10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Covering coronavirus—emerging tools for the fight against the common enemy

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          ‘Zoom’ meetings, self-isolation and ‘flattening the curve’ are just some phrases that have crashed into our usual vocabulary. An abrupt change from January 2020, when the faint whisperings of an emerging, novel coronavirus in China seemed remote to the average person in the UK as they continued their daily normalities. Since then, estimates reveal an exponential spread with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacting over 3.5 million people and sadly, causing over 240 000 deaths internationally, as of 3rd May 2020 [1]. The spread of this respiratory disease has overtaken the ability of our healthcare systems to test, track and contain those with suspected infections. This has led to an unprecedented need for specific tools to treat those who are unwell. Currently, there is very limited evidence from randomised control trials (RCTs) showing that any medical treatment can potentially improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 [2]. Broadly, current areas of interest can be split into antiviral drugs and medications that alter immune response. Lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine are the medications with the most clinical evidence. Lopinavir is a protease inhibitor and ritonavir increases the half-life of lopinavir, both of which have been previously used to treat human immunodeficiency virus. Two RCTs performed in China have evaluated the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19 [3, 4]. Cao et al. conducted an open-label RCT at a single hospital in Wuhan, demonstrating that there was no significant difference in the time to clinical improvement compared to supportive care alone [3]. Furthermore, the ELACOI trial, a single-blind RCT, found that there was no difference in the primary outcome of time to negative pharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between the treatment and control groups. [4] Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are long-established agents that have been used to treat malaria and chronic inflammatory diseases such as ‘lupus’ and ‘rheumatoid arthritis’. Its beneficial use for COVID-19 patients has been controversial. The first open-label, RCT was published on 14th April 2020, which demonstrated that there was no significant difference in oxygen saturations and time length for recovery from symptoms between patients receiving high doses of hydroxychloroquine, compared to those receiving supportive treatment alone. However, it recorded an increase in adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, most notably diarrhoea [5]. It should be noted that these clinical trials are subjected to their own individual limitations, including small sample sizes, being single-centre and lack of blinding [3–5]. Particular medical agents that have caught media attention include remdesivir and immunoglobulin therapy (IVIG). Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that inhibits viral RNA polymerase with its first clinical use for the treatment of Ebola [6]. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that for patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19, treated with compassionate use of remdesivir, 36 of 53 patients showed a clinical improvement in oxygen support status. [7] The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorised emergency use of remdesivir for treating severe coronavirus [8]. Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy for COVID-19 will be needed to further establish its potential uses [7]. IVIG has been considered as a possible adjunctive therapy for COVID-19. The rationale for this treatment is that antibodies from recovered patients may aid immune clearance of infected cells [9]. A RCT, containing 80 participants evaluating the efficiency of high-dose IVIG therapy in severe COVID-19 has been initiated in Wuhan, China. This will provide more evidence for IVIG use in treating such patients [10]. Further research has been planned, with the RECOVERY trial beginning in the UK, it is the world’s largest RCT that aims to evaluate multiple potential COVID-19 treatments including lopinavir–ritonavir, low-dose dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and tocilizumab. It hopes to provide definitive results on whether the treatments are safe and effective within a timescale of months, having already recruited over 1000 patients from over 132 different hospitals [11]. Current clinical management guidance from the World Health Organization emphasises the role of infection prevention and supportive management of complications and at the moment, do not advocate specific medical treatments for COVID-19 [12]. With every day passing scientists are gathering more information to further understand the new disease and navigate through this uncertain science. A robust research effort is currently underway to develop a vaccine against COVID-19. Imperial College London is progressing towards phase II clinical trials for a self-amplified RNA vaccine [13]. Additionally, Oxford University are starting accelerated clinical trials in humans, aiming to recruit 510 volunteers, who will receive either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or a control injection [14]. This hopes to provide information on its safety profile and its ability to generate an immune response against the virus. In this spirit Oxford Medical Case Reports are happy to announce that we will be waiving the Open Access Fee on selected cases submitted to the Journal—follow us on our social media channels, Facebook @OxfordMedicalCaseReports and Twitter @OMCR_OUP to find out more. The COVID-19 pandemic presents the greatest global public health emergency of this generation. Despite the fact that no medical therapy has definitively been shown to be effective against COVID-19, it is clear that huge efforts are being made around the world to ensure success as soon as possible. Though there is nothing about this scientific process that is certain; through technology, knowledge and collaboration, rapid progress is being made in understanding and equipping ourselves for a united fight against the common enemy. In the meantime, stay safe, remain kind and protect your healthcare system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          Abstract 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 (Sao 2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2) 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, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). 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.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19

            Abstract Background Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Methods We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day. Results Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation. Conclusions In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review

              The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents an unprecedented challenge to identify effective drugs for prevention and treatment. Given the rapid pace of scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected by SARS-CoV-2, clinicians need accurate evidence regarding effective medical treatments for this infection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Oxf Med Case Reports
                Oxf Med Case Reports
                omcr
                Oxford Medical Case Reports
                Oxford University Press
                2053-8855
                June 2020
                13 June 2020
                13 June 2020
                : 2020
                : 6
                : omaa035
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Acute Medicine , Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [2 ] Department of Dermatopharmacology , Southampton University, Southampton, UK
                [3 ] University of East Anglia and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital , Norwich, UK
                [4 ] Ipswich Hospital , ESNEFT, University College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence address: Second Floor, Bob Champion Research and Education, James Watson Road, Norwich, NR4 7UQ, UK. E-mail: v.vassiliou@ 123456uea.ac.uk

                Nikhil Aggarwal and Subothini Selvendran contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4005-7752
                Article
                omaa035
                10.1093/omcr/omaa035
                7293137
                32551127
                5e554ac2-11b5-49cf-a7b3-eec0498a6459
                © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 3 May 2020
                : 24 March 2020
                : 4 May 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 2
                Categories
                AcademicSubjects/MED00010
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article