Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

New Insights into the Link between SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Renal Cancer

Cancer has been described as a risk factor for greater susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, mainly for patients with metastatic disease. Conversely, to that reported for most solid and hematological malignancies, the few available clinical studies reported that the infection did not increase the risk of death in renal cancer patients. The expression on proximal tubular renal cells of the key players in cellular viral uptake, ACE2, TMPRSS2, and NRP1, seems to be the mechanism for the direct kidney injury seen in patients with COVID-19. Interestingly, data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and experimental analyses on various renal cancer cell lines demonstrated that the above-reported receptors/cofactors are maintained by renal cancer cells. However, whether SARS-CoV-2 infection directly kills renal cancer cells or generates enhanced immunogenicity is a question worth investigating. In addition, some researchers have further addressed the topic by studying the expression and prognostic significance of gene signatures related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in renal cancer patients. The emerging data highlights the importance of better understanding the existence of a link between renal cancer and COVID-19 since it could lead to the identification of new prognostic factors and the development of new therapeutic targets in the management of renal cancer patients.

The valley of death: why Australia failed to develop clinically effective drugs in COVID-19

There is a paucity of public discussion of costs spent on drug trials during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their value, and of large public outlay on research funding for vaccine and drug development that did not deliver medicines nor vaccines for Australians. This oversight left us at the behest of global supply chains, politics and commercial cost-plus pricing for vaccines. It is possible that these outcomes were the result of some major cognitive biases and the failure of a clinical pharmacologist's voice in the leadership teams. Biases included unawareness of the complexities of taking interesting chemicals in vitro to development into therapeutic use that can be tolerated, show efficacy and have appropriate disposition in humans; lack of a systems approach to therapeutic development; and an understanding of the relevance and translatability of pharmacology, physiology and clinical drug development. We believe that reflecting on and addressing these biases will help Australia reposition itself better with a therapeutics and clinical trial strategy for future pandemics, built into the strategy of a Centre for Disease Control.