mteb/CovidQA huggingface dataset:
We then did another investigation to find out the dynamic changes of viral presence in two consecutive studies in both oral and anal swabs in another group of patients. The target patients were those who received around 10 days of medical treatments upon admission. We tested for both viral antibody and viral nucleotide levels by previously established method [5] . We showed that both IgM and IgG titres were relatively low or undetectable in day 0 (the day of first sampling). On day 5, an increase of viral antibodies can be seen in nearly all patients, which was normally considered as a transition from earlier to later period of infection ( Figure 1 and supplementary table 1 ). IgM positive rate increased from 50% (8/16) to 81% (13/16), whereas IgG positive rate increased from 81% (13/16) to 100% (16/16). This is in contrast to a relatively low detection positive rate from molecular test (below). For molecular detection, we found 8 oral swabs positive (50%) and 4 anal swabs (25%) in
these 16 people on day 0. On day 5, we were only able to find 4 oral swabs positive (25%). In contrast, we found 6 anal swabs positive (37.5%). When counting all swab positives together, we found most of the positives came from oral swab (8/10, 80%) on day 0. However, this trend appears to change on day 5. We found more (6/8, 75%) anal swab positive than oral swab positive (4/8, 50%). Another observation is the reoccurrence of virus in 6 patients who were detected negative on day 0. Of note, 4 of these 6 viral positives were from anal swabs ( Table 2) . These data suggested a shift from more oral positive during early period (as indicated by antibody titres) to more anal positive during later period might happen.
Within 1 month of the 2019-nCoV disease outbreak, we rapidly developed molecular and serological detection tools. This is the first molecular and serological study on this virus after the initial identification of 2019-NCoV from 7 patients diagnosed with unidentified viral pneumonia [5] . We detected the virus in oral swabs, anal swabs and blood, thus infected patients can potentially shed this pathogen through respiratory, fecal-oral or body fluid routes. In addition, we successfully applied serology test a large population and showed which could greatly improved detection positive rate.
We show that the current strategy for the detection of viral RNA in oral swabs used for 2019-nCoV diagnosis is not perfect. The virus may be present in anal swabs or blood of patients when oral swabs detection negative. In SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infected patients, intestinal infection was observed at later stages of infection [7] [8] [9] . However, patients infected with 2019-nCoV may harbour the virus in the intestine at the early or late stage of disease. It is also worth to note none of the patients with viremia blood had positive swabs. These patients would likely be considered as 2019-nCoV negative through routine surveillance, and thus pose a threat to other people. In contrast, we found viral antibodies in near all patients, indicating serology should be considered for 2019-nCoV epidemiology. A possible shift from oral positive during early infection to anal swab positive during late infection can be observed. This observation implied that we cannot discharge a patient purely
based on oral swabs negative, who may still shed the virus by oral-fecal route. Above all, we strongly suggest using viral IgM and IgG serological test to confirm an infection, considering the unreliable results from oral swabs detection.
In summary, we provide a cautionary warning that 2019-nCoV may be transmitted through multiple routes. Both molecular and serological tests are needed to definitively confirm a virus carrier.
First cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the WHO European Region, 24 January to 21 February 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068164/

SHA: ce358c18aac69fc83c7b2e9a7dca4a43b0f60e2e
Authors: Spiteri, Gianfranco; Fielding, James; Diercke, Michaela; Campese, Christine; Enouf, Vincent; Gaymard, Alexandre; Bella, Antonino; Sognamiglio, Paola; Sierra Moros, Maria José; Riutort, Antonio Nicolau; Demina, Yulia V.; Mahieu, Romain; Broas, Markku; Bengnér, Malin; Buda, Silke; Schilling, Julia; Filleul, Laurent; Lepoutre, Agnès; Saura, Christine; Mailles, Alexandra; Levy-Bruhl, Daniel; Coignard, Bruno; Bernard-Stoecklin, Sibylle; Behillil, Sylvie; van der Werf, Sylvie; Valette, Martine; Lina, Bruno; Riccardo, Flavia; Nicastri, Emanuele; Casas, Inmaculada; Larrauri, Amparo; Salom Castell, Magdalena; Pozo, Francisco; Maksyutov, Rinat A.; Martin, Charlotte; Van Ranst, Marc; Bossuyt, Nathalie; Siira, Lotta; Sane, Jussi; Tegmark-Wisell, Karin; Palmérus, Maria; Broberg, Eeva K.; Beauté, Julien; Jorgensen, Pernille; Bundle, Nick; Pereyaslov, Dmitriy; Adlhoch, Cornelia; Pukkila, Jukka; Pebody, Richard; Olsen, Sonja; Ciancio, Bruno Christian
Date: 2020-03-05
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.9.2000178
License: cc-by
Abstract: In the WHO European Region, COVID-19 surveillance was implemented 27 January 2020. We detail the first European cases. As at 21 February, nine European countries reported 47 cases. Among 38 cases studied, 21 were linked to two clusters in Germany and France, 14 were infected in China. Median case age was 42 years; 25 were male. Late detection of the clusters’ index cases delayed isolation of further local cases. As at 5 March, there were 4,250 cases.

Text: In the WHO European Region, COVID-19 surveillance was implemented 27 January 2020. We detail the first European cases. As at 21 February, nine European countries reported 47 cases. Among 38 cases studied, 21 were linked to two clusters in Germany and France, 14 were infected in China. Median case age was 42 years; 25 were male. Late detection of the clusters' index cases delayed isolation of further local cases. As at 5 March, there were 4,250 cases.
A cluster of pneumonia of unknown origin was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 [1] . On 12 January 2020, Chinese authorities shared the sequence of a novel coronavirus termed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolated from some clustered cases [2] . Since then, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 has been named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19) . As at 21 February 2020, the virus had spread rapidly mostly within China but also to 28 other countries, including in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region [3] [4] [5] .

Here we describe the epidemiology of the first cases of COVID-19 in this region, excluding cases reported in the United Kingdom (UK), as at 21 February 2020. The study includes a comparison between cases detected among travellers from China and cases whose infection was acquired due to subsequent local transmission.
On 27 January 2020, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the WHO Regional Office for Europe asked countries to complete a WHO standard COVID-19 case report form for all confirmed and probable cases according to WHO criteria [6] [7] [8] . The overall aim of surveillance at this time was to support the global strategy of containment of COVID-19 with rapid identification and follow-up of cases linked to affected countries in order to minimise onward transmission. The surveillance objectives were to: describe the key epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases detected in Europe; inform country preparedness; and improve further case detection and management. Data collected included demographics, history of recent travel to affected areas, close contact with a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, underlying conditions, signs and symptoms of disease at onset, type of specimens from which the virus was detected, and clinical outcome. The WHO
case definition was adopted for surveillance: a confirmed case was a person with laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (ECDC recommended two separate SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests), irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms, whereas a probable case was a suspect case for whom testing for SARS-CoV-2 was inconclusive or positive using a pan-coronavirus assay [8] . By 31 January 2020, 47 laboratories in 31 countries, including 38 laboratories in 24 European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries, had diagnostic capability for SARS-CoV-2 available (close to 60% of countries in the WHO European Region), with cross-border shipment arrangements in place for many of those lacking domestic testing capacity. The remaining six EU/EEA countries were expected to have diagnostic testing available by mid-February [9] .
As at 09:00 on 21 February 2020, 47 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported in the WHO European Region and one of these cases had died [4] . Data on 38 of these cases (i.e. all except the nine reported in the UK) are included in this analysis.

The first three cases detected were reported in France on 24 January 2020 and had onset of symptoms on 17, 19 and 23 January respectively [10] . The first death was reported on 15 February in France. As at 21 February, nine countries had reported cases ( Figure) : Belgium (1), Finland (1), France (12), Germany (16), Italy (3), Russia (2), Spain (2), Sweden (1) and the UK (9 -not included further).
The place of infection (assessed at national level based on an incubation period presumed to be up to 14 days [11] , travel history and contact with probable or confirmed cases as per the case definition) was reported for 35 cases (missing for three cases), of whom 14 were infected in China (Hubei province: 10 cases; Shandong province: one case; province not reported for three cases). The remaining 21 cases were infected in Europe. Of these, 14 were linked to a cluster in Bavaria, Germany, and seven to a cluster in Haute-Savoie, France [12, 13] . Cases from the Bavarian cluster were reported from Germany and Spain, whereas cases from the Haute-Savoie cluster were reported from France All but two cases were hospitalised (35 of 37 where information on hospitalisation was reported), although it is likely that most were hospitalised to isolate the person rather than because of severe disease. The time from onset of symptoms to hospitalisation (and isolation) ranged between 0 and 10 days
with a mean of 3.7 days (reported for 29 cases). The mean number of days to hospitalisation was 2.5 days for cases imported from China, but 4.6 days for those infected in Europe. This was mostly a result of delays in identifying the index cases of the two clusters in France and Germany. In the German cluster, for example, the first three cases detected locally were hospitalised in a mean of 5.7 days, whereas the following six took only a mean of 2 days to be hospitalised.
Symptoms at the point of diagnosis were reported for 31 cases. Two cases were asymptomatic and remained so until tested negative. The asymptomatic cases were tested as part of screening following repatriation and during contact tracing respectively. Of the remaining 29, 20 reported fever, 14 reported cough and eight reported weakness. Additional symptoms reported included headaches (6 cases), sore throat (2), rhinorrhoea (2), shortness of breath (2), myalgia (1), diarrhoea (1) and nausea (1). Fever was reported as the sole symptom for nine cases. In 16 of 29 symptomatic cases, the symptoms at diagnosis were consistent with the case definition for acute respiratory infection [16] , although it is possible that cases presented additional symptoms after diagnosis and these were not reported.
Data on pre-existing conditions were reported for seven cases; five had no pre-existing conditions while one was reported to be obese and one had pre-existing cardiac disease. No data on clinical signs e.g. dyspnea etc. were reported for any of the 38 cases.

All hospitalised cases had a benign clinical evolution except four, two reported in Italy and two reported in France, all of whom developed viral pneumonia. All three cases who were aged 65 years or over were admitted to intensive care and required respiratory support and one French case died. The case who died was hospitalised for 21 days and required intensive care and mechanical ventilation for 19 days. The duration of hospitalisation was reported for 16 cases with a median of 13 days (range: 8-23 days). As at 21 February 2020, four cases were still hospitalised.
All cases were confirmed according to specific assays targeting at least two separate genes (envelope (E) gene as a screening test and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene or nucleoprotein (N) gene for confirmation) [8, 17] . The specimen types tested were reported for 27 cases: 15 had positive nasopharyngeal swabs, nine had positive throat swabs, three cases had positive sputum, two had a positive nasal swab, one case had a positive nasopharyngeal aspirate and one a positive endotracheal aspirate.

As at 09:00 on 21 February, few COVID-19 cases had been detected in Europe compared with Asia. However the situation is rapidly developing, with a large outbreak recently identified in northern Italy, with transmission in several municipalities and at least two deaths [18] . As at 5 March 2020, there are 4,250 cases including 113 deaths reported among 38 countries in the WHO European region [19] .
In our analysis of early cases, we observed transmission in two broad contexts: sporadic cases among travellers from China (14 cases) and cases who acquired infection due to subsequent local transmission in Europe (21 cases). Our analysis shows that the time from symptom onset to hospitalisation/case isolation was about 3 days longer for locally acquired cases than for imported cases. People returning from affected areas are likely to have a low threshold to seek care and be tested when symptomatic, however delays in identifying the index cases of the two clusters in France and Germany meant that locally acquired cases took longer to be detected and isolated. Once the exposure is determined and contacts identified and quarantined (171 contacts in France and 200 in Germany for the clusters in Haute-Savoie and Bavaria, respectively), further cases are likely to be rapidly detected and isolated when they develop symptoms [15, 20] . In the German cluster, for example, the first three
cases detected locally were hospitalised in a mean of 5.7 days, whereas the following six were hospitalised after a mean of 2 days. Locally acquired cases require significant resources for contact tracing and quarantine, and countries should be prepared to allocate considerable public health resources during the containment phase, should local clusters emerge in their population. In addition, prompt sharing of information on cases and contacts through international notification systems such as the International Health Regulations (IHR) mechanism and the European Commission's European Early Warning and Response System is essential to contain international spread of infection.
All of the imported cases had a history of travel to China. This was consistent with the epidemiological situation in Asia, and supported the recommendation for testing of suspected cases with travel history to China and potentially other areas of presumed ongoing community transmission. The situation has evolved rapidly since then, however, and the number of countries reporting COVID-19 transmission increased rapidly, notably with a large outbreak in northern Italy with 3,089 cases reported as at 5 March [18, 19] . Testing of suspected cases based on geographical risk of importation needs to be complemented with additional approaches to ensure early detection of local circulation of COVID-19, including through testing of severe acute respiratory infections in hospitals irrespectively of travel history as recommended in the WHO case definition updated on 27 February 2020 [21] .
The clinical presentation observed in the cases in Europe is that of an acute respiratory infection. However, of the 31 cases with information on symptoms, 20 cases presented with fever and nine cases presented only with fever and no other symptoms. These findings, which are consistent with other published case series, have prompted ECDC to include fever among several clinical signs or symptoms indicative for the suspected case definition.
Three cases were aged 65 years or over. All required admission to intensive care and were tourists (imported cases). These findings could reflect the average older age of the tourist population compared with the local contacts exposed to infection in Europe and do not allow us to draw any conclusion on the proportion of severe cases that we could expect in the general population of Europe. Despite this, the finding of older individuals being at higher risk of a severe clinical course is consistent with the evidence from Chinese case series published so far although the majority of infections in China have been mild [22, 23] .

This preliminary analysis is based on the first reported cases of COVID-19 cases in the WHO European Region. Given the small sample size, and limited completeness for some variables, all the results presented should be interpreted with caution.
With increasing numbers of cases in Europe, data from surveillance and investigations in the region can build on the evidence from countries in Asia experiencing more widespread transmission particularly on disease spectrum and the proportion of infections with severe outcome [22] . Understanding the infection-severity is critical to help plan for the impact on the healthcare system and the wider population. Serological studies are vital to understand the proportion of cases who are asymptomatic. Hospital-based surveillance could help estimate the incidence of severe cases and identify risk factors for severity and death. Established hospital surveillance systems that are in place for influenza and other diseases in Europe may be expanded for this purpose. In addition, a number of countries in Europe are adapting and, in some cases, already using existing sentinel primary care based surveillance systems for influenza to detect community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This approach will
be used globally to help identify evidence of widespread community transmission and, should the virus spread and containment no longer be deemed feasible, to monitor intensity of disease transmission, trends and its geographical spread.
Additional research is needed to complement surveillance data to build knowledge on the infectious period, modes of transmission, basic and effective reproduction numbers, and effectiveness of prevention and case management options also in settings outside of China. Such special studies are being conducted globally, including a cohort study on citizens repatriated from China to Europe, with the aim to extrapolate disease incidence and risk factors for infection in areas with community transmission. Countries together with ECDC and WHO, should use all opportunities to address these questions in a coordinated fashion at the European and global level.

provided input to the outline, multiple versions of the manuscript and gave approval to the final draft.
Frontiers in antiviral therapy and immunotherapy

https://doi.org/10.1002/cti2.1115

SHA: facbfdfa7189ca9ff83dc30e5d241ab22e962dbf

Authors: Heaton, Steven M
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1002/cti2.1115
License: cc-by

Abstract: nan
Text: Globally, recent decades have witnessed a growing disjunction, a 'Valley of Death' 1,2 no less, between broadening strides in fundamental biomedical research and their incommensurate reach into the clinic. Plumbing work on research funding and development pipelines through recent changes in the structure of government funding, 2 new public and private joint ventures and specialist undergraduate and postgraduate courses now aim to incorporate pathways to translation at the earliest stages. Reflecting this shift, the number of biomedical research publications targeting 'translational' concepts has increased exponentially, up 1800% between 2003 and 2014 3 and continuing to rise rapidly up to the present day. Fuelled by the availability of new research technologies, as well as changing disease, cost and other pressing issues of our time, further growth in this exciting space will undoubtedly continue. Despite recent advances in the therapeutic control of immune function and viral
infection, current therapies are often challenging to develop, expensive to deploy and readily select for resistance-conferring mutants. Shaped by the hostvirus immunological 'arms race' and tempered in the forge of deep time, the biodiversity of our world is increasingly being harnessed for new biotechnologies and therapeutics. Simultaneously, a shift towards host-oriented antiviral therapies is currently underway. In this Clinical & Translational Immunology Special Feature, I illustrate a strategic vision integrating these themes to create new, effective, economical and robust antiviral therapies and immunotherapies, with both the realities and the opportunities afforded to researchers working in our changing world squarely in mind.
Opening this CTI Special Feature, I outline ways these issues may be solved by creatively leveraging the so-called 'strengths' of viruses. Viral RNA polymerisation and reverse transcription enable resistance to treatment by conferring extraordinary genetic diversity. However, these exact processes ultimately restrict viral infectivity by strongly limiting virus genome sizes and their incorporation of new information. I coin this evolutionary dilemma the 'information economy paradox'. Many viruses attempt to resolve this by manipulating multifunctional or multitasking host cell proteins (MMHPs), thereby maximising host subversion and viral infectivity at minimal informational cost. 4 I argue this exposes an 'Achilles Heel' that may be safely targeted via host-oriented therapies to impose devastating informational and fitness barriers on escape mutant selection. Furthermore, since MMHPs are often conserved targets within and between virus families, MMHP-targeting therapies may exhibit
both robust and broadspectrum antiviral efficacy. Achieving this through drug repurposing will break the vicious cycle of escalating therapeutic development costs and trivial escape mutant selection, both quickly and in multiple places. I also discuss alternative posttranslational and RNA-based antiviral approaches, designer vaccines, immunotherapy and the emerging field of neo-virology. 4 I anticipate international efforts in these areas over the coming decade will enable the tapping of useful new biological functions and processes, methods for controlling infection, and the deployment of symbiotic or subclinical viruses in new therapies and biotechnologies that are so crucially needed.
Upon infection, pathogens stimulate expression of numerous host inflammatory factors that support recruitment and activation of immune cells. On the flip side, this same process also causes immunopathology when prolonged or deregulated. 5 In their contribution to this Special Feature, Yoshinaga and Takeuchi review endogenous RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) that post-transcriptionally control expression of crucial inflammatory factors in various tissues and their potential therapeutic applications. 6 These RBPs include tristetraprolin and AUF1, which promote degradation of AU-rich element (ARE)-containing mRNA; members of the Roquin and Regnase families, which respectively promote or effect degradation of mRNAs harbouring stem-loop structures; and the increasingly apparent role of the RNA methylation machinery in controlling inflammatory mRNA stability. These activities take place in various subcellular compartments and are differentially regulated during infection. In this way,
mRNA-destabilising RBPs constitute a 'brake' on the immune system, which may ultimately be toggled therapeutically. I anticipate continued efforts in this area will lead to new methods of regaining control over inflammation in autoimmunity, selectively enhancing immunity in immunotherapy, and modulating RNA synthesis and virus replication during infection.