Review of COVID-19 Antibody Therapies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chen J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8155790 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Review of COVID-19 Antibody Therapies.
Chen Jiahui J Gao Kaifu K Wang Rui R Nguyen Duc Duy DD Wei Guo-Wei GW
Annual review of biophysics 20201016
In the global health emergency caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), efficient and specific therapies are urgently needed. Compared with traditional small-molecular drugs, antibody therapies are relatively easy to develop; they are as specific as vaccines in targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); and they have thus attracted much attention in the past few months. This article reviews seven existing antibodies for neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 with 3D structure ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:There are numerous biological and small‐molecule therapies currently under investigation for the prevention and treatment of COVID‐19. This article focuses on antibody therapies that target the virus itself, including convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2, and discusses their efficacy in clinical trials and likely future role.
| S-EPMC9111079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).Study selectionTrials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.ResultsAs of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.ConclusionIn patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
| S-EPMC8459162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments used for mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. To date, there are few data summarizing real-world evidence comparing the 2 mAbs. Additionally, there are insufficient data to guide administration timing relative to symptom onset. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 30-day failure rates for each agent and to identify the relationship between symptom onset and efficacy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of a 6-month period at a large community medical center. Consecutive outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 disease by nasopharyngeal (NP) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing received either bamlanivimab 700 mg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg/1200 mg. Each patient was followed for a total of 30 days. Three independent, blinded physicians performed adjudication for revisit reasons. The primary outcome was therapy-related failure, defined as COVID-19-related hospital admission within 30 days of infusion. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders that may have influenced hospital admission in either group.ResultsDuring the period from November 2020 to May 2021, 183 patients were treated with bamlanivimab and 270 with casirivimab/imdevimab. The mean age was ~67 years and body mass index 30 kg/m2. Thirty-day admission for therapy-related failure rates were 4.8% and 13.7% for casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab, respectively (P = .001). No significant differences were found between early (<3 days of symptom onset) and late administration of either mAb.ConclusionsThere was a higher failure rate with bamlanivimab vs casirivimab/imdevimab. No difference in efficacy was found between early vs late administration of either mAb.
| S-EPMC8923391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19, the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2, requires urgent development of therapeutic interventions. Due to their safety, specificity, and potential for rapid advancement into the clinic, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a highly promising class of antiviral or anti-inflammatory agents. Herein, by analyzing prior efforts to advance antiviral mAbs for other acute respiratory infections (ARIs), we highlight the challenges faced by mAb-based immunotherapies for COVID-19. We present evidence supporting early intervention immediately following a positive diagnosis via inhaled delivery of mAbs with vibrating mesh nebulizers as a promising approach for the treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7836766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2019, the breakthrough of the coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), represented one of the major issues of our recent history. Different drugs have been tested to rapidly find effective anti-viral treatments and, among these, antiandrogens have been suggested to play a role in mediating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Considering the high heterogeneity of studies on this topic, we decided to review the current literature.MethodsWe performed a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was conducted on PUBMED and Medline. Only original articles published from March 2020 to 31 August 2023 investigating the possible protective role of antiandrogens were included. In vitro or preclinical studies and reports not in the English language were excluded. The main objective was to investigate how antiandrogens may interfere with COVID-19 outcomes.ResultsAmong 1755 records, we selected 31 studies, the majority of which consisted of retrospective clinical data collections and of randomized clinical trials during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsIn conclusion, we can state that antiandrogens do not seem to protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity and, thus, their use should not be encouraged in this field.
| S-EPMC10814161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfection with coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19 disease, leads to inflammation and a prothrombotic state.ObjectiveThis rapid systematic review aims to synthesize evidence on thromboembolism incidence and outcomes with antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Rapid Reviews, PROSPERO, and the WHO COVID-19 Database from January 1, 2003, to April 22, 2020, for studies meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria.Study selection, data extraction, and synthesisOne investigator identified articles for inclusion, abstracted data, and performed quality assessment, with second reviewer checking.ResultsIncidence of thromboembolism among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranged from 25 to 53% in 4 retrospective series. We identified 3 studies (1 retrospective cohort study, 1 prospective uncontrolled observational study, and 1 case series) examining outcomes among COVID-19 patients who received antithrombotic therapies. These studies all included different interventions (thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH); an intensive thromboprophylaxis protocol with LMWH, antithrombin, and clopidogrel; and salvage therapy with tissue plasminogen activator and heparin). These studies are overall poor quality due to methodological limitations including unclear patient selection protocols, lack of reporting or adjustment for patient baseline characteristics, inadequate duration of follow-up, and partial reporting of outcomes.ConclusionsNew evidence on thromboembolism in COVID-19 does not warrant a change in current guidance on thromboprophylaxis among hospitalized patients. Prospective trials of antithrombotic treatment strategies among patients with COVID-19 are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7299557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antibody therapeutics and vaccines are among our last resort to end the raging COVID-19 pandemic. They, however, are prone to over 5000 mutations on the spike (S) protein uncovered by a Mutation Tracker based on over 200 000 genome isolates. It is imperative to understand how mutations will impact vaccines and antibodies in development. In this work, we first study the mechanism, frequency, and ratio of mutations on the S protein which is the common target of most COVID-19 vaccines and antibody therapies. Additionally, we build a library of 56 antibody structures and analyze their 2D and 3D characteristics. Moreover, we predict the mutation-induced binding free energy (BFE) changes for the complexes of S protein and antibodies or ACE2. By integrating genetics, biophysics, deep learning, and algebraic topology, we reveal that most of the 462 mutations on the receptor-binding domain (RBD) will weaken the binding of S protein and antibodies and disrupt the efficacy and reliability of antibody therapies and vaccines. A list of 31 antibody disrupting mutants is identified, while many other disruptive mutations are detailed as well. We also unveil that about 65% of the existing RBD mutations, including those variants recently found in the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa, will strengthen the binding between the S protein and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), resulting in more infectious COVID-19 variants. We discover the disparity between the extreme values of RBD mutation-induced BFE strengthening and weakening of the bindings with antibodies and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 is at an advanced stage of evolution for human infection, while the human immune system is able to produce optimized antibodies. This discovery, unfortunately, implies the vulnerability of current vaccines and antibody drugs to new mutations. Our predictions were validated by comparison with more than 1400 deep mutations on the S protein RBD. Our results show the urgent need to develop new mutation-resistant vaccines and antibodies and to prepare for seasonal vaccinations.
| S-EPMC8153213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak emerged in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization officially declared it a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Reports indicated that the associated mortality of the infection is quite higher in the elderly, individuals with specific comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus), and generally the ones with a compromised immune system. A cohort study in Wuhan, China, reported a dysregulated immune response in 452 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. As a result of this suppressed immune response, an increase in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, T lymphopenia, and a decrease in CD4+ T cells were all common laboratory findings, especially in severe cases. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence of T cell exhaustion in critically ill patients. Accordingly, the immune system seems to play an important role in the prognosis and pathogenesis of the disease. Therefore, this study aims to review the evidence on the immune response dysregulation in COVID-19 infection and the potential role of immunoregulatory treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, interferons, and CD200 inhibitors in altering disease prognosis, especially in critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC9339106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.
| S-EPMC9489065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The urgent need for diagnostics and therapeutics against the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the great potential of antibodies, proteomics and metabolomics in this direction. Several clinical trials are underway using antibodies from COVID-19 patients that show very specific and strong binding to viral proteins leading to neutralization. On the other hand, proteomic and metabolomic profiles of COVID-19 patients present novel diagnostic biomarkers to predict patient outcomes and enable the development of personalized therapeutics to target the dysregulated pathways, as revealed by those profiles. Here, we discuss how studies based on antibodies, proteomics and metabolomics contribute to the development of diagnostics and therapeutics against COVID-19. The elegant technology can extend to high-throughput, rapid and reliable drug discovery strategies of the future. Lay abstract In order to prevent and treat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several groups around the world are focused on a detailed understanding of the biology of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the biological events occurring inside the patients and the response of the patients to the infection. SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Some of the approaches to combat the pandemic have provided important results that can help toward therapeutic developments against COVID-19. This review discusses three such areas – antibody treatment to prevent COVID-19 infection, analysis of changes in protein profiles of COVID-19 patients, and analysis of metabolism or energy-related changes in COVID-19 patients. Antibodies are molecules produced in the host’s body as a defense response to infection. Antibodies extracted from patients who recovered from COVID-19 have been used to successfully manufacture large amounts of antibodies to treat COVID-19 patients. The analysis of protein and metabolism profiles of COVID-19 patients has shown that several proteins and metabolism-related entities in the body are either upregulated or downregulated in COVID-19. These abnormal levels can either be attenuated by medical intervention or can be monitored as indicators of COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, antibodies, protein and metabolism profiles are three important tools, among several others, that are helpful in combating the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7714045 | biostudies-literature