Background: As COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally, evidence from large randomized controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are being undertaken all over the world. Objectives: We summarized all registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved studies. Data sources: Clinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteria: Registered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventions: No restrictions in terms of participants' age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. Methods: The registries were searched using the term 'coronavirus' or 'COVID-19' from their inception until 26 March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarized and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing traditional Chinese medicine. Results: In total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and three studies examining both were retrieved. Finally, 214 studies were methodologically reviewed. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomized (n ¼ 150/198, 76%) and open label (n ¼ 73/198, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (interquartile range 40e200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. Conclusions: Numerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarized data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment.

Background Although molecular tests are considered the gold standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics, serological and immunological tests may be useful in specific settings. Objectives This review summarises the underlying principles and performance of COVID-19 serological and immunological testing. Sources Selected peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 related serology and immunology published between December 2019 and March 2021. Content Serological tests are highly specific but heterogeneous in their sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For certain indications, including delayed disease presentations, serological tests can have added value. The presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may indicate a recent or past COVID-19 infection. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) antibody tests have the advantages of being easy and fast to perform, but many have a low sensitivity in acute settings. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA) have higher sensitivities. Besides humoral immunity, cellular immunity is also essential for successful host defences against viruses. Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assays can be used to measure T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. The presence of cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in never exposed patients suggests the possibility of cellular immunity induced by other circulating coronaviruses. T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 have also been detected in recovered COVID-19 patients with no detectable antibodies. Implications Serological and immunological tests are primarily applied for population-based seroprevalence studies to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures and increase our understanding of the immunology behind COVID-19. Combining molecular diagnostics with serological tests may optimise the detection of COVID-19. As not all infected patients will develop antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, assessment of cellular immunity may provide complementary information on whether a patient has been previously infected with COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the correlations of these serological and immunological parameters with protective immunity, taking into account the different circulating virus variants.

No abstract

The advent of highly sensitive molecular diagnostic techniques has improved our ability to detect viral pathogens leading to severe and often fatal infections that require admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Viral infections in the ICU have pleomorphic clinical presentations including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, central or peripheral nervous system manifestations, and viral-induced shock. Besides de novo infections, certain viruses fall into latency and can be reactivated in both immunosuppressed and immunocompetent critically ill patients. Depending on the viral strain, transmission occurs either directly through contact with infectious materials and large droplets, or indirectly through suspended air particles (airborne transmission of droplet nuclei). Many viruses can efficiently spread within hospital environment leading to in-hospital outbreaks, sometimes with high rates of mortality and morbidity, thus infection control measures are of paramount importance. Despite the advances in detecting viral pathogens, limited progress has been made in antiviral treatments, contributing to unexpectedly high rates of unfavorable outcomes. Herein, we review the most updated data on epidemiology, common clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of severe community- and hospital-acquired viral infections in the ICU settings.

The aim of our study was to investigate the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccination according to the age and medical status of vaccinated individuals. A total of 511 individuals were enrolled (median age: 54.0 years, range: 19–105); 509 of these individuals (99.6%) received two doses of BNT162b2 at an interval of 21 days. IgG and IgA responses were evaluated on days 21, 42, 90, and 180 after the first dose with chemiluminescent microparticle and ELISA assays. The cell-mediated immune responses were assessed by an automated interferon-gamma release assay. We demonstrated positive antibody responses after vaccination for the majority of enrolled participants, although waning of IgG and IgA titers was also observed over time. We further observed that the intensity of humoral responses was positively correlated with increased age and prior COVID-19 infection (either before or after the first vaccination). Moreover, we found that only a medical history of autoimmune disease could affect the intensity of IgA and IgG responses (3 weeks after the primary and secondary immunization, respectively), while development of systemic adverse reactions after the second vaccination dose was significantly associated with the height of IgG responses. Finally, we identified a clear correlation between humoral and cellular responses, suggesting that the study of cellular responses is not required as a routine laboratory test after vaccination. Our results provide useful information about the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination with significant implications for public health vaccination strategies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract