Explore the vast range of titles available.

Key Points Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) are examples of emerging zoonotic coronavirus infections capable of person-to-person transmission that result in large-scale epidemics with substantial effects on patient health and socioeconomic factors. Unlike patients with mild illnesses that are caused by other human-pathogenic coronaviruses, patients with SARS or MERS coronavirus infections may develop severe acute respiratory disease with multi-organ failure. The case–fatality rates of SARS and MERS are approximately 10% and 35%, respectively. Both SARS and MERS pose major clinical management challenges because there is no specific antiviral treatment that has been proven to be effective in randomized clinical trials for either infection. Substantial efforts are underway to discover new therapeutic agents for coronavirus infections. Virus-based therapies include monoclonal antibodies and antiviral peptides that target the viral spike glycoprotein, viral enzyme inhibitors, viral nucleic acid synthesis inhibitors and inhibitors of other viral structural and accessory proteins. Host-based therapies include agents that potentiate the interferon response or affect either host signalling pathways involved in viral replication or host factors utilized by coronaviruses for viral replication. The major challenges in the clinical development of novel anti-coronavirus drugs include the limited number of suitable animal models for the evaluation of potential treatments for SARS and MERS, the current absence of new SARS cases, the limited number of MERS cases — which are also predominantly geographically confined to the Middle East — as well as the lack of industrial incentives to develop antivirals for mild infections caused by other, less pathogenic coronaviruses. The continuing threat of MERS-CoV to global health 3 years after its discovery presents a golden opportunity to tackle current obstacles in the development of new anti-coronavirus drugs. A well-organized, multidisciplinary, international collaborative network consisting of clinicians, virologists and drug developers, coupled to political commitment, should be formed to carry out clinical trials using anti-coronavirus drugs that have already been shown to be safe and effective in vitro and/or in animal models, particularly lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon beta-1b and monoclonal antibodies and antiviral peptides targeting the viral spike glycoprotein. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which are caused by coronaviruses, have attracted substantial attention owing to their high mortality rates and potential to cause epidemics. Yuen and colleagues discuss progress with treatment options for these syndromes, including virus- and host-targeted drugs, and the challenges that need to be overcome in their further development. In humans, infections with the human coronavirus (HCoV) strains HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 usually result in mild, self-limiting upper respiratory tract infections, such as the common cold. By contrast, the CoVs responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which were discovered in Hong Kong, China, in 2003, and in Saudi Arabia in 2012, respectively, have received global attention over the past 12 years owing to their ability to cause community and health-care-associated outbreaks of severe infections in human populations. These two viruses pose major challenges to clinical management because there are no specific antiviral drugs available. In this Review, we summarize the epidemiology, virology, clinical features and current treatment strategies of SARS and MERS, and discuss the discovery and development of new virus-based and host-based therapeutic options for CoV infections.

The epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) had a significant effect on global society in the early 2000s and the potential of its resurgence exists. Studies on the modes of transmission of SARS are limited though a number of outbreak studies have revealed the possible airborne route. To develop more specific and effective control strategies, we conducted a detailed mechanism-based investigation that explored the role of fomite transmission in the well-known Ward 8A outbreak. We considered three hypothetical transmission routes, i.e., the long-range airborne, fomite and combined routes, in 1,744 scenarios with combinations of some important parameters. A multi-agent model was used to predict the infection risk distributions of the three hypothetical routes. Model selection was carried out for different scenarios to compare the distributions of infection risk with that of the reported attack rates and select the hypotheses with the best fitness. Our results reveal that under the assumed conditions, the SARS coronavirus was most possible to have spread via the combined long-range airborne and fomite routes, and that the fomite route played a non-negligible role in the transmission.

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a highly lethal respiratory disease caused by a novel single-stranded, positive-sense RNA betacoronavirus (MERS-CoV). Dromedary camels, hosts for MERS-CoV, are implicated in direct or indirect transmission to human beings, although the exact mode of transmission is unknown. The virus was first isolated from a patient who died from a severe respiratory illness in June, 2012, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. As of May 31, 2015, 1180 laboratory-confirmed cases (483 deaths; 40% mortality) have been reported to WHO. Both community-acquired and hospital-acquired cases have been reported with little human-to-human transmission reported in the community. Although most cases of MERS have occurred in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, cases have been reported in Europe, the USA, and Asia in people who travelled from the Middle East or their contacts. Clinical features of MERS range from asymptomatic or mild disease to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure resulting in death, especially in individuals with underlying comorbidities. No specific drug treatment exists for MERS and infection prevention and control measures are crucial to prevent spread in health-care facilities. MERS-CoV continues to be an endemic, low-level public health threat. However, the virus could mutate to have increased interhuman transmissibility, increasing its pandemic potential.

The Omicron variant is rapidly becoming the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating globally. It is important to define reductions in virus neutralizing activity in the serum of convalescent or vaccinated individuals to understand potential loss of protection against infection by Omicron. We previously established that a 50% plaque reduction neutralization antibody titer (PRNT 50 ) ≥25.6 in our live virus assay corresponded to the threshold for 50% protection from infection against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Here we show markedly reduced serum antibody titers against the Omicron variant (geometric mean titer (GMT) < 10) compared to WT virus 3–5 weeks after two doses of BNT162b2 (GMT = 218.8) or CoronaVac vaccine (GMT = 32.5). A BNT162b2 booster dose elicited Omicron PRNT 50 titers ≥25.6 in 88% of individuals (22 of 25) who previously received 2 doses of BNT162b2 and 80% of individuals (24 of 30) who previously received CoronaVac. However, few (3%) previously infected individuals (1 of 30) or those vaccinated with three doses of CoronaVac (1 of 30) met this threshold. Our findings suggest that countries primarily using CoronaVac vaccines should consider messenger RNA vaccine boosters in response to the spread of Omicron. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of different vaccines against the Omicron variant are urgently needed. Serum neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant markedly increase after a third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in individuals who previously received either two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic poses the greatest global public health challenge in a century. Neutralizing antibody is a correlate of protection and data on kinetics of virus neutralizing antibody responses are needed. We tested 293 sera from an observational cohort of 195 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections collected from 0 to 209 days after onset of symptoms. Of 115 sera collected ≥61 days after onset of illness tested using plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) assays, 99.1% remained seropositive for both 90% (PRNT 90 ) and 50% (PRNT 50 ) neutralization endpoints. We estimate that it takes at least 372, 416 and 133 days for PRNT 50 titres to drop to the detection limit of a titre of 1:10 for severe, mild and asymptomatic patients, respectively. At day 90 after onset of symptoms (or initial RT-PCR detection in asymptomatic infections), it took 69, 87 and 31 days for PRNT 50 antibody titres to decrease by half (T 1/2 ) in severe, mild and asymptomatic infections, respectively. Patients with severe disease had higher peak PRNT 90 and PRNT 50 antibody titres than patients with mild or asymptomatic infections. Age did not appear to compromise antibody responses, even after accounting for severity. We conclude that SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits robust neutralizing antibody titres in most individuals. Here, the authors perform plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) assays quantitating SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies from 195 patients in different disease states and find that patients with severe disease exhibit higher peaks of neutralizing antibody titres than patients with mild or asymptomatic infections and that serum neutralizing antibody persists for over 6 months in most people.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has demonstrated enhanced transmissibility and escape of vaccine-derived immunity. Although first-generation vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death, robust evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against all Omicron infections, irrespective of symptoms, remains sparse. We used a community-wide serosurvey with 5,310 subjects to estimate how vaccination histories modulated risk of infection in infection-naive Hong Kong during a large wave of Omicron BA.2 epidemic in January–July 2022. We estimated that Omicron infected 45% (41–48%) of the local population. Three and four doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were effective against Omicron infection 7 days after vaccination (VE of 48% (95% credible interval 34–64%) and 69% (46–98%) for three and four doses of BNT162b2, respectively; VE of 30% (1–66%) and 56% (6–97%) for three and four doses of CoronaVac, respectively). At 100 days after immunization, VE waned to 26% (7–41%) and 35% (10–71%) for three and four doses of BNT162b2, and to 6% (0–29%) and 11% (0–54%) for three and four doses of CoronaVac. The rapid waning of VE against infection conferred by first-generation vaccines and an increasingly complex viral evolutionary landscape highlight the necessity for rapidly deploying updated vaccines followed by vigilant monitoring of VE. An analysis of sera samples collected between January and July of 2022 in Hong Kong shows that the effectiveness of both the BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 variant infection waned rapidly after the third and fourth doses.

PurposeWe conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.SourceLiterature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.Principal findingsNo eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

During the major outbreak of SARS-CoV infection in 2003, a randomized controlled trial showed that early use of hydrocortisone was associated with a higher plasma SARS-CoV viral load with delayed viral clearance compared with a control group that received normal saline (6).In patients hospitalized with influenza A (H7N9) viral pneumonia in China, an observational study has shown that high-dose corticosteroid therapy (defined as .150 mg/d methylprednisolone equivalent) was associated with increased risks in 30-day mortality (38.5% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.021) and 60-day mortality (50% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.022) and longer viral shedding (15 vs. 13 d, P = 0.039), whereas there was no difference between low-dose (25-150 mg/d methylprednisolone) and control subjects (8).[...]in a subgroup analysis among patients with PaO2/FIO2, 300 mm Hg, low to moderate dose of corticosteroid treatment (equivalent to 25-150 mg/d of methylprednisolone) significantly decreased both 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77) and 60-day mortality (aHR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78), whereas high-dose (.150 mg/d) corticosteroid therapy yielded no difference (9).More clinical studies, preferably with a randomized controlled trial design with a standardized treatment and serial viral sampling protocol, are needed to evaluate more scientifically the role of interferon, lopinavir, passive immunotherapy such as monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies, and systemic corticosteroids in the clinical management of MERS-CoV infection. n Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org.

In this study, researchers describe the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in a selected cohort of 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed disease throughout mainland China during the first 2 months of the current outbreak.