Roles of Type I and III Interferons in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Type I and III interferon (IFN) responses act as the first line of defense against viral infection and are activated by the recognition of viruses by infected cells and innate immune cells. Dysregulation of host IFN responses has been known to be associated with severe disease progression in COVID-19 patients. However, the reported results are controversial and the roles of IFN responses in COVID-19 need to be investigated further. In the absence of a highly efficacious antiviral drug, clinical studies have evaluated recombinant type I and III IFNs, as they have been successfully used for the treatment of infections caused by two other epidemic coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV. In this review, we describe the strategies by which SARS-CoV-2 evades IFN responses and the dysregulation of host IFN responses in COVID-19 patients. In addition, we discuss the therapeutic potential of type I and III IFNs in COVID-19.     

The role of cytokines and their antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19 patients

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has various presentations, of which immune dysregulation or the so-called cytokine storm syndrome (COVID-CSS) is prominent. Even though cytokines are vital regulators of body immunoinflammatory responses, their exaggerated release can be harmful. This hyperinflammatory response is more commonly observed during severe COVID-19 infections, caused by the excessive release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and interferon-gamma, making their blockers and antagonists of great interest as therapeutic options in this condition. Thus, the pathophysiology of excessive cytokine secretion is outlined, and their most important blockers and antagonists are discussed, mainly focussing on tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor blocker approved to treat severe COVID-19 infections.     

An update of anti-viral treatment of COVID-19

Background/aim Currently there is not an effective antiviral treatment for COVID-19, but a large number of drugs have been evaluated since the beginning of the pandemic, and many of them have been used for the treatment of COVID-19 despite the preliminary or conflicting results of the clinical trials. We aimed to review and summarize all of the current knowledge on the antivirals for COVID-19. Results There are 2 main drug groups for SARS-CoV-2: agents that target proteins or RNA of the virus or interfere with proteins or biological processes in the host that support the virus. The main drug groups include inhibitors of viral entry into the human cell (convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, mini proteins, human soluble ACE-2, camostat, dutasteride, proxalutamide, bromhexin, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir nitazoxanid, niclosamide, lactoferrin), inhibitors of viral proteases (lopinavir/ritonavir, PF-07321332, PF-07304814, GC376), inhibitors of viral RNA (remdesivir, favipiravir, molnupiravir, AT-527, merimepodib, PTC299), inhibitors of host proteins supporting virus (plitidepsin, fluvoxamine, ivermectin), and agents supporting host natural immunity (Interferons). Conclusion When taking into account the results of all the available laboratory and clinical trials on the subject, monoclonal antibodies seem to be the most effective treatment for COVID-19 at the moment, and high-titer convalescent plasma also could be effective when administered during the early phase of the disease. As lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, merimepodib, and umifenovir were found to be ineffective in RCTs, they should not be used. Additional studies are needed to define the role of remdesivir, favipiravir, interferons, ivermectin, dutasteride, proxulutamide, fluvoxamine, bromhexine, nitazoxanide, and niclosamid in the treatment of COVID-19. Finally, the results of phase trials are waited to learn whether or not the newer agents such as molnupiravir, PF-07321332, PF-07304814, plitidepsin and AT-527 are effective in the treatment of COVID-19.     

COVID-19 vaccines: Knowing the unknown

Vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 has drawn attention around the globe due to the exploding pandemic. Although COVID-19 is caused by a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, previous research on other coronavirus vaccines, such as FIPV, SARS, and MERS, has provided valuable information for the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccine. However, important knowledge gaps remain — some are specific to SARS-CoV-2, others are fundamental to immunology and vaccinology. Here, we discuss areas that need to be addressed for COVID-19 vaccine development, and what can be learned from examples of vaccine development in the past. Since the beginning of the outbreak, the research progress on COVID-19 has been remarkable. We are therefore optimistic about the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccine.     

Hepatic complications of COVID-19 and its treatment

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly contagious and has a variety of clinical manifestations, it can affect a number of other organs in addition to the lungs, and liver injury may occur. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can cause liver injury through systemic inflammatory response syndrome, cytokine storms, ischemia-reperfusion injury, side effects of treatment drugs, and underlying liver disease and can attack liver cells directly via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Clinical studies have found that liver injury in COVID-19 patients mainly manifests as abnormal liver biochemical indicators, but there have been no reports of liver failure caused by this disease. The number of COVID-19 patients with liver injury is increasing, and the incidence of liver injury in COVID-19 patients with severe disease are higher than in patients with mild disease. Liver injury may be a risk factor, which worsens in patients with COVID-19, and hence it is necessary to pay attention to the occurrence of liver injury in the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.     

Inflammation in COVID-19: from pathogenesis to treatment

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO). To date, there were > 163 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and the disease has claimed > 3.3 million lives globally. As with many other diseases, inflammation is a key feature of COVID-19. When inflammation is overwhelming, it may lead to unfavorable outcomes or even death. Scientists all over the world are working tirelessly in search of therapeutic strategies to suppress or modulate inflammation in COVID-19. This review gives an overview of the role of inflammation in COVID-19. It also critically examines the various treatment approaches that target the immune system and inflammation in COVID-19, as well as highlights the key findings in the numerous studies conducted thus far.     

Antibody responses in COVID-19 patients

Measuring virus-specific antibody responses to emerging pathogens is a well-established and highly useful tool to diagnose such infections, understand interactions between the immune system and pathogens, and provide potential clues for the development of vaccines or therapeutic agents against such pathogens. Since the beginning of 2020, the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 as the emerging virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic has provided new insight into the complexity of antibody responses to this dangerous virus. The current review aims to sort out diverse and sometimes seemingly confusing findings to put together a cohesive understanding on the profile of antibody responses elicited in COVID-19 patients.     

Critical role of the endogenous interferon ligand–receptors in type I and type II interferons response

Separate ligand–receptor paradigms are commonly used for each type of interferon (IFN). However, accumulating evidence suggests that type I and type II IFNs may not be restricted to independent pathways. Using different cell types deficient in IFNAR1, IFNAR2, IFNGR1, IFNGR2 and IFN‐γ, we evaluated the contribution of each element of the IFN system to the activity of type I and type II IFNs. We show that deficiency in IFNAR1 or IFNAR2 is associated with impairment of type II IFN activity. This impairment, presumably resulting from the disruption of the ligand–receptor complex, is obtained in all cell types tested. However, deficiency of IFNGR1, IFNGR2 or IFN‐γ was associated with an impairment of type I IFN activity in spleen cells only, correlating with the constitutive expression of type II IFN (IFN‐γ) observed on those cells. Therefore, in vitro the constitutive expression of both the receptors and the ligands of type I or type II IFN is critical for the enhancement of the IFN activity. Any IFN deficiency can totally or partially impair IFN activity, suggesting the importance of type I and type II IFN interactions. Taken together, our results suggest that type I and type II IFNs may regulate biological activities through distinct as well as common IFN receptor complexes.     

Neutralizing antibodies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) initiates the infection process by binding to the viral cellular receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 through the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the S1 subunit of the viral spike (S) protein. This event is followed by virus–cell membrane fusion mediated by the S2 subunit, which allows virus entry into the host cell. Therefore, the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is a key therapeutic target, and prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have focused on the development of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nAbs) that target this protein. In this review, we summarize the nAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2 proteins that have been developed to date, with a focus on the N-terminal domain and RBD of the S protein. We also describe the roles that binding affinity, neutralizing activity, and protection provided by these nAbs play in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and discuss the potential to improve nAb efficiency against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants. This review provides important information for the development of effective nAbs with broad-spectrum activity against current and future SARS-CoV-2 strains.     

Scientific evidence in the COVID-19 treatment: A comprehensive review

In December 2019, cases of unknown origin pneumonia appeared in Wuhan, China; the causal agent of this pneumonia was a new virus of the coronaviridae family called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). According to the clinical severity, symptoms and response to the different treatments, the evolution of the disease is divided in three phases. We analysed the most used treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 and the phase in which they are supposed to be effective. In the viral phase, remdesivir has demonstrated reduction in recovery time but no mortality reduction. Other drugs proposed for viral phase such as convalescent plasma and lopinavir/ritonavir did not demonstrate to be effective. In the inflammatory phase, corticosteroids demonstrated reduction of 28-d mortality in patients who needed oxygen, establishing that a corticosteroid regimen should be part of the standard treatment of critically ill patients. There are other immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments such as anakinra, sarilumab, tocilizumab, colchicine or baricitinib that are being studied. Other treatments that were proposed at the beginning, like hydroxichloroquine or azithromycin, demonstrated no efficacy and increased mortality when combined.     

Clinical Features of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the subjective and objective olfactory function in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and the effect of olfactory training.MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed in 53 patients who recovered from COVID-19 and visited our tertiary hospital. Subjective olfactory function was evaluated using the 11-point Likert scale (0–10) and the Korean version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD). Objective olfactory function was evaluated using Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT). Confirmed patients were followed up after 2 months of olfactory training.ResultsThe median, interquartile range (Q1–Q3) score of subjective olfactory function significantly deteriorated in patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) than in those without OD, even after 3 months of onset (11-point Likert scale, 8, 6–9 vs. 10, 10–10; short version of QOD-negative statements, 19, 16–21 vs. 21, 21–21; QOD-visual analogue scale, 7, 1–13 vs. 0, 0–0; all P < 0.001). However, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different between the two groups (median, interquartile range; 11, 9–11 vs. 11, 9–11, P = 0.887). The percentage of patients with objective hyposmia (CC-SIT ≤ 10) was also not significantly different (47.4% vs. 40%, P = 0.762). OD in COVID-19 was normalized after 2 months of olfactory training in 70% of patients even after 3 months of olfactory impairment.ConclusionAlthough subjective olfactory function is significantly decreased in the OD group, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different. Moreover, olfactory training is effective in COVID-19 patients with OD.     

Quercetin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently approved therapies for COVID-19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in-hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random-effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID-19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.     

Low-to-moderate dose corticosteroids treatment in hospitalized adults with COVID-19

ObjectivesUse of corticosteroids is common in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, but clinical effectiveness is controversial. We aimed to investigate the association of corticosteroids therapy with clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this single-centre, retrospective cohort study, adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 and dead or discharged between 29 December 2019 and 15 February 2020 were studied; 1:1 propensity score matchings were performed between patients with or without corticosteroid treatment. A multivariable COX proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality by taking corticosteroids as a time-varying covariate.ResultsAmong 646 patients, the in-hospital death rate was higher in 158 patients with corticosteroid administration (72/158, 45.6% vs. 56/488, 11.5%, p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching analysis, no significant differences were observed in in-hospital death between patients with and without corticosteroid treatment (47/124, 37.9% vs. 47/124, 37.9%, p 1.000). When patients received corticosteroids before they required nasal high-flow oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, the in-hospital death rate was lower than that in patients who were not administered corticosteroids (17/86, 19.8% vs. 26/86, 30.2%, log rank p 0.0102), whereas the time from admission to clinical improvement was longer (13 (IQR 10–17) days vs. 10 (IQR 8–13) days; p < 0.001). Using the Cox proportional hazards regression model accounting for time varying exposures in matched pairs, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with mortality difference (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93–1.03, p 0.4694).DiscussionCorticosteroids use in COVID-19 patients may not be associated with in-hospital mortality.     

Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience

Tocilizumab (TCZ), a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 (IL-6), emerged as an alternative treatment for COVID-19 patients with a risk of cytokine storms recently. In the present study, we aimed to discuss the treatment response of TCZ therapy in COVID-19 infected patients. The demographic, treatment, laboratory parameters of C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6 before and after TCZ therapy and clinical outcome in the 15 COVID-19 patients were retrospectively assessed. Totally 15 patients with COVID-19 were included in this study. Two of them were moderately ill, six were seriously ill and seven were critically ill. The TCZ was used in combination with methylprednisolone in eight patients. Five patients received the TCZ administration twice or more. Although TCZ treatment ameliorated the increased CRP in all patients rapidly, for the four critically ill patients who received an only single dose of TCZ, three of them (No. 1, 2, and 3) still dead and the CRP level in the rest one patient (No. 7) failed to return to normal range with a clinical outcome of disease aggravation. Serum IL-6 level tended to further spiked firstly and then decreased after TCZ therapy in 10 patients. A persistent and dramatic increase of IL-6 was observed in these four patients who failed treatment. TCZ appears to be an effective treatment option in COVID-19 patients with a risk of cytokine storms. And for these critically ill patients with elevated IL-6, the repeated dose of the TCZ is recommended.     

Diabetes and COVID-19 in Congolese patients

BackgroundThe global pandemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is reported to be potentially severe in patients with morbid conditions. One common reported comorbidities is diabetes. We aimed in this study to precise the clinical characteristics and outcomes in a series of congolese diabetic patients affected by COVID-19 infection.Patients and methodsWe retrospectely studied from 256 COVID-19 patients, a cohort of 30 persons with previously known diabetes. The glycaemia controls have been obtained by plasma glucose assay. All patients have been tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR method.ResultsThe COVID-19 diabetic patients represented 11,7% of all COVID-19 patients with confidence interval of 95% [7,77–15,65]. Older individuals and male sex were predominent. Dyspnea and sauration of oxygen < 90 were significatives and added risk factors were noted in 63.3% of patients, particulary hyperglycaemia with hypertension or obesity. The mortality rate at the percentage of 36.7% was more prevalent in patients with added comorbidities (30%) versus without comorbidities (6.7%).ConclusionCongolese COVID-19 diabetic patients of male sex and older age exhibiting arterial hypertension and obesity are the most exposed to severe COVID-19 and increasead mortality rate.     

Rates of COVID-19 Infection Among Healthcare Workers in Designated COVID-19 Wards and General Wards

BackgroundTo evaluate the effects of isolating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in general wards, we compared the rates of COVID-19 infection in nurses and nursing assistants working in COVID-19 designated wards and in general wards of our hospital from 1 October 2021 to 21 April 2022.MethodsThis study was conducted in a 2,700-bed tertiary care hospital in Seoul, Korea. Designated wards comprised single, negative pressure rooms and a 100% outdoor air system.ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 2,698 nurses and nursing assistants were employed at our hospital, of whom 310 (11%) were working in the designated wards, and the remaining 2,388 (89%) in the general wards, and among whom 1,158 (43%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The healthcare workers (HCWs) in the designated wards were less frequently diagnosed with COVID-19 than those in the general wards (31% vs. 45%, P < 0.001). During the period before patients with COVID-19 were isolated in general wards, and during the period after these cases were isolated in general ward, HCWs in designated wards were less frequently infected with the virus than those in general wards (7% vs. 11%, P = 0.039; and 23% vs. 33%, P < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionHCWs in designated wards have a lower rate of contracting COVID-19 than those in general wards. A lack of exposure to undiagnosed cases and their caregivers, greater care with social distancing outside the hospital, higher rates of 3-dose vaccinations, and the use of isolation rooms with negative pressure may be associated with this finding.     

Immunological map in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a newly discovered coronavirus that exhibits many similarities with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively). The definite pathogenesis and immunological influences of SARS-CoV-2 have not been fully elucidated. Therefore, we constructed a brief summary comparison of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV infections regarding their immunological changes. In addition, we further investigated the immunological differences between severe and nonsevere COVID-19 cases, and we searched for possible immunological predictors of the patient outcome by reviewing case series studies to date. Possible immunological predictors of a poor outcome are leukocytosis, neutrophilia, lymphopenia (both CD4 and CD8 T cells), an increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF-α), Th1 cytokines (IL-2 and IFN-γ), regulatory T cell cytokines (IL-10) and Th17 cytokines (IL-17). A more precise immunological map needs to be established, which may assist in diagnosing this disease and facilitate immunological precision medicine treatment.