Preclinical safety and efficacy of a therapeutic antibody that targets SARS-CoV-2 at the sotrovimab face but is escaped by Omicron

The recurrent emerging of novel viral variants of concern (VOCs) with evasion of preexisting antibody immunity upholds severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) case numbers and maintains a persistent demand for updated therapies. We selected the patient-derived antibody CV38-142 based on its potency and breadth against the VOCs Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta for preclinical development into a therapeutic. CV38-142 showed in vivo efficacy in a Syrian hamster VOC infection model after post-exposure and therapeutic application and revealed a favorable safety profile in a human protein library screen and tissue cross-reactivity study. Although CV38-142 targets the same viral surface as sotrovimab, which maintains activity against Omicron, CV38-142 did not neutralize the Omicron lineages BA.1 and BA.2. These results highlight the contingencies of developing antibody therapeutics in the context of antigenic drift and reinforce the need to develop broadly neutralizing variant-proof antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Effectiveness and acceptability of progestogens in combined oral contraceptives – a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The progestogen component of oral contraceptives (OCs) has undergone changes since it was recognized that their chemical structure can influence the spectrum of minor adverse and beneficial effects. METHODS: The objective of this review was to evaluate currently available low-dose OCs containing ethinylestradiol and different progestogens in terms of contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control, side effects and continuation rates. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality and validity. RESULTS: Twenty–two trials were included in the review. Eighteen were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and in only 5 there was an attempt for blinding. Most comparisons between different interventions included one to three trials, involving usually less than 500 women. Discontinuation was less with second-generation progestogens compared to first–generation (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.91). Cycle control appeared to be better with second-compared to first-generation progestogens for both, mono-and triphasic preparations (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52–0.91) and (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.85), respectively. Intermenstrual bleeding was less with third- compared to second-generation pills (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55–0.91). Contraceptive effectiveness of gestodene (GSD) was comparable to that of levonorgestrel (LNG), and had similar pattern of spotting, breakthrough bleeding and absence of withdrawal bleeding). Drospirenone (DRSP) was similar compared to desogestrel (DSG) regarding contraceptive effectiveness, cycle control and side effects. CONCLUSION: The third- and second-generation progestogens are preferred over first generation in all indices of acceptability. Current evidence suggests that GSD is comparable to LNG in terms of contraceptive effectiveness and for most cycle control indices. GSD is also comparable to DSG. DRSP is comparable to DSG. Future research should focus on independently conducted well designed randomized trials comparing particularly the third- with second-generation progestogens

Outcome Prediction in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation—A Retrospective International Multicenter Study

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V-V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. Results: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic—AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. Conclusions: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO

Preclinical safety and efficacy of a therapeutic antibody that targets SARS-CoV-2 at the sotrovimab face but is escaped by Omicron

The recurrent emerging of novel viral variants of concern (VOCs) with evasion of preexisting antibody immunity upholds severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) case numbers and maintains a persistent demand for updated therapies. We selected the patient-derived antibody CV38-142 based on its potency and breadth against the VOCs Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta for preclinical development into a therapeutic. CV38-142 showed in vivo efficacy in a Syrian hamster VOC infection model after post-exposure and therapeutic application and revealed a favorable safety profile in a human protein library screen and tissue cross-reactivity study. Although CV38-142 targets the same viral surface as sotrovimab, which maintains activity against Omicron, CV38-142 did not neutralize the Omicron lineages BA.1 and BA.2. These results highlight the contingencies of developing antibody therapeutics in the context of antigenic drift and reinforce the need to develop broadly neutralizing variant-proof antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

ECMO for COVID-19 patients in Europe and Israel

Since March 15th, 2020, 177 centres from Europe and Israel have joined the study, routinely reporting on the ECMO support they provide to COVID-19 patients. The mean annual number of cases treated with ECMO in the participating centres before the pandemic (2019) was 55. The number of COVID-19 patients has increased rapidly each week reaching 1531 treated patients as of September 14th. The greatest number of cases has been reported from France (n = 385), UK (n = 193), Germany (n = 176), Spain (n = 166), and Italy (n = 136) .The mean age of treated patients was 52.6 years (range 16–80), 79% were male. The ECMO configuration used was VV in 91% of cases, VA in 5% and other in 4%. The mean PaO2 before ECMO implantation was 65 mmHg. The mean duration of ECMO support thus far has been 18 days and the mean ICU length of stay of these patients was 33 days. As of the 14th September, overall 841 patients have been weaned from ECMO support, 601 died during ECMO support, 71 died after withdrawal of ECMO, 79 are still receiving ECMO support and for 10 patients status n.a. . Our preliminary data suggest that patients placed on ECMO with severe refractory respiratory or cardiac failure secondary to COVID-19 have a reasonable (55%) chance of survival. Further extensive data analysis is expected to provide invaluable information on the demographics, severity of illness, indications and different ECMO management strategies in these patients

UPDATING the CLINICAL-EXPERIENCE in ENDOMETRIOSIS - the BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVE

In an open-label, multicentre, randomized, parallel group study, 164 women with endometriosis were assigned to treatment. Out of these women, 81 received danazol (600 mg daily for 8 weeks, then 400 mg for 16 weeks) and 83 were given gestrinone (2.5 mg twice a week for 24 weeks). Five weeks before the start of treatment clinical evaluation and diagnostic laparoscopy were performed during the screening visit. Drug assignment and laboratory data assessment were carried out within 3 days of the estimated onset of the menstrual cycle at baseline visit. the response to treatment was assessed during visits at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24; at the last visit a second laparoscopy was performed. Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated by analysis of the laparoscopic scores assessed according to the revised American Fertility Society classification. Symptomatic response was measured by clinical scores and laboratory data. in one centre, bone mineral density was also recorded. One patient in the danazol group discontinued treatment due to a cutaneous rash as a probable adverse reaction at the beginning of the study. the therapeutic efficacy of danazol and gestrinone did not differ significantly when the revised American Fertility Society scores were compared. the symptomatic response also showed no statistical difference when clinical examination scores were analysed. There was no significant difference between the drugs in laboratory data, including bone mineral density, with respect to adverse events. Analysis of clinical scores showed that danazol was superior to gestrinone with respect to acne and irregular bleeding. Based on these data, we conclude that both danazol and gestrinone are reliable in the treatment of endometriosis and offer similar results.UNIV São Paulo,SCH MED,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,São Paulo,SP,BRAZILFED SCH MED SCI,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,PORTO ALEGRE,RS,BRAZILFED UNIV São Paulo,SCH MED,DEPT TOCOGYNECOL,São Paulo,BRAZILFED UNIV São Paulo,SCH MED,DEPT TOCOGYNECOL,São Paulo,BRAZILWeb of Scienc