Explore the vast range of titles available.

The SARS outbreak of 2002-2003 presented clinicians with a new, life-threatening disease for which they had no experience in treating and no research on the effectiveness of treatment options. The World Health Organization (WHO) expert panel on SARS treatment requested a systematic review and comprehensive summary of treatments used for SARS-infected patients in order to guide future treatment and identify priorities for research. In response to the WHO request we conducted a systematic review of the published literature on ribavirin, corticosteroids, lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r), type I interferon (IFN), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and SARS convalescent plasma from both in vitro studies and in SARS patients. We also searched for clinical trial evidence of treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sources of data were the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to February 2005. Data from publications were extracted and evidence within studies was classified using predefined criteria. In total, 54 SARS treatment studies, 15 in vitro studies, and three acute respiratory distress syndrome studies met our inclusion criteria. Within in vitro studies, ribavirin, lopinavir, and type I IFN showed inhibition of SARS-CoV in tissue culture. In SARS-infected patient reports on ribavirin, 26 studies were classified as inconclusive, and four showed possible harm. Seven studies of convalescent plasma or IVIG, three of IFN type I, and two of LPV/r were inconclusive. In 29 studies of steroid use, 25 were inconclusive and four were classified as causing possible harm. Despite an extensive literature reporting on SARS treatments, it was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak. Some may have been harmful. Clinical trials should be designed to validate a standard protocol for dosage and timing, and to accrue data in real time during future outbreaks to monitor specific adverse effects and help inform treatment.

After the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in the world in 2003, human coronaviruses (HCoVs) have been reported as pathogens that cause severe symptoms in respiratory tract infections. Recently, a new emerged HCoV isolated from the respiratory epithelium of unexplained pneumonia patients in the Wuhan seafood market caused a major disease outbreak and has been named the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus causes acute lung symptoms, leading to a condition that has been named as “coronavirus disease 2019” (COVID-19). The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and of SARS-CoV caused widespread fear and concern and has threatened global health security. There are some similarities and differences in the epidemiology and clinical features between these two viruses and diseases that are caused by these viruses. The goal of this work is to systematically review and compare between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in the context of their virus incubation, originations, diagnosis and treatment methods, genomic and proteomic sequences, and pathogenic mechanisms.

Inflammatory cardiomyopathy, characterized by inflammatory cell infiltration into the myocardium and a high risk of deteriorating cardiac function, has a heterogeneous aetiology. Inflammatory cardiomyopathy is predominantly mediated by viral infection, but can also be induced by bacterial, protozoal or fungal infections as well as a wide variety of toxic substances and drugs and systemic immune-mediated diseases. Despite extensive research, inflammatory cardiomyopathy complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure or arrhythmia is associated with a poor prognosis. At present, the reason why some patients recover without residual myocardial injury whereas others develop dilated cardiomyopathy is unclear. The relative roles of the pathogen, host genomics and environmental factors in disease progression and healing are still under discussion, including which viruses are active inducers and which are only bystanders. As a consequence, treatment strategies are not well established. In this Review, we summarize and evaluate the available evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of myocarditis and inflammatory cardiomyopathy, with a special focus on virus-induced and virus-associated myocarditis. Furthermore, we identify knowledge gaps, appraise the available experimental models and propose future directions for the field. The current knowledge and open questions regarding the cardiovascular effects associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are also discussed. This Review is the result of scientific cooperation of members of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society.In this Review, Tschöpe and colleagues summarize and evaluate the available evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of myocarditis and inflammatory cardiomyopathy, with special focus on virus-induced and virus-associated myocarditis. The authors also identify knowledge gaps, appraise available experimental models and propose future directions for the field.

Experimental animal data show that protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection with human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is feasible. For an effective immune prophylaxis in humans, broad coverage of different strains of SARS-CoV and control of potential neutralization escape variants will be required. Combinations of virus-neutralizing, noncompeting mAbs may have these properties. Human mAb CR3014 has been shown to completely prevent lung pathology and abolish pharyngeal shedding of SARS-CoV in infected ferrets. We generated in vitro SARS-CoV variants escaping neutralization by CR3014, which all had a single P462L mutation in the glycoprotein spike (S) of the escape virus. In vitro experiments confirmed that binding of CR3014 to a recombinant S fragment (amino acid residues 318-510) harboring this mutation was abolished. We therefore screened an antibody-phage library derived from blood of a convalescent SARS patient for antibodies complementary to CR3014. A novel mAb, CR3022, was identified that neutralized CR3014 escape viruses, did not compete with CR3014 for binding to recombinant S1 fragments, and bound to S1 fragments derived from the civet cat SARS-CoV-like strain SZ3. No escape variants could be generated with CR3022. The mixture of both mAbs showed neutralization of SARS-CoV in a synergistic fashion by recognizing different epitopes on the receptor-binding domain. Dose reduction indices of 4.5 and 20.5 were observed for CR3014 and CR3022, respectively, at 100% neutralization. Because enhancement of SARS-CoV infection by subneutralizing antibody concentrations is of concern, we show here that anti-SARS-CoV antibodies do not convert the abortive infection of primary human macrophages by SARS-CoV into a productive one. The combination of two noncompeting human mAbs CR3014 and CR3022 potentially controls immune escape and extends the breadth of protection. At the same time, synergy between CR3014 and CR3022 may allow for a lower total antibody dose to be administered for passive immune prophylaxis of SARS-CoV infection.

Most SARS-CoV2 infections will not develop into severe COVID-19. However, in some patients, lung infection leads to the activation of alveolar macrophages and lung epithelial cells that will release proinflammatory cytokines. IL-6, TNF, and IL-1β increase expression of cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) and VEGF, thereby increasing permeability of the lung endothelium and reducing barrier protection, allowing viral dissemination and infiltration of neutrophils and inflammatory monocytes. In the blood, these cytokines will stimulate the bone marrow to produce and release immature granulocytes, that return to the lung and further increase inflammation, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This lung-systemic loop leads to cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). Concurrently, the acute phase response increases the production of platelets, fibrinogen and other pro-thrombotic factors. Systemic decrease in ACE2 function impacts the Renin-Angiotensin-Kallikrein-Kinin systems (RAS-KKS) increasing clotting. The combination of acute lung injury with RAS-KKS unbalance is herein called COVID-19 Associated Lung Injury (CALI). This conservative two-hit model of systemic inflammation due to the lung injury allows new intervention windows and is more consistent with the current knowledge.

After the 1918 flu pandemic, the world is again facing a similar situation. However, the advancement in medical science has made it possible to identify that the novel infectious agent is from the coronavirus family. Rapid genome sequencing by various groups helped in identifying the structure and function of the virus, its immunogenicity in diverse populations, and potential preventive measures. Coronavirus attacks the respiratory system, causing pneumonia and lymphopenia in infected individuals. Viral components like spike and nucleocapsid proteins trigger an immune response in the host to eliminate the virus. These viral antigens can be either recognized by the B cells or presented by MHC complexes to the T cells, resulting in antibody production, increased cytokine secretion, and cytolytic activity in the acute phase of infection. Genetic polymorphism in MHC enables it to present some of the T cell epitopes very well over the other MHC alleles. The association of MHC alleles and its downregulated expression has been correlated with disease severity against influenza and coronaviruses. Studies have reported that infected individuals can, after recovery, induce strong protective responses by generating a memory T-cell pool against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. These memory T cells were not persistent in the long term and, upon reactivation, caused local damage due to cross-reactivity. So far, the reports suggest that SARS-CoV-2, which is highly contagious, shows related symptoms in three different stages and develops an exhaustive T-cell pool at higher loads of viral infection. As there are no specific treatments available for this novel coronavirus, numerous small molecular drugs that are being used for the treatment of diseases like SARS, MERS, HIV, ebola, malaria, and tuberculosis are being given to COVID-19 patients, and clinical trials for many such drugs have already begun. A classical immunotherapy of convalescent plasma transfusion from recovered patients has also been initiated for the neutralization of viremia in terminally ill COVID-19 patients. Due to the limitations of plasma transfusion, researchers are now focusing on developing neutralizing antibodies against virus particles along with immuno-modulation of cytokines like IL-6, Type I interferons (IFNs), and TNF-α that could help in combating the infection. This review highlights the similarities of the coronaviruses that caused SARS and MERS to the novel SARS-CoV-2 in relation to their pathogenicity and immunogenicity and also focuses on various treatment strategies that could be employed for curing COVID-19.

Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has presently become a rapidly spreading and devastating global pandemic. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) may serve as life-saving rescue therapy for refractory respiratory failure in the setting of acute respiratory compromise such as that induced by SARS-CoV-2. While still little is known on the true efficacy of ECMO in this setting, the natural resemblance of seasonal influenza’s characteristics with respect to acute onset, initial symptoms, and some complications prompt to ECMO implantation in most severe, pulmonary decompensated patients. The present review summarizes the evidence on ECMO management of severe ARDS in light of recent COVID-19 pandemic, at the same time focusing on differences and similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and ECMO in terms of hematological and inflammatory interplay when these two settings merge.

ObjectivesCOVID-19 causes lung parenchymal and endothelial damage that lead to hypoxic acute respiratory failure (hARF). The influence of hARF severity on patients’ outcomes is still poorly understood.DesignObservational, prospective, multicentre study.SettingThree academic hospitals in Milan (Italy) involving three respiratory high dependency units and three general wards.ParticipantsConsecutive adult hospitalised patients with a virologically confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Patients aged <18 years or unable to provide informed consent were excluded.InterventionsAnthropometrical, clinical characteristics and blood biomarkers were assessed within the first 24 hours from admission. hARF was graded as follows: severe (partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) <100 mm Hg); moderate (PaO2/FiO2 101–200 mm Hg); mild (PaO2/FiO2 201–300 mm Hg) and normal (PaO2/FiO2 >300 mm Hg).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the assessment of clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality based on the severity of respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate and application of continuous positive airway pressure during hospital stay.Results412 patients were enrolled (280 males, 68%). Median (IQR) age was 66 (55–76) years with a PaO2/FiO2 at admission of 262 (140–343) mm Hg. 50.2% had a cardiovascular disease. Prevalence of mild, moderate and severe hARF was 24.4%, 21.9% and 15.5%, respectively. In-hospital mortality proportionally increased with increasing impairment of gas exchange (p<0.001). The only independent risk factors for mortality were age ≥65 years (HR 3.41; 95% CI 2.00 to 5.78, p<0.0001), PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤200 mm Hg (HR 3.57; 95% CI 2.20 to 5.77, p<0.0001) and respiratory failure at admission (HR 3.58; 95% CI 1.05 to 12.18, p=0.04).ConclusionsA moderate-to-severe impairment in PaO2/FiO2 was independently associated with a threefold increase in risk of in-hospital mortality. Severity of respiratory failure is useful to identify patients at higher risk of mortality.Trial registration numberNCT04307459

With the expanding use of molecular assays, viral pathogens are increasingly recognized among critically ill adult patients with community-acquired severe respiratory illness; studies have detected respiratory viral infections (RVIs) in 17–53% of such patients. In addition, novel pathogens including zoonotic coronaviruses like the agents causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019 nCoV) are still being identified. Patients with severe RVIs requiring ICU care present typically with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Oseltamivir is the most widely used neuraminidase inhibitor for treatment of influenza; data suggest that early use is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients with influenza. At present, there are no antiviral therapies of proven efficacy for other severe RVIs. Several adjunctive pharmacologic interventions have been studied for their immunomodulatory effects, including macrolides, corticosteroids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, sirolimus, statins, anti-influenza immune plasma, and vitamin C, but none is recommended at present in severe RVIs. Evidence-based supportive care is the mainstay for management of severe respiratory viral infection. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with severe RVI causing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and pneumonia is associated with a high likelihood of transition to invasive ventilation. Limited existing knowledge highlights the need for data regarding supportive care and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy that is specific for critically ill patients with severe RVI. There is a need for more pragmatic and efficient designs to test different therapeutics both individually and in combination.

Key Points This Review provides an overview on the spike (S) protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) as a target for the development of vaccines and therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of SARS. SARS is a newly emerging infectious disease, caused by SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus that caused a global outbreak of SARS. SARS-CoV S protein mediates binding of the virus with its receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and promotes the fusion between the viral and host cell membranes and virus entry into the host cell. SARS-CoV S protein induces humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV. SARS S protein is the target of new SARS vaccines. These vaccines are based on SARS-CoV full-length S protein and its receptor-binding domain, including DNA-, viral vector- and subunit-based vaccines Peptides, antibodies, organic compounds and short interfering RNAs are additional anti-SARS-CoV therapeutics that target the S protein. The work on SARS-CoV S protein-based vaccines and drugs will be useful as a model for the development of prophylactic strategies and therapies against other viruses with class I fusion proteins that can cause emerging infectious diseases. The outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) between 2002 and 2004 killed hundreds of people. Vaccines against the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) could protect the population during future outbreaks. In this Review, Shibo Jiang and colleagues describe such vaccines, as well as other therapeutics, based on the SARS-CoV spike protein. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a newly emerging infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV). The SARS-CoV spike (S) protein is composed of two subunits; the S1 subunit contains a receptor-binding domain that engages with the host cell receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and the S2 subunit mediates fusion between the viral and host cell membranes. The S protein plays key parts in the induction of neutralizing-antibody and T-cell responses, as well as protective immunity, during infection with SARS-CoV. In this Review, we highlight recent advances in the development of vaccines and therapeutics based on the S protein.