.org from November 2019 through May 27, 2020. We included studies that enrolled patients with COVID-19 treated with CQ or HCQ, with or without azithromycin, and reported on cardiac toxic effects. We performed a meta-analysis using the arcsine transformation of the different incidences. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies with a total of 5652 patients were included. The pooled incidence of torsades de pointes arrhythmia, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest was 3 per 1000 (95% CI, 0-21; I 2 =96%) in 18 studies with 3725 patients. Among 13 studies of 4334 patients, the pooled incidence of discontinuation of CQ or HCQ due to prolonged QTc or arrhythmias was 5% (95% CI, 1-11; I 2 =98%). The pooled incidence of change in QTc from baseline of 60 milliseconds or more or QTc of 500 milliseconds or more was 9% (95% CI, 3-17; I 2 =97%). Mean or median age, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, concomitant QT-prolonging medications, intensive care unit admission, and severity of illness in the study populations explained between-studies heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with COVID-19 with CQ or HCQ is associated with an important risk of drug-induced QT prolongation and relatively higher incidence of torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, or cardiac arrest. Therefore, these agents should not be used routinely in the management of COVID-19 disease. Patients with COVID-19 who are treated with antimalarials for other indications should be adequately monitored.

Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Being protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: No discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC. CONCLUSION: In our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1ß showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).

Hydroxychloroquine and QTc prolongation in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Among many drugs that hold potential in COVID-19 pandemic, chloroquine (CQ), and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have generated unusual interest. With increasing usage, there has been growing concern about the prolongation of QTc interval and Torsades de Pointes (TdP) with HCQ, especially in combination with azithromycin. AIMS: This meta-analysis is planned to study the risk of QTc prolongation and Torsades de pointes (TdP) by a well-defined criterion for HCQ, CQ alone, and in combination with Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was made in two databases (PubMed, Embase). Three outcomes explored in the included studies were frequency of QTc > 500 ms (ms) or ΔQTc > 60 ms (Outcome 1), frequency of QTc > 500 ms (Outcome 2) and frequency of TdP (Outcome 3). Random effects method with inverse variance approach was used for computation of pooled summary and risk ratio. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies comprising of 2138 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of outcome 1, outcome 2 and outcome 3 for HCQ, CQ with or without Azithromycin were 10.18% (5.59-17.82%, I2 - 92%), 10.22% (6.01-16.85%, I2 - 79%), and 0.72% (0.34-1.51, I2 - 0%) respectively. The prevalence of outcome 2 in subgroup analysis for HCQ and HCQ + Azithromycin was 7.25% (3.22-15.52, I2 - 59%) and 8.61% (4.52-15.79, I2 - 76%), respectively. The risk ratio (RR) for outcome 1 and outcome 2 between HCQ + Azithromycin and HCQ was 1.22 (0.77-1.93, I2 - 0%) & 1.51 (0.79-2.87, I2 - 13%), respectively and was not significant. Heterogeneity was noted statistically as well clinically (regimen types, patient numbers, study design, and outcome definition). CONCLUSION: The use of HCQ/CQ is associated with a high prevalence of QTc prolongation. However, it is not associated with a high risk of TdP.

Treatment Armamentarium of COVID-19: Evolving Strategies and Evidence So Far.

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 started in Hubei province of China in December 2019 and rapidly spread all over the world. It has infected more than 7 million people worldwide and has pushed half of the world in a state of lockdown. There is an urgent unmet need of interventions both for prevention and treatment of this disease and more than 500 clinical trials are ongoing in this regard. At present, no study with robust methodology have clearly demonstrated benefits of hydroxychloroquine for treatment, preexposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers or post exposure prophylaxis in COrona VIrus Disease-2019. Remdesivir has been shown to have modest benefits in moderate to severe disease, if administered early. Given the rapid pace of clinical information and discoveries, it is important for clinicians to be up to date with the latest, evidence-based treatment options available for this novel disease. Keeping up with this current pace of information, we review the clinical studies of different therapeutic options available to treat SARS-CoV-2.