Abstract:In addition to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, emerging viruses that cause respiratory viral infections will continue to arise. Increasing evidence suggests a delayed, possibly suppressed, type 1 interferon (IFN-I) response occurs early during COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections such as SARS and MERS. These observations prompt considering IFN-β as a prophylactic or early intervention for respiratory viral infections. A rationale for developing and testing intranasal interferon beta (IFN-β) as an immed… Show more
“…Prophylactic strategies with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin did not show any significant reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection [ 7 ]. Other treatments, such as post-exposure type I interferon prophylaxis, are still being evaluated [ 8 ].…”
Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.
“…Prophylactic strategies with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin did not show any significant reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection [ 7 ]. Other treatments, such as post-exposure type I interferon prophylaxis, are still being evaluated [ 8 ].…”
Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.
“…Type 1 IFNs administered before a viral infection or post-infection but before the inflammatory response peaks have been shown to offer a high level of protection (Bessiere et al, 2021; Channappanavar et al, 2019; Lee et al, 2021; Sabit et al, 2018; Sodeifian et al, 2022). Several studies even reported the beneficial effect of IFN-α in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (Bhushan et al, 2021; Pandit et al, 2021; Pereda et al, 2020a; Pereda et al, 2020d; Rahmani et al, 2020; Zhou et al, 2020a; Zhou et al, 2020b).…”
Type 1 interferon (IFN-I) response is the first line of host defense against invading viruses. In the absence of definite mouse models, however, the role of IFN-I in SARS-CoV-2 infections remained to be perplexing. Here, we developed two mouse models, one with constitutively high IFN-I response (hACE2; Irgm1-/-) and the other with dampened IFN-I response (hACE2; Ifnar1-/-) to comprehend the role of IFN-I response during SARS-CoV-2 invasion. We found that hACE2; Irgm1-/- mice were resistant to lethal SARS-CoV-2 (including delta variant) infection with substantially reduced cytokine storm and immunopathology in the lungs and brain. In striking contrast, a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection along with immune cell infiltration, inflammatory response, and enhanced pathology was observed in the lungs of hACE2; Ifnar1-/- mice. Additionally, hACE2; Ifnar1-/- mice were highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion in the brain accompanied by immune cell infiltration, microglia/astrocytes activation, cytokine response, and demyelination of neurons. The hACE2; Irgm1-/- Ifnar1-/- double knockout mice or hACE2; Irgm1-/- mice treated with STING or RIPK2 pharmacological inhibitors displayed loss of the protective phenotypes observed in hACE2; Irgm1-/- mice suggesting that heightened IFN-I response accounts for the observed immunity. Taken together, we explicitly demonstrate that IFN-I protects from lethal SARS-CoV-2 infection, and Irgm1 (IRGM) could be an excellent therapeutic target against COVID-19.
“…Nevertheless, IFN-α and other IFN subtypes, including type III IFN and in particular IFN-λ1, can be considered, either directly or through the administration of drugs inducing IFN or IFN-induced genes. As discussed in detail elsewhere, among the strategies aimed at limiting pandemic viruses spread, the possible use of intranasally administered IFN-I as prophylactic measure for high-risk individuals should be also evaluated [82] . Fig.…”
The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disruptive global consequences in terms of mortality and social and economic crises, have taught lessons that may help define strategies to better face future pandemics. Innate and intrinsic immunity form the front-line natural antiviral defense. They involve both tissue-resident and circulating cells, which can produce anti-viral molecules shortly after viral infection. Prototypes of these factors are type I interferons (IFN), antiviral cytokines with a long record of clinical use. During the last two years, there has been an impressive progress in understanding the mechanisms of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular and soluble antiviral responses occurring early after viral exposure. However, this information was not sufficiently translated into therapeutic approaches. Insufficient type I IFN activity probably accounts for disease progression in many patients. This results from both the multiple interfering mechanisms developed by SARS-CoV-2 to decrease type I IFN response and various pre-existing human deficits of type I IFN activity, inherited or auto-immune. Emerging data suggest that IFN-I-mediated boosting of patients’ immunity, achieved directly through the exogenous administration of IFN-β early post viral infection, or indirectly following inoculation of heterologous vaccines (e.g. Bacillus Calmette Guerin), might play a role against SARS-CoV-2. We review how recent insights on the viral and human determinants of critical COVID-19 pneumonia can foster clinical studies of IFN therapy. We also discuss how early therapeutic use of IFN-β and prophylactic campaigns with live attenuated vaccines might prevent a first wave of new pandemic viruses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
