A systematic scoping review of the neurological effects of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The global coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began in early 2020, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In mid-2020 the CIAO (Modelling the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 Using the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework) project was established, bringing together over 75 interdisciplinary scientists worldwide to collaboratively investigate the underlying biological mechanisms of COVID-19 and consolidate the data using the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Framework. Neurological symptoms such as anosmia and encephalitis have been frequently reported to be associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: Within CIAO, a working group was formed to conduct a systematic scoping review of COVID-19 and its related neurological symptoms to determine which key events and modulating factors are most commonly reported and to identify knowledge gaps. DESIGN: LitCOVID was used to retrieve 86,075 papers of which 10,244 contained relevant keywords. After title and abstract screening, 2,328 remained and their full texts were reviewed based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 991 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were retrieved to conduct knowledge synthesis. RESULTS: The majority of publications reported human observational studies. Early key events were less likely to be reported compared to middle and late key events/adverse outcomes. The majority of modulating factors described related to age or sex. Less recognised COVID-19 associated AO or neurological effects of COVID-19 were also identified including multiple sclerosis/demyelination, neurodegeneration/cognitive effects and peripheral neuronal effects. CONCLUSION: There were many methodological and reporting issues noted in the reviewed studies. In particular, publication abstracts would benefit from clearer reporting of the methods and endpoints used and the key findings, to ensure relevant papers are included when systematic reviews are conducted. The information extracted from the scoping review may be useful in understanding the mechanisms of neurological effects of COVID-19 and to further develop or support existing AOPs linking COVID-19 and its neurological key events and adverse outcomes. Further evaluation of the less recognised COVID-19 effects is needed.

Performance of preclinical models in predicting drug-induced liver injury in humans: a systematic review.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) causes one in three market withdrawals due to adverse drug reactions, causing preventable human suffering and massive financial loss. We applied evidence-based methods to investigate the role of preclinical studies in predicting human DILI using two anti-diabetic drugs from the same class, but with different toxicological profiles: troglitazone (withdrawn from US market due to DILI) and rosiglitazone (remains on US market). Evidence Stream 1: A systematic literature review of in vivo studies on rosiglitazone or troglitazone was conducted (PROSPERO registration CRD42018112353). Evidence Stream 2: in vitro data on troglitazone and rosiglitazone were retrieved from the US EPA ToxCast database. Evidence Stream 3: troglitazone- and rosiglitazone-related DILI cases were retrieved from WHO Vigibase. All three evidence stream analyses were conducted according to evidence-based methodologies and performed according to pre-registered protocols. Evidence Stream 1: 9288 references were identified, with 42 studies included in analysis. No reported biomarker for either drug indicated a strong hazard signal in either preclinical animal or human studies. All included studies had substantial limitations, resulting in "low" or "very low" certainty in findings. Evidence Stream 2: Troglitazone was active in twice as many in vitro assays (129) as rosiglitazone (60), indicating a strong signal for more off-target effects. Evidence Stream 3: We observed a fivefold difference in both all adverse events and liver-related adverse events reported, and an eightfold difference in fatalities for troglitazone, compared to rosiglitazone. In summary, published animal and human trials failed to predict troglitazone's potential to cause severe liver injury in a wider patient population, while in vitro data showed marked differences in the two drugs' off-target activities, offering a new paradigm for reducing drug attrition in late development and in the market. This investigation concludes that death and disability due to adverse drug reactions may be prevented if mechanistic information is deployed at early stages of drug development by pharmaceutical companies and is considered by regulators as a part of regulatory submissions.

Understanding COVID-19 through adverse outcome pathways - 2nd CIAO AOP Design Workshop.

The CIAO project (Modelling the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 using the Adverse Outcome Pathway framework) aims at a holistic assembly of knowledge to deliver a truly transdisciplinary description of the entire COVID-19 physiopathology starting with the initial contact with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ending with one or several adverse outcomes, e.g., respiratory failure. On 27-28 January 2021, a group of 50+ scientists from numerous organizations around the world met in the 2nd CIAO AOP Design Workshop to discuss the depiction of the COVID-19 disease process as a series of key events (KEs) in a network of AOPs. During the workshop, 74 such KEs forming 13 AOPs were identified, covering COVID-19 manifestations that affect the respiratory, neurological, liver, cardiovascular, kidney and gastrointestinal systems. Modulating factors influencing the course and severity of the disease were also addressed, as was a possible extension of the investigations beyond purely biological phenomena. The workshop ended with the creation of seven working groups, which will further elaborate on the AOPs to be presented and discussed in the 3rd CIAO workshop on 28-29 April 2021.

Are researchers moving away from animal models as a result of poor clinical translation in the field of stroke? An analysis of opinion papers.

OBJECTIVES: Despite decades of research using animals to develop pharmaceutical treatments for patients who have had a stroke, few therapeutic options exist. The vast majority of interventions successful in preclinical animal studies have turned out to have no efficacy in humans or to be harmful to humans. In view of this, we explore whether there is evidence of a move away from animal models in this field. METHODS: We used an innovative methodology, the analysis of opinion papers. Although we took a systematic approach to literature searching and data extraction, this is not a systematic review because the study involves the synthesis of opinions, not research evidence. Data were extracted from retrieved papers in chronological order and analysed qualitatively and descriptively. RESULTS: Eighty eligible papers, published between 1979 and 2018, were identified. Most authors were from academic departments of neurology, neuroscience or stroke research. Authors agreed that translational stroke research was in crisis. They held diverse views about the causes of this crisis, most of which did not fundamentally challenge the use of animal models. Some, however, attributed the translational crisis to animal-human species differences and one to a lack of human in vitro models. Most of the proposed solutions involved fine-tuning animal models, but authors disagreed about whether such modifications would improve translation. A minority suggested using human in vitro methods alongside animal models. One proposed focusing only on human in vitro methods. CONCLUSION: Despite recognising that animal models have been unsuccessful in the field of stroke, most researchers exhibited a strong resistance to relinquishing them. Nevertheless, there is an emerging challenge to the use of animal models, in the form of human-focused in vitro approaches. For the sake of stroke patients there is an urgent need to revitalise translational stroke research and explore the evidence for these new approaches.