Background: Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective. Methods and findings: We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527). Conclusions: In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

JX-594 is a targeted and granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-expressing oncolytic poxvirus designed to selectively replicate in and destroy cancer cells through viral oncolysis and tumor-specific immunity. In order to study the mechanisms-of-action (MOA) of JX-594 in humans, a mechanistic proof-of-concept clinical trial was performed at a low dose equivalent to ≤10% of the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) in other clinical trials. Ten patients with previously treated stage IV melanoma were enrolled. Tumors were injected weekly for up to nine total treatments. Blood samples and tumor biopsies were analyzed for evidence of transgene activity, virus replication, and immune stimulation. The β-galactosidase (β-gal) transgene was expressed in all patients as evidenced by antibody induction. Six patients had significant induction of GM-CSF-responsive white blood cell (WBC) subsets such as neutrophils (25–300% increase). JX-594 replication and subsequent shedding into blood was detectable in five patients after cycles 1–9. Tumor biopsies demonstrated JX-594 replication, perivascular lymphocytic infiltration, and diffuse tumor necrosis. Mild flu-like symptoms were the most common adverse events. In sum, JX-594 replication, oncolysis, and expression of both transgenes were demonstrated; replication was still evident after multiple cycles. These findings have implications for further clinical development of JX-594 and other transgene-armed oncolytic viruses.

JX-594 is a targeted and granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) expressing oncolytic poxvirus designed to selectively replicate in and destroy cancer cells through viral oncolysis and tumor-specific immunity. In a phase 1 trial, JX-594 injection into hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was well-tolerated and associated with viral replication, decreased tumor perfusion, and tumor necrosis. We hypothesized that JX-594 and sorafenib, a small molecule inhibitor of B-raf and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) approved for HCC, would have clinical benefit in combination given their demonstrated efficacy in HCC patients and their complementary mechanisms-of-action. HCC cell lines were uniformly sensitive to JX-594. Anti-raf kinase effects of concurrent sorafenib inhibited JX-594 replication in vitro, whereas sequential therapy was superior to either agent alone in murine tumor models. We therefore explored pilot safety and efficacy of JX-594 followed by sorafenib in three HCC patients. In all three patients, sequential treatment was (i) well-tolerated, (ii) associated with significantly decreased tumor perfusion, and (iii) associated with objective tumor responses (Choi criteria; up to 100% necrosis). HCC historical control patients on sorafenib alone at the same institutions had no objective tumor responses (0 of 15). Treatment of HCC with JX-594 followed by sorafenib has antitumoral activity, and JX-594 may sensitize tumors to subsequent therapy with VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors.

The oncolytic and immunotherapeutic vaccinia virus Pexa-Vec (JX-594) induces antibody-mediated complement-dependent cancer cell cytolysis in rabbits and cancer patients, prolonging their survival.

Targeted oncolytic poxviruses hold promise for the treatment of cancer. Arming these agents with immunostimulatory cytokines (for example, granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor; GM-CSF) can potentially increase their efficacy and/or alter their safety. However, due to species-specific differences in both human GM-CSF (hGM-CSF) activity and poxviruses immune avoidance proteins, the impact of hGM-CSF expression from an oncolytic poxvirus cannot be adequately assessed in murine or rat tumor models. We developed a rabbit tumor model to assess toxicology, pharmacodynamics, oncolytic efficacy and tumor-specific immunity of hGM-CSF expressed from a targeted oncolytic poxvirus JX-963. Recombinant purified hGM-CSF protein stimulated a leukocyte response in this model that paralleled effects of the protein in humans. JX-963 replication and targeting was highly tumor-selective after i.v. administration, and intratumoral replication led to recurrent, delayed systemic viremia. Likewise, hGM-CSF was expressed and released into the blood during JX-963 replication in tumors, but not in tumor-free animals. hGM-CSF expression from JX-963 was associated with significant increases in neutrophil, monocyte and basophil concentrations in the peripheral blood. Finally, tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) were induced by the oncolytic poxvirus, and expression of hGM-CSF from the virus enhanced both tumor-specific CTL and antitumoral efficacy. JX-963 had significant efficacy against both the primary liver tumor as well as metastases; no significant organ toxicity was noted. This model holds promise for the evaluation of immunostimulatory transgene-armed oncolytic poxviruses, and potentially other viral species.