Search This Blog

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Working toward simple pill to treat Covid-19

 The world has vaccines that can prevent most cases of Covid-19. It even has drugs that can help with the most serious symptoms of the disease. Now what it needs is a Tamiflu for SARS-CoV-2.

It would be a pill, exquisitely calibrated to target SARS-CoV-2, with tolerable side effects and a low price tag. And it would work just as well as those antibody treatments that require an hourlong intravenous infusion, but it would come in a handy packet patients could take home.

“We’re looking for something I could give everyone in an urgent care setting who comes in with exposure or a positive test,” said Nathaniel Erdmann, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital who treats Covid-19. “An easy, oral, safe drug.”

As simple as that sounds, the process of actually developing new antiviral treatments is overwhelmingly complicated, even outside of a pandemic. Things can go disastrously wrong at countless steps along the way, whether drugs are too weak to stop the viral spread or too sloppy to be safe. And SARS-CoV-2 is consistently evolving, meaning scientists have to outfox natural selection itself to stay ahead of the game.

The common cold is often caused by a coronavirus, after all. And, as scientists ruefully joke, after billions of dollars spent on research and development, there’s still no cure for that.

But in the case of Covid-19, it’s not for lack of trying. While the breathless search for a Covid-19 vaccine got most of the attention, the National Institutes of Health was running a sweeping parallel effort to find treatments for the disease itself.

Some drugs ended up being dead ends, like the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, and some were unexpected successes, like the lifesaving steroid dexamethasone. Among the bright spots was Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir, an intravenous antiviral that proved to modestly reduce the length of hospitalization for patients with Covid-19. Likewise the antibody treatments from Eli Lilly and Regeneron, which helped keep high-risk patients out of the hospital.

Still missing, however, is what NIH Director Francis Collins called his “dream”: a highly effective pill that can be given immediately after diagnosis.

“It’s just a damn long pathway,” Collins said in an interview. First scientists have to find molecular vulnerability in a virus, and then comes the process of screening hundreds of thousands of would-be drugs to find the few that latch onto that target. Then medicinal chemists get to work on honing a Goldilocks molecule that balances power, specificity, and safety, and if everything goes well in the Petri dish, there’s still months of animal testing to do before a single human being can take a pill in a clinical trial.

“But I will tell you that this is an extremely high priority for Tony Fauci and Francis Collins and the Biden administration, to work with these companies to try to make sure that we speed this up,” Collins said. “Because this pandemic is going to be with us — even with great vaccines — and people are going to get sick.”

There is hope, even in the short term. Any day now, Merck is expected to present pivotal data on an oral treatment akin to remdesivir. Behind that is a treatment from Atea Pharmaceuticals, first developed for hepatitis C virus, which could have pivotal results in the coming months. Neither is purpose-built for the virus that causes Covid-19, but experts said the treatments could still tick many of the boxes of a hoped-for antiviral.

Perhaps most promising is a novel antiviral from Pfizer, a drug engineered specifically for the virus SARS-CoV-2 that entered its first clinical trial last month.

Scientists are crossing their fingers that each one demonstrates at least a marginal benefit, as the history of virology suggests the best bet for beating back Covid-19 will be a cocktail of treatments with complementary effects. But beyond the immediate crisis, experts hope society learns two key lessons: Antiviral development is really hard, and it’s even harder if you wait for a pandemic to start investing in it.

“We need to start thinking about biomedical research as essential infrastructure,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security. “It reinforces that preparedness is not just about how prepared we are to innovate our way out of a crisis. It really does mean investing in drugs that may not have an obvious application when we’re developing them up front.”

How to make an antiviral

The fundamental problem, for drug hunters, is that viruses don’t fight fair.

As soon as SARS-CoV-2 takes hold, it begins using the body’s natural machinery to replicate itself. That gives the virus an edge. Scientists might spot scores of vulnerabilities in a virus, but the majority of them are sure to be shared by the host, making them unsafe targets to attack with a drug.

“If you look at the number of antivirals that exist compared to the number of antibiotics, there are so many fewer antivirals,” said Brianne Barker, a biology professor at Drew University who specializes in the body’s response to viral infection. “The reason for that is that viruses use our cells to reproduce, so you’re looking for a drug that hits some part of the viral reproduction without hurting our cells. And that’s not easy.”

Step one in the antiviral-development process is clearing that hurdle again and again, in the lab, in animals, and in healthy human volunteers.

The next challenge relates to timing. The precise moment of viral infection starts a countdown clock as the virus gradually awakens the immune system, creating a narrow window of time after which an antiviral is likely useless.

“For most viral diseases, the acute ones, the disease is really caused by the host’s response to it,” Rasmussen said. “If that virus gets a foothold and sets off all of these abnormal host processes, the horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.”

For SARS-CoV-2, it can take anywhere from a few days to two weeks for those abnormal immune processes to kick in. That means any clinical trial for an antiviral requires a delicate design. Patients must have confirmed infections, but if they’re already experiencing serious symptoms of Covid-19, they might be too far along to benefit.

Once a would-be antiviral developer has solved the timing problem, then there’s the conundrum of choosing a dose. In normal circumstances, dosing is a precise science, studied in tiered, escalating studies designed to isolate the perfect amount of drug that can achieve a benefit at minimal risk.

In the immediacy of the pandemic, drug developers have understandably sped past some of that methodical work, making educated guesses in the spirit of emergency. That makes each antiviral trial a high-wire scientific act, said Craig Rayner, an executive at the drug development consultancy Certara who worked on Tamiflu. Choosing the right dose can determine not only whether a trial will succeed, but also the manufacturing, rollout, and final cost of the drug in question.

“For every milligram above what is considered optimal, you’re wasting it,” Rayner said. “And for every milligram below, you’re putting everything at risk, because the virus has a chance to be clever and evolve around it.”

That leads to the next hurdle in developing antivirals: Even if you succeed, one drug is never enough. Unless a given antiviral can block 100% of viral replication, in time, evolution is going to kick in.

“In any other aspect of pharma, you’d never need to have 100% efficacy,” Barker said. “But with antivirals, if you allow any replication at all, the virus is going to mutate around the drug.”

In the long-term, the best bet for controlling SARS-CoV-2 is widespread vaccination backed up by a combination antiviral treatment, experts said — a drug cocktail that targets multiple facets of the virus to minimize the risk of mutation.

But first, they need that Tamiflu.

The leading contenders

The first drug poised to check all the boxes of an ideal antiviral is molnupiravir, invented at the Emory Institute for Drug Development and developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. The drug is what’s known as a nucleoside analog, designed to throw a wrench in the process of viral replication by tricking SARS-CoV-2 into corrupting its own genetic material.

Merck is enrolling about 3,000 patients, both hospitalized and not, in a Phase 2/3 trial that will determine whether molnupiravir can help clear SARS-CoV-2 from the body faster than placebo and keep patients out of the hospital. Data from the smaller Phase 2 portion are expected in the coming weeks, and experts are particularly focused on whether Merck’s drug can prevent patients with mild symptoms from developing severe Covid-19.

Behind Merck’s drug is a treatment from Atea Pharmaceuticals that builds on prior antiviral success. Atea’s drug, AT-527, targets an enzyme key to viral replication, a similar approach to Gilead Sciences’ curative treatments for hepatitis C. Later this year, Atea expects to have Phase 2 data on AT-527’s benefits for patients in and out of the hospital. The company is also planning a larger, Phase 3 study on outpatients.

Experts are hopeful that both drugs can make a difference. They’ve selected targets that are likely to minimize the risk of side effects, and they’ve designed studies that should determine whether they work in that key post-diagnosis window. However, some expressed concern that because neither treatment was specifically engineered for SARS-CoV-2, there remains a substantial risk that each will come up short. When it comes to repurposed antivirals, “theoretically they should work great,” Rasmussen said, “but in reality a lot of times they don’t.”

An antiviral from Pfizer, now in the earliest stages of human testing, could address that problem. Catchily named PF-07321332, Pfizer’s drug targets SARS-CoV-2’s backbone enzyme, the linchpin of the virus’s replication process. That enzyme, called 3CL, is one of two that are specific to all coronaviruses. That means if Pfizer can find the right dose, and run the right trials, it might have a treatment not just for SARS-CoV-2 but future pandemic viruses.

“What we might end up doing here is curing the common cold,” Collins said. “Then I wouldn’t have to listen to those jokes anymore.”

https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/09/scientists-work-toward-an-elusive-dream-a-simple-pill-to-treat-covid-19/

China considering mixing COVID-19 vaccines to boost protection rate

 China’s top disease control official has said the country is formally considering mixing COVID-19 vaccines, as a way of further boosting vaccine efficacy.

Available data shows Chinese vaccines lag behind others including Pfizer and Moderna in terms of efficacy, but require less stringent temperature controls during storage.

The currently available vaccines “don’t have very high rates of protection”, Gao Fu, the director of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a conference in the Chinese city of Chengdu on Saturday.

“Inoculation using vaccines of different technical lines is being considered,” he said.

Gao said that taking steps to “optimise” the vaccine process including changing the number of doses and the length of time between doses was a “definite” solution to the efficacy issues.

China has developed four domestic vaccines approved for public use and an official said on Saturday that the country will likely produce 3 billion doses by the end of the year.

A COVID-19 vaccine developed by China’s Sinovac was found to have an efficacy rate of slightly above 50% in Brazilian clinical trials. A separate study in Turkey said it was 83.5% effective.

No detailed efficacy data has been released on a vaccines made by China’s Sinopharm. It has said two vaccines developed by its units are 79.4% and 72.5% effective respectively, based on interim results.

Both vaccine makers have presented data on their COVID-19 vaccines indicating levels of efficacy in line with those required by the World Health Organization, a WHO panel said in March.

China has shipped millions of its vaccines abroad, and officials and state media have fiercely defended the shots while calling into question the safety and logistics capabilities of other vaccines.

“The global vaccine protection rate test data are both high and low,” Gao told state tabloid Global Times on Sunday.

“How to improve the protection rate of vaccines is a problem that requires global scientists to consider,” Gao said, adding that mixing vaccines and adjusting immunisation methods are solutions that he had proposed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-china/china-considering-mixing-covid-19-vaccines-to-boost-protection-rate-idUSKBN2BY0H1

Fauci ‘not sure’ why Texas doesn’t have COVID uptick

 It’s been some five weeks since Texas lifted its mask mandate, and there has yet to be an explosion of COVID-19 cases.

It’s something Dr. Anthony Fauci can’t quite explain.

“I’m not really quite sure,” he told MSNBC this week. “It could be they’re doing things outdoors.”

Daily cases in Texas hovered above 7,000 in early March, when Gov. Greg Abbott lifted the state’s mask rules, leaving it up to individuals and organizations to make their own decisions.

Now, according to the Centers for Disease Control, new cases of COVID-19 are under 4,000.

Fauci noted there can be a delay in how and when cases manifest.

“Often you have to wait a few weeks before you see the effect of what you’re doing right now,” he said.

“I hope they continue to tick down. If they do, that would be great but there’s always the concern when you pull back on methods — particularly on things like indoor dining and bars that are crowded — you could see a delay and then all of a sudden tick right back up,” he said.

“We’ve been fooled before by situations where people begin to open back up. Nothing happens and then all of a sudden several weeks later things explode on you, so we’ve got to be careful we don’t prematurely judge that,” he added.

President Biden had slammed the decision to ease the state’s mask mandate as “neanderthal thinking.”

https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/fauci-not-sure-why-texas-doesnt-have-covid-uptick-after-nixing-masks/

Clovis Oncology Highlights Rubraca® (rucaparib) Clinical Data at AACR

 

  • Findings from the Phase 1b RAMP study evaluating the combination of Rubraca and Xtandi® (enzalutamide) in men with unselected mCRPC lay the groundwork for the Phase 3 CASPAR study which is expected to begin enrolling patients shortly

  • Phase 1 data from the RUCA-J study of Rubraca in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors show similar safety and pharmacokinetic profiles to those observed in Western patients

Clovis Oncology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLVS) announced that Phase 1 clinical data from studies exploring Rubraca in combination with Xtandi for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (RAMP) and Rubraca monotherapy in advanced solid tumors in Japanese patients (RUCA-J) will be presented during week one of the American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting (AACR), taking place April 10-15, 2021.

"We remain committed to understanding how Rubraca may benefit patients with cancer, and the data presented at AACR further enhance our understanding in different patient populations and solid tumor types," said Patrick J. Mahaffy, President and CEO of Clovis Oncology. "The Phase 1b RAMP data for the combination of Rubraca and Xtandi in unselected mCRPC patients help inform the Alliance for Clinical Oncology-sponsored CASPAR Phase 3 trial which is expected to begin enrolling patients soon, and we look forward to learning more about the combination."

The presentations can also be viewed at https://www.clovisoncology.com/pipeline/scientificpresentations/ .

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clovis-oncology-highlights-rubraca-rucaparib-123000334.html

Indoor carbon dioxide levels reflect COVID-19 risk

 Tracking carbon dioxide levels indoors is an inexpensive and powerful way to monitor the risk of people getting COVID-19, according to new research from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and the University of Colorado Boulder. In any given indoor environment, when excess CO2 levels double, the risk of transmission also roughly doubles, two scientists reported this week in Environmental Science & Technology Letters.

The chemists relied on a simple fact already put to use by other researchers more than a decade ago: Infectious people exhale airborne viruses at the same time as they exhale carbon dioxide. That means CO2 can serve as a "proxy" for the number of viruses in the air.

"You're never safe indoors sharing air with others, but you can reduce the risk," said Jose-Luis Jimenez, co-author of the new assessment, a CIRES Fellow and professor of chemistry at the University of Colorado Boulder.

"And CO2 monitoring is really the only low-cost and practical option we have for monitoring," said Zhe Peng, a CIRES and chemistry researcher, and lead author of the new paper. "There is nothing else."

For many months, researchers around the world have been searching for a way to continually monitor COVID-19 infection risk indoors, whether in churches or bars, buses or hospitals. Some are developing instruments that can detect viruses in the air continually, to warn of a spike or to indicate relative safety. Others tested existing laboratory-grade equipment that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Jimenez and colleagues turned to commercially available carbon dioxide monitors, which can cost just a few hundred dollars. First, they confirmed in the laboratory that the detectors were accurate. Then, they created a mathematical "box model" of how an infected person exhales viruses and CO2, how others in the room inhaled and exhaled, and how the viruses and gas accumulate in the air of a room or are removed by ventilation. The model takes into consideration infection numbers in the local community, but it does not detail air flow through rooms -- that kind of modeling requires expensive, custom analysis for each room.

It's important to understand that there is no single CO2 level at which a person can assume a shared indoor space is "safe," Peng emphasized. That's partly because activity matters: Are people in the room singing and talking loudly or exercising, or are they sitting quietly and reading or resting? A CO2 level of 1,000 ppm, which is well above outside levels of about 400 ppm, could be relatively safe in a quiet library with masks but not in an active gym without masks.

But in each indoor space, the model can illuminate "relative" risk: If CO2 levels in a gym drop from 2,800 to 1,000 ppm (~2,400 above background levels to 600), the risk of COVID-19 transmission drops, too, to one-quarter of the original risk. In the library, if an influx of people makes CO2 jump from 800 to 1,600 (400 to 1,200 above background), COVID transmission risk triples.

In the new paper, Peng and Jimenez also shared a set of mathematical formulae and tools that experts in building systems and public health can use to pin down actual, not just relative, risk. But the most important conclusion is that to minimize risk, keep the CO2 levels in all the spaces where we share air as low as practically possible.

"Wherever you are sharing air, the lower the CO2, the lower risk of infection," Jimenez said.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Colorado at BoulderNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Zhe Peng, Jose L. Jimenez. Exhaled CO2 as a COVID-19 Infection Risk Proxy for Different Indoor Environments and ActivitiesEnvironmental Science & Technology Letters, 2021; DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00183

Studies support key role for immune system in shaping SARS-CoV-2 evolution

 Two studies published in the open-access journal PLOS Pathogens provide new evidence supporting an important role for the immune system in shaping the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. These findings -- and the novel technology behind them -- improve understanding of how new SARS-CoV-2 strains arise, which could help guide treatment and vaccination efforts.

For the first study, Rachel Eguia of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, and colleagues sought to better understand SARS-CoV-2 by investigating a closely related virus that has circulated widely for a far longer period of time: the common-cold virus 229E.

229E and SARS-CoV-2 are both in the coronavirus family, which features a "spike protein" that enables infection of human cells. A person who is infected with 229E develops an immune response against the spike protein that protects them from reinfection, but only for a few years. Whether reinfection then occurs because the immune response wears off or because 229E evolves to escape it has been unclear.

Eguia and colleagues addressed this question by testing the activity of serum samples collected from patients in the 1980s-90s against spike proteins from both old 229E strains and strains that evolved later on. They found that the old spike proteins were vulnerable to the older sera. However, modern spike proteins were able to evade older sera while remaining vulnerable to sera from modern patients.

This analysis suggests that modern strains of 229E have accumulated spike protein mutations that enable them to evade older sera. These findings raise the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses could undergo similar evolution, and that COVID-19 vaccines may require periodic updates to remain effective against new strains.

The authors add, "The human common-cold coronavirus evolves over the span of years to decades to erode neutralization by human polyclonal serum antibodies. This work suggests that human coronaviruses undergo significant antigenic evolution that may contribute to eventual re-infections."

For the second study, Sung Hee Ko of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues developed new technology for genetic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, enabling detection of multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains that may be present at the same time within a single infected patient.

Previous studies have used standard sequencing methods to produce a single genetic sequence from an individual patient, obscuring the potential presence of multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains. By contrast, the new technology highlights virus diversity within each patient and enables tracking of the evolution of new SARS-CoV-2 strains during acute infection.

Indeed, when the researchers applied the new method to human respiratory samples, they found new SARS-CoV-2 variants arising within the same patient over the course of acute infection. The precise mutations in these variants suggest that they arose in response to selective pressure from the immune system.

Future application of the new technology could improve understanding of how the evolution of new SARS-CoV-2 variants within a single patient impacts their outcomes. The findings also suggest that patients might see greater benefits from early treatment with antiviral drugs capable of targeting multiple strains, than from delayed treatment with a single antiviral drug.

The authors add, "We used new technology to show that coronavirus variants with mutated spike proteins can arise early in the course of infection. Our results suggest more virus evolution in each person than previously thought, with potential implications for clinical outcomes and for the emergence of transmissible variant strains."

Together, these two studies deepen understanding of how new SARS-CoV-2 strains arise in response to immune system activity, potentially paving the way for additional research and improved treatment.


Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOSNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal References:

  1. Sung Hee Ko, Elham Bayat Mokhtari, Prakriti Mudvari, Sydney Stein, Christopher D. Stringham, Danielle Wagner, Sabrina Ramelli, Marcos J. Ramos-Benitez, Jeffrey R. Strich, Richard T. Davey, Tongqing Zhou, John Misasi, Peter D. Kwong, Daniel S. Chertow, Nancy J. Sullivan, Eli A. Boritz. High-throughput, single-copy sequencing reveals SARS-CoV-2 spike variants coincident with mounting humoral immunity during acute COVID-19PLOS Pathogens, 2021; 17 (4): e1009431 DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009431
  2. Rachel T. Eguia, Katharine H. D. Crawford, Terry Stevens-Ayers, Laurel Kelnhofer-Millevolte, Alexander L. Greninger, Janet A. Englund, Michael J. Boeckh, Jesse D. Bloom. A human coronavirus evolves antigenically to escape antibody immunityPLOS Pathogens, 2021; 17 (4): e1009453 DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453

Chronic sinus inflammation appears to alter brain activity

 The millions of people who have chronic sinusitis deal not only with stuffy noses and headaches, they also commonly struggle to focus, and experience depression and other symptoms that implicate the brain's involvement in their illness.

New research links sinus inflammation with alterations in brain activity, specifically with the neural networks that modulate cognition, introspection and response to external stimuli.

The paper was published today in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery.

"This is the first study that links chronic sinus inflammation with a neurobiological change," said lead author Dr. Aria Jafari, a surgeon and assistant professor of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

"We know from previous studies that patients who have sinusitis often decide to seek medical care not because they have a runny nose and sinus pressure, but because the disease is affecting how they interact with the world: They can't be productive, thinking is difficult, sleep is lousy. It broadly impacts their quality of life. Now we have a prospective mechanism for what we observe clinically."

Chronic rhinosinusitis affects about 11% of U.S. adults, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition can necessitate treatment over a span of years, typically involving antibiotics. Repeated cycles of inflammation and repair thicken sinus tissues, much like calloused skin. Surgery may resolve the issue, but symptoms also can recur.

The researchers identified a study cohort from the Human Connectome Project, an open-access, brain-focused dataset of 1,206 healthy adults ages 22-35. Data included radiology image scans and cognitive/behavioral measurements.

The scans enabled them to identify 22 people with moderate or severe sinus inflammation as well as an age- and gender-matched control group of 22 with no sinus inflammation. Functional MRI (fMRI) scans, which detect cerebral blood flow and neuronal activity, showed these distinguishing features in the study subjects:

  • decreased functional connectivity in the frontoparietal network, a regional hub for executive function, maintaining attention and problem-solving;
  • increased functional connectivity to two nodes in the default-mode network, which influences self-reference and is active during wakeful rest and mind-wandering;
  • decreased functional connectivity in the salience network, which is involved in detecting and integrating external stimuli, communication and social behavior.

The magnitude of brain-activity differences seen in the study group paralleled the severity of sinus inflammation among the subjects, Jafari said.

Despite the brain-activity changes, however, no significant deficit was seen in the behavioral and cognitive testing of study-group participants, said Dr. Kristina Simonyan, a study co-author. She is an associate professor of otolaryngology-head & neck surgery at Harvard Medical School and director of laryngology research at Massachusetts Eye and Ear.

"The participants with moderate and severe sinus inflammation were young individuals who did not show clinically significant signs of cognitive impairment. However, their brain scans told us a different story: The subjective feelings of attention decline, difficulties to focus or sleep disturbances that a person with sinus inflammation experiences might be associated with subtle changes in how brain regions controlling these functions communicate with one another," said Simonyan.

It is plausible, she added, that these changes may cause more clinically meaningful symptoms if chronic sinusitis is left untreated. "It is also possible that we might have detected the early markers of a cognitive decline where sinus inflammation acts as a predisposing trigger or predictive factor," Simonyan said.

Jafari sees the study findings as a launch pad to explore new therapies for the disease.

"The next step would be to study people who have been clinically diagnosed with chronic sinusitis. It might involve scanning patients' brains, then providing typical treatment for sinus disease with medication or surgery, and then scanning again afterward to see if their brain activity had changed. Or we could look for inflammatory molecules or markers in patients' bloodstreams."

In the bigger picture, he said, the study may help ear-nose-throat specialists be mindful of the less-evident distress that many patients experience with chronic sinusitis.

"Our care should not be limited to relieving the most overt physical symptoms, but the whole burden of patients' disease."

Study funding was provided by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC011805), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data were provided in part by the Human Connectome Project, which is funded by 16 NIH institutes and centers (1U54MH091657).


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Washington School of Medicine/UW MedicineNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Aria Jafari, Laura de Lima Xavier, Jeffrey D. Bernstein, Kristina Simonyan, Benjamin S. Bleier. Association of Sinonasal Inflammation With Functional Brain ConnectivityJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 2021; DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.0204