Explore the vast range of titles available.

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive ( n  = 107) and PCR-negative ( n  = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON ® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.

An anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody cocktail was given to patients within 3 days after PCR confirmation of Covid-19. In patients who were antibody-negative at baseline, treatment was associated with rapid viral clearance and potentially with a less frequent need for medical attention. The effect was less marked among patients who were antibody-positive at baseline.

In a phase 2 trial, outpatients with Covid-19 who received a single infusion of a 2800-mg dose of the neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 had a greater reduction from baseline in viral load than those who received placebo. Hospitalization was less frequent among antibody-treated patients (1.6% vs. 6.3%).

Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications. In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580. The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI −0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI −1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19. Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK. UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Oral outpatient treatment for Covid-19 is needed. In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, molnupiravir, a small-molecule antiviral, was studied in unvaccinated patients with less than 5 days of Covid-19 illness. By day 29, hospitalization for progression of Covid-19 was lower with molnupiravir (6.8%) than with placebo (9.7%).

Rapid increases in cases of COVID-19 were observed in multiple cities in Iran towards the start of the pandemic. However, the true infection rate remains unknown. We aimed to assess the seroprevalence of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 18 cities of Iran as an indicator of the infection rate. In this population-based cross-sectional study, we randomly selected and invited study participants from the general population (from lists of people registered with the Iranian electronic health record system or health-care centres) and a high-risk population of individuals likely to have close social contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals through their occupation (from employee lists provided by relevant agencies or companies, such as supermarket chains) across 18 cities in 17 Iranian provinces. Participants were asked questions on their demographic characteristics, medical history, recent COVID-19-related symptoms, and COVID-19-related exposures. Iran Food and Drug Administration-approved Pishtaz Teb SARS-CoV-2 ELISA kits were used to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgM antibodies in blood samples from participants. Seroprevalence was estimated on the basis of ELISA test results and adjusted for population weighting (by age, sex, and city population size) and test performance (according to our independent validation of sensitivity and specificity). From 9181 individuals who were initially contacted between April 17 and June 2, 2020, 243 individuals refused to provide blood samples and 36 did not provide demographic information and were excluded from the analysis. Among the 8902 individuals included in the analysis, 5372 had occupations with a high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and 3530 were recruited from the general population. The overall population weight-adjusted and test performance-adjusted prevalence of antibody seropositivity in the general population was 17·1% (95% CI 14·6–19·5), implying that 4 265 542 (95% CI 3 659 043–4 887 078) individuals from the 18 cities included were infected by the end of April, 2020. The adjusted seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies varied greatly by city, with the highest estimates found in Rasht (72·6% [53·9–92·8]) and Qom (58·5% [37·2–83·9]). The overall population weight-adjusted and test performance-adjusted seroprevalence in the high-risk population was 20·0% (18·5–21·7) and showed little variation between the occupations included. Seroprevalence is likely to be much higher than the reported prevalence of COVID-19 based on confirmed COVID-19 cases in Iran. Despite high seroprevalence in a few cities, a large proportion of the population is still uninfected. The potential shortcomings of current public health policies should therefore be identified to prevent future epidemic waves in Iran. Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education. For the Farsi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

In a phase 3 trial involving 1035 outpatients who were at increased risk for severe Covid-19, those who received two monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 had a significant reduction in the viral load and a significantly lower incidence of progression to severe illness than those who received placebo.

Early increase of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels is indicative of increased risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to respiratory failure. The SAVE-MORE double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of anakinra, an IL-1α/β inhibitor, in 594 patients with COVID-19 at risk of progressing to respiratory failure as identified by plasma suPAR ≥6 ng ml −1 , 85.9% ( n  = 510) of whom were receiving dexamethasone. At day 28, the adjusted proportional odds of having a worse clinical status (assessed by the 11-point World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS)) with anakinra, as compared to placebo, was 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.26–0.50). The median WHO-CPS decrease on day 28 from baseline in the placebo and anakinra groups was 3 and 4 points, respectively (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, P  < 0.0001); the respective median decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 7 from baseline was 0 and 1 points (OR = 0.63, P = 0.004). Twenty-eight-day mortality decreased (hazard ratio = 0.45, P = 0.045), and hospital stay was shorter. The SAVE-MORE phase 3 study demonstrates the efficacy of anakinra, an IL-1α/β inhibitor, in patients with COVID-19 and high serum levels of soluble plasminogen activator receptor.

Type 1 Interferons (IFNs) have been associated with positive effects on Coronaviruses. Previous studies point towards the superior potency of IFNβ compared to IFNα against viral infections. We conducted a three-armed, individually-randomized, open-label, controlled trial of IFNβ1a and IFNβ1b, comparing them against each other and a control group. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to IFNβ1a (subcutaneous injections of 12,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), IFNβ1b (subcutaneous injections of 8,000,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), or the control group. All three arms orally received Lopinavir/Ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice a day for ten days) and a single dose of Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg on the first day. Our utilized primary outcome measure was Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI) defined as the time from enrollment to discharge or a decline of two steps on the clinical seven-step ordinal scale, whichsoever came first. A total of 60 severely ill patients with positive RT-PCR and Chest CT scans underwent randomization (20 patients to each arm). In the Intention-To-Treat population, IFNβ1a was associated with a significant difference against the control group, in the TTCI; (HR; 2.36, 95% CI 1.10–5.17, P-value = 0.031) while the IFNβ1b indicated no significant difference compared with the control; HR; 1.42, (95% CI 0.63–3.16, P-value = 0.395). The median TTCI for both of the intervention groups was five days vs. seven days for the control group. The mortality was numerically lower in both of the intervention groups (20% in the IFNβ1a group and 30% in the IFNβ1b group vs. 45% in the control group). There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding the adverse events. In patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared with the base therapeutic regiment, the benefit of a significant reduction in TTCI was observed in the IFNβ1a arm. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04343768. (Submitted: 08/04/2020; First Online: 13/04/2020) (Registration Number: NCT04343768).