Human monoclonal antibody F61 nasal spray effectively protected high-risk populations from SARS-CoV-2 variants during the COVID-19 pandemic from late 2022 to early 2023 in China.

Following the national dynamic zero-COVID strategy adjustment, the utilization of broad-spectrum nasal neutralizing antibodies may offer an alternative approach to controlling the outbreak of Omicron variants between late 2022 and early 2023 in China. This study involved an investigator-initiated trial (IIT) to assess the pharmacokinetic, safety and efficacy of the F61 nasal spray. A total of 2,008 participants were randomly assigned to receive F61 nasal spray (24 mg/0.8 mL/dose) or normal saline (0.8 mL/dose) and 1336 completed the follow-up in the IIT. Minimal absorption of F61 antibody into the bloodstream was detected in individuals receiving F61 nasal spray for seven consecutive days. No treatment-emergent adverse reactions of grade 3 severity or higher were reported. In the one-dose cohort, the 7-day cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 79.0% in the F61 group and 82.6% in the placebo group, whereas, in the multiple-dose (once daily for 7 consecutive days) cohort, the rates were 6.55% in the F61 group and 23.83% in the placebo group. The laboratory-confirmed efficacy of F61 was 3.78% (-3.74%-10.75%) in the one-dose cohort and 72.19% (57.33%-81.87%) in the multiple-dose cohort. In the real-world study, 60,225 volunteers in four different regions were administered the F61 nasal spray based on the subject's wishes, over 90% efficacy rate was observed against different Omicron variants. The F61 nasal spray, with its favourable safety profile, could be a promising prophylactic monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

Dynamic Changes of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 Patients at Early Stage of Outbreak.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world with high mortality. To diagnose promptly and accurately is the vital step to effectively control its pandemic. Dynamic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies which are important for diagnosis of infection have not been fully demonstrated. In this retrospective, single-center, observational study, we enrolled the initial 131 confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Jin-Yin-Tan Hospital who had at least one-time antibody tested during their hospitalization. The dynamic changes of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in 226 serum samples were detected by ELISA. The sensitivities of IgM and IgG ELISA detection were analyzed. Result showed that the sensitivity of the IgG ELISA detection (92.5%) was significantly higher than that of the IgM (70.8%) (P < 0.001). The meantimes of seroconversion for IgM and IgG were 6 days and 3 days, respectively. The IgM and IgG antibody levels peaked at around 18 days and 23 days, and then IgM fell to below the baseline level at about day 36, whereas IgG maintained at a relatively high level. In conclusion, antibodies should be detected to aid in diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. IgG could be a sensitive indicator for retrospective diagnosis and contact tracing, while IgM could be an indicator of early infection.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19: study protocol for a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6th February 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. INTERPRETATION: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).

[Anti-complementary constituents of Pogostemon cablin].

Guided by anti-complementary activity, silica gel, Sephadex LH-20 and reversed-phase column chromatographies were used for fractionation and isolation of the ethyl acetate and n-butanol soluble fractions of Pogostemon cablin. Eighteen compounds were obtained, including 15 flavonoids: 5-hydroxy-3,7,3',4'-tetramethoxyflavone (1), 5-hydroxy-7,3',4'-trimethoxyflavanone (2), 5,4'-dihydroxy-3,7,3'-trimethoxyflavone (3), 5-hydroxy-3,7,4'-trimethoxyflavone (4), 5,4'-dihydroxy-7,3'-dimethoxyflavone (5), luteolin (6), quercetin-7,3', 4'-trimethyl ether (7), ermanine (8), 3,5,7- trihydroxy-3', 4'-dimethoxyflavone (9), quercetin (10), apigenin (11), kaempferol (12), 5-hydroxy-7,3',4'-trimethoxyflavone (13), kaempferol-7-O-beta-D-glucopyranoside (14) and kaempferol-3-O-beta-D-glucopyranoside-7-O-alpha-L-rhamnoside (15); one triterpenoid: oleanic acid (16); and 2 phenolic acids: vanillic acid (17) and benzylalcohol (18). The isolation of 5, 7, 8, 12-15 and 18 from the Pogostemon genus is reported for the first time. All isolates were evaluated for their in vitro anti-complementary activities on the classical pathway and alternative pathway. And the targets of the most potent constituent in complement activation cascade were identified using complement-depleted sera. Compounds 3, 7, 10, 12 and 16 exhibited anti-complementary activities toward the classical pathway and alternative pathway (CH50 0.072-1.08 g x L(-1), AP50 0.39-0.49 g x L(-1)), while 5 and 6 showed inhibitory effect on the classical pathway only. Mechanism study indicated that 7 interacted with C1q, C2, C5 and C9 components.