Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review.

Background: There is evidence that the adaptive or acquired immune system is one of the crucial variables in differentiating the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This work aimed to analyze the immunopathological aspects of adaptive immunity that are involved in the progression of this disease. Methods: This is a systematic review based on articles that included experimental evidence from in vitro assays, cohort studies, reviews, cross-sectional and case-control studies from PubMed, SciELO, MEDLINE, and Lilacs databases in English, Portuguese, or Spanish between January 2020 and July 2022. Results: Fifty-six articles were finalized for this review. CD4+ T cells were the most resolutive in the health-disease process compared with B cells and CD8+ T lymphocytes. The predominant subpopulations of T helper lymphocytes (Th) in critically ill patients are Th1, Th2, Th17 (without their main characteristics) and regulatory T cells (Treg), while in mild cases there is an influx of Th1, Th2, Th17 and follicular T helper cells (Tfh). These cells are responsible for the secretion of cytokines, including interleukin (IL) - 6, IL-4, IL-10, IL-7, IL-22, IL-21, IL-15, IL-1α, IL-23, IL-5, IL-13, IL-2, IL-17, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), CXC motivating ligand (CXCL) 8, CXCL9 and tumor growth factor beta (TGF-ß), with the abovementioned first 8 inflammatory mediators related to clinical benefits, while the others to a poor prognosis. Some CD8+ T lymphocyte markers are associated with the severity of the disease, such as human leukocyte antigen (HLA-DR) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). Among the antibodies produced by SARS-CoV-2, Immunoglobulin (Ig) A stood out due to its potent release associated with a more severe clinical form. Conclusions: It is concluded that through this study it is possible to have a brief overview of the main immunological biomarkers and their function during SARS-CoV-2 infection in particular cell types. In critically ill individuals, adaptive immunity is varied, aberrantly compromised, and late. In particular, the T-cell response is also an essential and necessary component in immunological memory and therefore should be addressed in vaccine formulation strategies.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Egg Yolk Antibody for Passive Immunization: Status, Challenges, and Prospects.

The immunoglobulin Y (IgY) derived from hyperimmune egg yolk is a promising passive immune agent to combat microbial infections in humans and livestock. Numerous studies have been performed to develop specific egg yolk IgY for pathogen control, but with limited success. To date, the efficacy of commercial IgY products, which are all delivered through an oral route, has not been approved or endorsed by any regulatory authorities. Several challenging issues of the IgY-based passive immunization, which were not fully recognized and holistically discussed in previous publications, have impeded the development of effective egg yolk IgY products for humans and animals. This review summarizes major challenges of this technology, including in vivo stability, purification, heterologous immunogenicity, and repertoire diversity of egg yolk IgY. To tackle these challenges, potential solutions, such as encapsulation technologies to stabilize IgY, are discussed. Exploration of this technology to combat the COVID-19 pandemic is also updated in this review.

The National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey: a hyper-accelerated study proof of principle for cancer research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a range of novel and adaptive research designs. In this perspective, we use our experience coordinating the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey to demonstrate how a balance between speed and integrity can be achieved within a hyper-accelerated study design. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, we show this approach is necessary in the face of uncertain and evolving situations wherein reliable information is needed in a timely fashion to guide policy. We identify streamlined participant involvement, healthcare systems integration, data architecture and real-world real-time analytics as key areas that differentiate this design from traditional cancer trials, and enable rapid results. Caution needs to be taken to avoid the exclusion of patient subgroups without digital access or literacy. We summarise the merits and defining features of hyper-accelerated cancer studies.

Use of immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with secondary antibody deficiency in daily practice: a European expert Q&A-based review.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary antibody deficiencies (SAD) are often a side effect of specific therapies that target B cells directly or affect the antibody response indirectly. Treatment of immunodeficiency by immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) is well established in primary antibody deficiencies, although the evidence for its use in SAD is less well established. To fill the gap and provide opinion and advice for daily practice, a group of experts met to discuss current issues and share best practical experience. AREAS COVERED: A total of 16 questions were considered that covered use of a tailored approach, definition of severe infections, measurement of IgG levels and specific antibodies, indications for IgRT, dosage, monitoring, discontinuation of IgRT, and Covid-19. EXPERT OPINION: Key points for better management SID should include characterization of the immunological deficiency, determination of the severity and degree of impairment of antibody production, distinguish between primary and secondary deficiency, and design a tailored treatment protocol that should include dose, route, and frequency of Ig replacement. There remains the need to carry out well-designed clinical studies to develop clear guidelines for the use of IgRT in patients with SAD.

Long-term high-dose immunoglobulin successfully treats Long COVID patients with pulmonary, neurologic, and cardiologic symptoms.

Introduction: Long COVID is the overarching name for a wide variety of disorders that may follow the diagnosis of acute SARS-COVID-19 infection and persist for weeks to many months. Nearly every organ system may be affected. Methods: We report nine patients suffering with Long COVID for 101 to 547 days. All exhibited significant perturbations of their immune systems, but only one was known to be immunodeficient prior to the studies directed at evaluating them for possible treatment. Neurological and cardiac symptoms were most common. Based on this data and other evidence suggesting autoimmune reactivity, we planned to treat them for 3 months with long-term high-dose immunoglobulin therapy. If there was evidence of benefit at 3 months, the regimen was continued. Results: The patients' ages ranged from 34 to 79 years-with five male and four female patients, respectively. All nine patients exhibited significant immune perturbations prior to treatment. One patient declined this treatment, and insurance support was not approved for two others. The other six have been treated, and all have had a significant to remarkable clinical benefit. Conclusion: Long-term high-dose immunoglobulin therapy is an effective therapeutic option for treating patients with Long COVID.

Mucosal plasma cells are required to protect the upper airway and brain from infection.

While blood antibodies mediate protective immunity in most organs, whether they protect nasal surfaces in the upper airway is unclear. Using multiple viral infection models in mice, we found that blood-borne antibodies could not defend the olfactory epithelium. Despite high serum antibody titers, pathogens infected nasal turbinates, and neurotropic microbes invaded the brain. Using passive antibody transfers and parabiosis, we identified a restrictive blood-endothelial barrier that excluded circulating antibodies from the olfactory mucosa. Plasma cell depletions demonstrated that plasma cells must reside within olfactory tissue to achieve sterilizing immunity. Antibody blockade and genetically deficient models revealed that this local immunity required CD4+ T cells and CXCR3. Many vaccine adjuvants failed to generate olfactory plasma cells, but mucosal immunizations established humoral protection of the olfactory surface. Our identification of a blood-olfactory barrier and the requirement for tissue-derived antibody has implications for vaccinology, respiratory and CNS pathogen transmission, and B cell fate decisions.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

ANTECEDENTES: El plasma de convaleciente podría reducir la mortalidad en pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias víricas, y se está investigando como posible tratamiento para la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (covid­19). Se requiere un profundo conocimiento del conjunto de evidencia actual sobre los beneficios y riesgos de esta intervención. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la transfusión de plasma de convaleciente en el tratamiento de las personas con covid­19; y mantener la vigencia de la evidencia con un enfoque de revisión sistemática continua. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Para identificar estudios en curso y completados, se realizaron búsquedas en la base de datos COVID­19 de la OMS: literatura global sobre la enfermedad por coronavirus, MEDLINE, Embase, el Registro Cochrane de Estudios de covid­19 y la Plataforma COVID­19 L*OVE de Epistemonikos. Se realizaron búsquedas mensuales hasta el 3 de marzo de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente para la covid­19, independientemente de la gravedad de la enfermedad, la edad, el sexo o el origen étnico. Se excluyeron los estudios que incluyeron poblaciones con otras enfermedades por coronavirus, como el síndrome respiratorio agudo grave (SARS) o el síndrome respiratorio de Oriente Medio (MERS), así como los estudios que evaluaron la inmunoglobulina estándar. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se siguió la metodología estándar de Cochrane. Para evaluar el sesgo en los estudios incluidos se utilizó la herramienta RoB 2. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para los siguientes desenlaces: mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28, empeoramiento y mejoría del estado clínico (para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave), ingreso hospitalario o muerte, resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (para personas con enfermedad leve), calidad de vida, eventos adversos de grado 3 o 4 y eventos adversos graves. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta cuarta versión actualizada de la revisión se incluyeron 33 ECA con 24 861 participantes, de los cuales 11 432 recibieron plasma de convaleciente. De ellos, 9 estudios son unicéntricos y 24 multicéntricos. Se realizaron 14 estudios en América, 8 en Europa, 3 en el Sudeste Asiático, 2 en África, 2 en el Pacífico occidental, 3 en el Mediterráneo oriental y 1 en varias regiones. Se identificaron otros 49 estudios en curso que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente, y 33 estudios que informaban de que se habían completado. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de covid­19 y enfermedad de moderada a grave El uso de plasma de convaleciente se investigó en 29 ECA con 22 728 participantes con enfermedad moderada a grave. En 23 ECA con 22 020 participantes se comparó el plasma de convaleciente con el placebo o la atención habitual sola, en 5 se comparó con plasma estándar y en 1, con inmunoglobulina humana. Se evalúan subgrupos sobre detección de anticuerpos, aparición de síntomas, grupos de ingresos de países y varias comorbilidades en el texto completo. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola El plasma de convaleciente no reduce la mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28 (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,98; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,92 a 1,03; 220 por cada 1000; 21 ECA, 19 021 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). Tiene poca o ninguna repercusión en la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 1,03; IC del 95%: 0,97 a 1,11; 296 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 14 477 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta) y no tiene ningún efecto en si los participantes reciben el alta hospitalaria (RR 1,00; IC de 95%: 0,97 a 1,02; 665 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 12 721 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poca o ninguna repercusión en la calidad de vida (DM 1,00; IC del 95%: ­2,14 a 4,14; un ECA, 483 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grado 3 y 4 (RR 1,17; IC del 95%: 0,96 a 1,42; 212 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 2392 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto sobre el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,91 a 1,44; 135 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 3901 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 0,73; IC del 95%: 0,45 a 1,19; 129 por cada 1000; cuatro ECA, 484 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 5,59; IC del 95%: 0,29 a 108,38; 311 por cada 1000; un estudio, 34 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) ni si reduce o aumenta el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 0,80; IC 95%: 0,55 a 1,15; 236 por cada 1000; tres ECA, 327 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus inmunoglobulina humana El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 1,50; 464 por cada 1000; un estudio, 190 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de infección por SARS­CoV­2 y enfermedad leve Se identificaron dos ECA, con 536 participantes, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con placebo o atención habitual sola y dos ECA, con 1597 participantes con enfermedad leve, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con plasma estándar. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (odds ratio [OR] 0,36; IC del 95%: 0,09 a 1,46; 8 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 536 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,60 a 1,84; 117 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (cociente de riesgos instantáneos [CRI] 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,30; 483 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grados 3 y 4 (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,75 a 2,19; 144 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja) y en el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,94; 133 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (OR 0,30; IC del 95%: 0,05 a 1,75; 2 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1597 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Es probable que reduzca el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 0,49; IC del 95%: 0,31 a 0,75; 36 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1595 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la resolución inicial de los síntomas hasta el día 28 (RR 1,12; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 1,27; un ECA, 416 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Esta es una revisión sistemática continua. Cada mes se busca nueva evidencia y se actualiza la revisión cuando se identifica evidencia nueva relevante. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para la comparación del plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o la atención habitual sola, existe evidencia de certeza alta de que el plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave no reduce la mortalidad y tiene poco o ningún efecto en la mejoría o el empeoramiento clínico. Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto en los eventos adversos graves. Para las personas con enfermedad leve, existe evidencia de certeza baja para los desenlaces principales. Hay 49 estudios en curso y 33 estudios que declaran estar completados en un registro de ensayos. La publicación de los estudios en curso podría resolver algunas de las incertidumbres en torno al tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad asintomática o leve.

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts embryo morphokinetics but not clinical outcomes in a time-lapse imaging system.

The goal for the present study was to investigate whether previous infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may compromise embryo morphokinetics and implantation. For that, a historical cohort study was performed in a private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center. The study included 1628 embryos from 88 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Patients were age-matched in a 1:3 ratio to either a coronavirus disease (COVID) group, including patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin test (n = 22 patients, 386 embryos), or a control group, including patients with a negative SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin test (n = 66, 1242 embryos). The effect of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 on morphokinetic events and ICSI outcomes was evaluated. Embryos derived from patients in the COVID group presented longer time to pronuclei appearance and fading, time to form two, three, four and five cells, and time to blastulation. The durations of the third cell cycle and to time to complete synchronous divisions were also significantly increased in the COVID group compared with the control group, whereas known implantation diagnosis score Day 5 ranked significantly lower in the COVID group. No differences were observed between the COVID and control groups on clinical outcomes. In conclusion, patients planning parenthood, who have recovered from COVID-19 infection, must be aware of a possible effect of the infection on embryo development potential.

Immunoglobulin yolk targeting spike 1, receptor binding domain of spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 blocking RBD-ACE2 binding interaction.

Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a global pandemic disease that has social and economic chaos. An alternative mitigation strategy may involve the use of specific immunoglobulin (Ig)-Y derived from chicken eggs. Our study aimed to evaluate the neutralizing potential of specific IgY targeting S1, receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2 to inhibit RBD and angiotensin-converting-enzyme-2 (ACE2) binding interaction. Hy-Line Brown laying hens were immunized with recombinant S1, RBD spike glycoprotein, and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2. The presence of specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum and egg yolk was verified by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY was purified and characterized from egg yolk using sodium-dodecyl-sulfate-polyacrylamide-gel-electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and was subsequently evaluated for inhibition of the RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro. Specific IgY was present in serum at 1 week post-initial immunization (p.i.i), whereas its present in egg yolk was confirmed at 4 weeks p.i.i. Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction between 4 and 15 weeks p.i.i. The results of the SDS-PAGE revealed the presence of bands with molecular weights of 180 kDa, indicating the presence of whole IgY. Our results demonstrated that S1,RBD,N-IgY was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro, suggesting its potential use in blocking virus entry. Our study also demonstrated proof-of-concept that laying hens were able to produce this specific IgY, which could block the viral binding and large production of this specific IgY is feasible.

SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin Y antibodies are protective in infected mice.

Safe, passive immunization methods are required against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants. Immunization of chickens with antigen is known to induce specific IgY antibodies concentrated in the egg yolk and has a good safety profile, high yield of IgY per egg, can be topically applied, not requiring parenteral delivery. Our data provide the first evidence of the prophylactic efficacy of Immunoglobulin Y antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in mice. Lohmann hens were injected with recombinant SARS-CoV-2 RBD protein; IgY-Abs were extracted from the eggs and characterized using SDS-PAGE. Antiviral activity was evaluated using plaque reduction neutralization tests. In additional experiments, IgY-RBD efficacy was examined in mice sensitized to SARS-CoV-2 infection by transduction with Ad5-hACE2 (mild disease) or by using mouse-adapted virus (severe disease). In both cases, prophylactic intranasal administration of IgY-Abs reduced SARS-CoV-2 replication, and reduced morbidity, inflammatory cell infiltration, hemorrhage, and edema in the lungs and increased survival compared to control groups that received non-specific IgY-Abs. These results indicate that further evaluation of IgY-RBD antibodies in humans is warranted.

miR-142 Targets TIM-1 in Human Endothelial Cells: Potential Implications for Stroke, COVID-19, Zika, Ebola, Dengue, and Other Viral Infections.

T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 1 (TIM-1) has been recently identified as one of the factors involved in the internalization of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human cells, in addition to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), neuropilin-1, and others. We hypothesized that specific microRNAs could target TIM-1, with potential implications for the management of patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). By combining bioinformatic analyses and functional assays, we identified miR-142 as a specific regulator of TIM-1 transcription. Since TIM-1 has been implicated in the regulation of endothelial function at the level of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and its levels have been shown to be associated with stroke and cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury, we validated miR-142 as a functional modulator of TIM-1 in human brain microvascular endothelial cells (hBMECs). Taken together, our results indicate that miR-142 targets TIM-1, representing a novel strategy against cerebrovascular disorders, as well as systemic complications of SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections.

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis after coronavirus disease 2019: A case report and literature review.

RATIONALE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and COVID-19-associated anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis may occur through an immune-mediated pathomechanism. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 21-year-old woman with a history of COVID-19 presented to our hospital with memory decline and psychiatric symptoms. DIAGNOSIS: The patient was diagnosed with anti-NMDAR encephalitis. INTERVENTION: Intravenous methylprednisolone (1 g/day over 5 days) followed by immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg/day over 5 days) were administered. The patient underwent laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy to remove an ovarian teratoma. OUTCOMES: The patient was discharged with sequelae of short-term memory impairment, without other neuropsychiatric symptoms. LESSONS: Cases of previously reported anti-NMDAR encephalitis with COVID-19 were reviewed and compared with the present case. Clinicians should be aware of the occurrence of anti-NMDAR encephalitis in patients who present with neuropsychiatric complaints during or after exposure to COVID-19. Further studies are required to determine the causal relationship between the 2 diseases and predict the prognosis of anti-NMDAR encephalitis after COVID-19 exposure.

CNN-LSTM Hybrid Real-Time IoT-Based Cognitive Approaches for ISLR with WebRTC: Auditory Impaired Assistive Technology.

In the era of modern technology, people may readily communicate through facial expressions, body language, and other means. As the use of the Internet evolves, it may be a boon to the medical fields. Recently, the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) has provided a broader platform to handle difficulties linked to healthcare, including people's listening and hearing impairment. Although there are many translators that exist to help people of various linguistic backgrounds communicate more effectively. Using kinesics linguistics, one may assess or comprehend the communications of auditory and hearing-impaired persons who are standing next to each other. When looking at the present COVID-19 scenario, individuals are still linked in some way via online platforms; however, persons with disabilities have communication challenges with online platforms. The work provided in this research serves as a communication bridge inside the challenged community and the rest of the globe. The proposed work for Indian Sign Linguistic Recognition (ISLR) uses three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3D-CNNs) and long short-term memory (LSTM) technique for analysis. A conventional hand gesture recognition system involves identifying the hand and its location or orientation, extracting certain essential features and applying an appropriate machine learning algorithm to recognise the completed action. In the calling interface of the web application, WebRTC has been implemented. A teleprompting technology is also used in the web app, which transforms sign language into audible sound. The proposed web app's average recognition rate is 97.21%.