Lessons for COVID-19 Immunity from Other Coronavirus Infections.

A key goal to controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is developing an effective vaccine. Development of a vaccine requires knowledge of what constitutes a protective immune response and also features that might be pathogenic. Protective and pathogenic aspects of the response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are not well understood, partly because the virus has infected humans for only 6 months. However, insight into coronavirus immunity can be informed by previous studies of immune responses to non-human coronaviruses, common cold coronaviruses, and SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Here, we review the literature describing these responses and discuss their relevance to the SARS-CoV-2 immune response.

Research progress and challenges to coronavirus vaccine development.

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are nonsegmented, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA viruses highly pathogenic to humans. Some CoVs are known to cause respiratory and intestinal diseases, posing a threat to the global public health. Against this backdrop, it is of critical importance to develop safe and effective vaccines against these CoVs. This review discusses human vaccine candidates in any stage of development and explores the viral characteristics, molecular epidemiology, and immunology associated with CoV vaccine development. At present, there are many obstacles and challenges to vaccine research and development, including the lack of knowledge about virus transmission, pathogenesis, and immune response, absence of the most appropriate animal models.

Lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans - comparative phylogenetics, epidemiology, transmission, and clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019, The Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronaviruses-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), emerged as a new zoonotic pathogen of humans at the end of 2019 and rapidly developed into a global pandemic. Over 106 million COVID-19 cases including 2.3 million deaths have been reported to the WHO as of February 9, 2021. This review examines the epidemiology, transmission, clinical features, and phylogenetics of three lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans: SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-COV). RECENT FINDINGS: Bats appear to be the common natural source of SARS-like CoV including SARS-CoV-1 but their role in SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV remains unclear. Civet cats and dromedary camels are the intermediary animal sources for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV infection, respectively whereas that of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear. SARS-CoV-2 viral loads peak early on days 2-4 of symptom onset and thus high transmission occurs in the community, and asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission occurs commonly. Nosocomial outbreaks are hallmarks of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV infections whereas these are less common in COVID-19. Several COVID-19 vaccines are now available. SUMMARY: Of the three lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a devastating global pandemic with over a million deaths. The emergence of genetic variants, such as D614G, N501Y (variants 1 and 2), has led to an increase in transmissibility and raises concern about the possibility of re-infection and impaired vaccine response. Continued global surveillance is essential for both SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, to monitor changing epidemiology due to viral variants.

Protective population behavior change in outbreaks of emerging infectious disease.

BACKGROUND: During outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging infections, the lack of effective drugs and vaccines increases reliance on non-pharmacologic public health interventions and behavior change to limit human-to-human transmission. Interventions that increase the speed with which infected individuals remove themselves from the susceptible population are paramount, particularly isolation and hospitalization. Ebola virus disease (EVD), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) are zoonotic viruses that have caused significant recent outbreaks with sustained human-to-human transmission. METHODS: This investigation quantified changing mean removal rates (MRR) and days from symptom onset to hospitalization (DSOH) of infected individuals from the population in seven different outbreaks of EVD, SARS, and MERS, to test for statistically significant differences in these metrics between outbreaks. RESULTS: We found that epidemic week and viral serial interval were correlated with the speed with which populations developed and maintained health behaviors in each outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight intrinsic population-level changes in isolation rates in multiple epidemics of three zoonotic infections with established human-to-human transmission and significant morbidity and mortality. These data are particularly useful for disease modelers seeking to forecast the spread of emerging pathogens.

Care homes and COVID-19 in Hong Kong: how the lessons from SARS were used to good effect.

In Hong Kong, about 15% of older people (aged 80 and above) live in care homes, one of the highest proportions in the world. During the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003, the crude fatality rate for older people in care homes that were infected was 72%. After taking the advice of a team of international experts, the Hong Kong Government implemented comprehensive preventive measures to cope with the future epidemics. This commentary evaluates the effectiveness of these measures in coping with both influenza outbreaks and COVID-19 and suggests the lessons learnt are relevant to both developed and less developed countries? Lockdown in care homes is very effective under two conditions. Healthcare workers must wear surgical masks in the care home. Hospitals must adopt a strict policy to prevent virus transmission by discharged patients. Care homes situated within high-rise residential towers are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 transmission; their residents can more easily be infected by asymptomatic carriers from the community. Airborne virus can also be transmitted more swiftly in care homes with open-plan layouts. Lockdown had been shown to significantly reduce influenza outbreaks in care homes. On the other hand, lockdown causes loneliness to residents. Care homes allow residents to move freely within the care home though with the risk of spreading the virus by resident who is an asymptomatic carrier. Finally, lockdown may cause family members to have guilty feelings. Family members can only make video call or window visit to residents.

SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) Current Pharmacotherapy for Mother and Infant.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), appeared in the United States over 1 year ago. This virus has a wide range of presentations, from being asymptomatic to causing severe acute respiratory syndrome, which can lead to death. It has led to a worldwide effort to find effective treatments, from repurposed medications to new discoveries, as well as the push to develop effective vaccines. As the race to fight this pandemic unfolds, this column provides what is currently available to combat this virus, how it has been utilized in the pregnant population, and what data have been made available about how these treatments affect fetal development and the neonate.

Use of SARS-CoV-2-infected deceased organ donors: Should we always "just say no?"

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS-CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Inhibition of cytokine signaling by ruxolitinib and implications for COVID-19 treatment.

Approximately 15% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience severe disease, and 5% progress to critical stage that can result in rapid death. No vaccines or antiviral treatments have yet proven effective against COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 experience elevated plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which can result in cytokine storm, followed by massive immune cell infiltration into the lungs leading to alveolar damage, decreased lung function, and rapid progression to death. As many of the elevated cytokines signal through Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2, inhibition of these pathways with ruxolitinib has the potential to mitigate the COVID-19-associated cytokine storm and reduce mortality. This is supported by preclinical and clinical data from other diseases with hyperinflammatory states, where ruxolitinib has been shown to reduce cytokine levels and improve outcomes. The urgent need for treatments for patients with severe disease support expedited investigation of ruxolitinib for patients with COVID-19.

The deadly coronaviruses: The 2003 SARS pandemic and the 2020 novel coronavirus epidemic in China.

The 2019-nCoV is officially called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease is named COVID-19. This viral epidemic in China has led to the deaths of over 1800 people, mostly elderly or those with an underlying chronic disease or immunosuppressed state. This is the third serious Coronavirus outbreak in less than 20 years, following SARS in 2002-2003 and MERS in 2012. While human strains of Coronavirus are associated with about 15% of cases of the common cold, the SARS-CoV-2 may present with varying degrees of severity, from flu-like symptoms to death. It is currently believed that this deadly Coronavirus strain originated from wild animals at the Huanan market in Wuhan, a city in Hubei province. Bats, snakes and pangolins have been cited as potential carriers based on the sequence homology of CoV isolated from these animals and the viral nucleic acids of the virus isolated from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Extreme quarantine measures, including sealing off large cities, closing borders and confining people to their homes, were instituted in January 2020 to prevent spread of the virus, but by that time much of the damage had been done, as human-human transmission became evident. While these quarantine measures are necessary and have prevented a historical disaster along the lines of the Spanish flu, earlier recognition and earlier implementation of quarantine measures may have been even more effective. Lessons learned from SARS resulted in faster determination of the nucleic acid sequence and a more robust quarantine strategy. However, it is clear that finding an effective antiviral and developing a vaccine are still significant challenges. The costs of the epidemic are not limited to medical aspects, as the virus has led to significant sociological, psychological and economic effects globally. Unfortunately, emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has led to numerous reports of Asians being subjected to racist behavior and hate crimes across the world.

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.

Unique epidemiological and clinical features of the emerging 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) implicate special control measures.

By 27 February 2020, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused 82 623 confirmed cases and 2858 deaths globally, more than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (8273 cases, 775 deaths) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) (1139 cases, 431 deaths) caused in 2003 and 2013, respectively. COVID-19 has spread to 46 countries internationally. Total fatality rate of COVID-19 is estimated at 3.46% by far based on published data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC). Average incubation period of COVID-19 is around 6.4 days, ranges from 0 to 24 days. The basic reproductive number (R0 ) of COVID-19 ranges from 2 to 3.5 at the early phase regardless of different prediction models, which is higher than SARS and MERS. A study from China CDC showed majority of patients (80.9%) were considered asymptomatic or mild pneumonia but released large amounts of viruses at the early phase of infection, which posed enormous challenges for containing the spread of COVID-19. Nosocomial transmission was another severe problem. A total of 3019 health workers were infected by 12 February 2020, which accounted for 3.83% of total number of infections, and extremely burdened the health system, especially in Wuhan. Limited epidemiological and clinical data suggest that the disease spectrum of COVID-19 may differ from SARS or MERS. We summarize latest literatures on genetic, epidemiological, and clinical features of COVID-19 in comparison to SARS and MERS and emphasize special measures on diagnosis and potential interventions. This review will improve our understanding of the unique features of COVID-19 and enhance our control measures in the future.

The emergence of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease and their neuroinvasive propensity may affect in COVID-19 patients.

An outbreak of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection has recently emerged and rapidly spreading in humans causing a significant threat to international health and the economy. Rapid assessment and warning are crucial for an outbreak analysis in response to serious public health. SARS-CoV-2 shares highly homological sequences with SARS-CoVs causing highly lethal pneumonia with respiratory distress and clinical symptoms similar to those reported for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. Notably, some COVID-19 patients also expressed neurologic signs like nausea, headache, and vomiting. Several studies have reported that coronaviruses are not only causing respiratory illness but also invade the central nervous system through a synapse-connected route. SARS-CoV infections are reported in both patients and experimental animals' brains. Interestingly, some COVID-19 patients have shown the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in their cerebrospinal fluid. Considering the similarities between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in various aspects, it remains to clarify whether the potent invasion of SARS-CoV-2 may affect in COVID-19 patients. All these indicate that more detailed criteria are needed for the treatment and the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. In the absence of potential interventions for COVID-19, there is an urgent need for an alternative strategy to control the spread of this disease.

Déjà Vu or Jamais Vu? How the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Experience Influenced a Singapore Radiology Department's Response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic.

OBJECTIVE. This article shares the ground operational perspective of how a tertiary hospital radiology department in Singapore is responding to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic. This same department was also deeply impacted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. CONCLUSION. Though similar to SARS, the COVID-19 outbreak has several differences. We share how lessons from 2003 are applied and modified in our ongoing operational response to this evolving novel pathogen.

Gold nanoparticle-adjuvanted S protein induces a strong antigen-specific IgG response against severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus infection, but fails to induce protective antibodies and limit eosinophilic infiltration in lungs.

The spike (S) protein of coronavirus, which binds to cellular receptors and mediates membrane fusion for cell entry, is a candidate vaccine target for blocking coronavirus infection. However, some animal studies have suggested that inadequate immunization against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) induces a lung eosinophilic immunopathology upon infection. The present study evaluated two kinds of vaccine adjuvants for use with recombinant S protein: gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), which are expected to function as both an antigen carrier and an adjuvant in immunization; and Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, which have previously been shown to be an effective adjuvant in an ultraviolet-inactivated SARS-CoV vaccine. All the mice immunized with more than 0.5 µg S protein without adjuvant escaped from SARS after infection with mouse-adapted SARS-CoV; however, eosinophilic infiltrations were observed in the lungs of almost all the immunized mice. The AuNP-adjuvanted protein induced a strong IgG response but failed to improve vaccine efficacy or to reduce eosinophilic infiltration because of highly allergic inflammatory responses. Whereas similar virus titers were observed in the control animals and the animals immunized with S protein with or without AuNPs, Type 1 interferon and pro-inflammatory responses were moderate in the mice treated with S protein with and without AuNPs. On the other hand, the TLR agonist-adjuvanted vaccine induced highly protective antibodies without eosinophilic infiltrations, as well as Th1/17 cytokine responses. The findings of this study will support the development of vaccines against severe pneumonia-associated coronaviruses.

Comparison of spatiotemporal characteristics of the COVID-19 and SARS outbreaks in mainland China.

BACKGROUND: Both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) are caused by coronaviruses and have infected people in China and worldwide. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 and SARS exhibited similar spatial and temporal features at provincial level in mainland China. METHODS: The number of people infected by COVID-19 and SARS were extracted from daily briefings on newly confirmed cases during the epidemics, as of Mar. 4, 2020 and Aug. 3, 2003, respectively. We depicted spatiotemporal patterns of the COVID-19 and SARS epidemics using spatial statistics such as Moran's I and the local indicators of spatial association (LISA). RESULTS: Compared to SARS, COVID-19 had a higher overall incidence. We identified 3 clusters (predominantly located in south-central China; the highest RR = 135.08, 95% CI: 128.36-142.08) for COVID-19 and 4 clusters (mainly in Northern China; the highest RR = 423.51, 95% CI: 240.96-722.32) for SARS. Fewer secondary clusters were identified after the "Wuhan lockdown". The LISA cluster map detected a significantly high-low (Hubei) and low-high spatial clustering (Anhui, Hunan, and Jiangxi, in Central China) for COVID-19. Two significant high-high (Beijing and Tianjin) and low-high (Hebei) clusters were detected for SARS. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 and SARS outbreaks exhibited distinct spatiotemporal clustering patterns at the provincial levels in mainland China, which may be attributable to changes in social and demographic factors, local government containment strategies or differences in transmission mechanisms.

Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID-19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS-I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID-19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID-19 Travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Very low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross-border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low-certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low-certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed by quarantine, and different procedures for observation and PCR testing over a period of at least 14 days. The proportion of cases detected ranged from 0% to 91% (depending on the screening approach), and the positive predictive value ranged from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes, however, should be interpreted in relation to both the screening approach used and the prevalence of infection among the travellers screened; for example, symptom-based screening alone generally performed worse than a combination of symptom-based and PCR screening with subsequent observation during quarantine. Quarantine of travellers Evidence from one modelling study simulating a 14-day quarantine suggests a reduction in the number of cases seeded by imported cases; larger reductions were seen with increasing levels of quarantine compliance ranging from 277 to 19 cases with rates of compliance modelled between 70% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence deriving from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-life' evidence for many of these measures. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures is very low and the true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Nevertheless, some travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may have a positive impact on infectious disease outcomes. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Entry and exit symptom screening measures on their own are not likely to be effective in detecting a meaningful proportion of cases to prevent seeding new cases within the protected region; combined with subsequent quarantine, observation and PCR testing, the effectiveness is likely to improve. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of travel-related quarantine on its own. Some of the included studies suggest that effects are likely to depend on factors such as the stage of the epidemic, the interconnectedness of countries, local measures undertaken to contain community transmission, and the extent of implementation and adherence.