Innate Immune Response Modulation and Resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study in High Risk Healthcare Workers
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
To evaluate ability of modulated innate immune response to provide resistance to development of symptomatic RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19, 96 inpatient front line health care workers (HCW) were cohorted in 1:2 ratio to receive TLR2 agonist (heat killed Mycobacterium w, Mw; n=32) as innate immune response modulator or observation (n=64). All were followed up for 100 days. The incidence of COVID-19 was 31 (32.3%) for the entire cohort, with only one developing COVID-19 in Mw group (3.1% vs 46.8%. protective efficacy - 93.33%, p=0.0001; 95% CI 53.3-99.1). Self-limiting local injection site reaction was the only side effect and was seen in 14 HCW. Findings from the study suggest the potential for providing resistance against novel pathogen like SARS-CoV-2 by modulating innate immune response.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20214965: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IACUC: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20214965: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IACUC: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20214965: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.20.20214965: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
