Bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies as biotherapeutic weapons against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants: A review article.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected 305 million individuals worldwide and killed about 5.5 million people as of January 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 is the third major outbreak caused by a new coronavirus in the previous two decades, following SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even though vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered a critical strategy for preventing virus spread in the population and limiting COVID-19 clinical manifestations, new therapeutic drugs, and management strategies are urgently needed, particularly in light of the growing number of SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as Delta and Omicron variants). However, the use of conventional antibodies has faced many challenges, such as viral escape mutants, increased instability, weak binding, large sizes, the need for large amounts of plasma, and high-cost manufacturing. Furthermore, the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in the human population and recurrent coronavirus spillovers highlight the need for broadly neutralizing antibodies that are not affected by an antigenic drift that could limit future zoonotic infection. Bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies are more potent and protective than conventional human antibodies, thanks to their inbuilt characteristics, and can be produced in large quantities. In addition, it was reported that these biotherapeutics are effective against a broad spectrum of epitopes, reducing the opportunity of viral pathogens to develop mutational escape. In this review, we focus on the potential benefits behind our rationale for using bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies in countering SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants and mutants.

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects.  Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa.  Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future. CONCLUSION: We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.