SARS: systematic review of treatment effects

Emergent Drug and Nutrition Interactions in COVID-19: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause respiratory tract infections ranging from colds to more severe diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). New Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which led to deaths as well as social and economic disruptions, is an ongoing worldwide pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Currently, there is no approved treatment for COVID-19. Hence, only supportive care has been approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) for now. Pharmacological agents used for the adjunctive treatment of COVID-19 following the current literature and clinical experiences include antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anti-malaria drugs, and other traditional or untraditional treatments. However, it has been reported that the use of these drugs may have some negative effects and comorbidities. Moreover, the current data have indicated that the risk of drug-drug interactions may also be high in polypharmacy cases, especially in elderly people, some comorbidity situations, and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is highly possible that these situations can not only increase the risk of drug-drug interactions but also increase the risk of food/nutrition-drug interactions and affect the nutritional status. However, this issue has not yet been entirely discussed in the literature. In this review, current information on the possible mechanisms as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of some pharmacological agents used in the treatment of COVID-19 and/or their secondary interactions with nutrition were evaluated and some future directions were given.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Overview of the Complications and Management

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the first report of COVID-19 emerging in Wuhan, China, authorities in 216 countries and territories have reported about 47.3 million COVID-19 cases and 1.2 million deaths. The WHO guidelines for the management of COVID-19 are very limited to recommendations for managing symptoms and advice on careful management of pediatric patients, pregnant women, and patients with underlying comorbidities. There is no approved treatment for COVID-19 and guidelines vary between countries. In this review, first, a brief overview is provided on the basic knowledge about the virus, clinical features of the disease, and different diagnostic methods. Then, the relationship between COVID-19, various body systems, and other complications is discussed. Finallly, different management strategies are discussed, including those drawn on computational chemistry analyses, pre-clinical investigations, and clinical trials which involve pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. In conclusion, despite the recent approval of different vaccine candidates, more virological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 are required to be explored, which may result in the discovery of more potential therapeutic targets leading to safer and more effective treatment to COVID-19.

COVID-19; current situation and recommended interventions

BACKGROUND

The new coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) that emerged at the end of 2019 was stated in China and infected millions of people around the world, with the highest spread rate amongst humans compared with other coronaviruses. This paper aimed to review and analyse the published studies about COVID-19 diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

METHOD

The reviewed studies were clinical trials, in-vivo, in-vitro, guidelines, reports from the world health organization (WHO), and the centre for disease control and prevention (CDC) in addition to systemic reviews. All data extracted and analysed to stand on the latest updates and recommendations for fighting this severe attack of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Most important antiviral therapy of COVID-19 clinical trials is still running without clear results, but a few trials have indicated the role of numerous drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. Specific recommendations for aerosol therapy should be followed for the management of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Nature of COVID-19 is still not very clear, however, management of the condition is similar to the previous attacks of coronaviruses.

Emerging treatment strategies for COVID-19 infection

The new type of coronavirus (COVID-19), SARS-CoV-2 originated from Wuhan, China and has led to a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 is a novel emerging infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 characterized as atypical pneumonia. As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The typical manifestations of COVID-19 include fever, sore throat, fatigue, cough, and dyspnoea combined with recent exposure. Most of the patients with COVID-19 have mild or moderate disease, however up to 5-10% present with severe and even life-threatening disease course. The mortality rates are approximately 2%. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective and specific antiviral treatment. Currently, supportive care measures such as ventilation oxygenation and fluid management remain the standard of care. Several clinical trials are currently trying to identify the most potent drug or combination against the disease, and it is strongly recommended to enroll patients into ongoing trials. Antivirals can be proven as safe and effective only in the context of randomized clinical trials. Currently several agents such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, favipiravir, monoclonal antibodies, antisense RNA, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma and vaccines are being evaluated. The large numbers of therapeutic interventions aim to define the most efficacious regimen. The aim of this article is to describe the treatment strategies that have been used for COVID-19 patients and review all the available literature.

A comprehensive guide to the pharmacologic regulation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor

The recent emergence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic has prompted scientists to address an urgent need for defining mechanisms of disease pathology and treatment. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for COVID-19, employs angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as its primary target for cell surface attachment and likely entry into the host cell. Thus, understanding factors that may regulate the expression and function of ACE2 in the healthy and diseased body is critical for clinical intervention. Over 66% of all adults in the United States are currently using a prescription drug and while earlier findings have focused on possible upregulation of ACE2 expression through the use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, mounting evidence suggests that various other widely administered drugs used in the treatment of hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemias, coagulation disorders, and pulmonary disease may also present a varied risk for COVID-19. Specifically, we summarize mechanisms on how heparin, statins, steroids and phytochemicals, besides their established therapeutic effects, may also interfere with SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into cells. We also describe evidence on the effect of several vitamins, phytochemicals, and naturally occurring compounds on ACE2 expression and activity in various tissues and disease models. This comprehensive review aims to provide a timely compendium on the potential impact of commonly prescribed drugs and pharmacologically active compounds on COVID-19 pathology and risk through regulation of ACE2 and RAS signaling.

Corticosteroid therapy for 2019-nCoV-infected patients: A case series of eight mechanically ventilated patients

High-dose short-term corticosteroid therapy is effective and produces favorable clinical outcome in patients with severe 2019-nCoV infection who are candidates for mechanical ventilation with close monitor/ing for the adverse effect of corticosteroids.

Roles of Type I and III Interferons in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Type I and III interferon (IFN) responses act as the first line of defense against viral infection and are activated by the recognition of viruses by infected cells and innate immune cells. Dysregulation of host IFN responses has been known to be associated with severe disease progression in COVID-19 patients. However, the reported results are controversial and the roles of IFN responses in COVID-19 need to be investigated further. In the absence of a highly efficacious antiviral drug, clinical studies have evaluated recombinant type I and III IFNs, as they have been successfully used for the treatment of infections caused by two other epidemic coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV. In this review, we describe the strategies by which SARS-CoV-2 evades IFN responses and the dysregulation of host IFN responses in COVID-19 patients. In addition, we discuss the therapeutic potential of type I and III IFNs in COVID-19.

Efficacy of IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) for corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A meta-analysis

Background

The benefit of IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin) therapy for COVID-19 remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of IVIG treatment in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched articles from Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, MedRxiv between 1 January 2020 and February 17, 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials and observational studies with a control group to assess the efficiency of IVIG in treating patients with COVID-19. Subjects were divided into ‘non-severe’, ‘severe’ and ‘critical’ three subgroups based on the information of the study and the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of severity. We pooled the data of mortality and other outcomes using either a fixed-effect model or a random-effects model.

Results

Our meta-analysis retrieved 4 clinical trials and 3 cohort studies including 825 hospitalized patients. The severity of COVID-19 is associated with the efficiency of IVIG. In critical subgroup, IVIG could reduce the mortality compared with the control group [RR = 0.57 (0.42–0.79, I² = 025%). But there was no significant difference in the severe or non-severe subgroups.

Conclusion

IVIG has demonstrated clinical efficacy on critical ill patients with COVID-19. There may be a relationship between the efficacy of IVIG and the COVID-19 disease severity. Well-designed clinical trials to identify the clinical and biochemical characteristics in COVID-19 patients’ population that could benefit from IVIG are warranted in the future.

Triazole, imidazole, and thiazole-based compounds as potential agents against coronavirus

The expansion of the novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), or 2019-nCoV (2019 novel coronavirus) is a global concern over its pandemic potential. The need for therapeutic alternatives to stop this new pandemic is urgent. Nowadays, no efficacious therapy is available, and vaccines and drugs are underdeveloped to cure or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in many countries. Some vaccines candidates have been approved; however, a number of people are still skeptical of this coronavirus vaccines. Probably because of issues related to the quantity of the vaccine and a possible long-term side effects which are still being studied. The previous pandemics of infections caused by coronavirus, such as SARS-CoV in 2003, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-OC43 were described in the 1960 s, -HCoV-NL63 isolated in 2004, and HCoV-HKU1identified in 2005 prompted researchers to characterize many compounds against these viruses. Most of them could be potentially active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus. Five membered nitrogen heterocycles with a triazole, imidazole, and thiazole moiety are often found in many bioactive molecules such as coronavirus inhibitors. This present work summarizes to review the biological and structural studies of these compound types as coronavirus inhibitors.

Treatment of severe acute ulcerative colitis in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients: report of three cases and discussion of treatment options

In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is unclear how asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients who present with acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC) can be treated effectively and safely. Standard treatment regimens consist of steroids, immunomodulatory drugs, and biological therapies, but therapeutic decision-making becomes challenging as there are uncertainties about how to deal with these drugs in patients with COVID-19 and active UC. Importantly, guidelines for this particular group of patients with UC are still lacking. To inform therapeutic decision-making, we describe three consecutive cases of patients with active UC and COVID-19 and discuss their treatments based on theoretical knowledge, currently available evidence and clinical observations. Three patients were identified through our national inflammatory bowel disease network [Initiative on Crohn's and Colitis (ICC)] for whom diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2-infection was established by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing in nasopharynx, stools, and/or biopsies. Acute severe UC was diagnosed by clinical parameters, endoscopy, and histopathology. Clinical guidelines for SARS-CoV-2-negative patients advocate the use of steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α)-antagonists as induction therapy, and experiences from the current three cases show that steroids and TNF-α-antagonists could also be used in patients with COVID-19. This could potentially be followed by TNF-α-antagonists, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab as maintenance therapy in these patients. Future research is warranted to investigate if, and which, immunomodulatory drugs should be used for COVID-19 patients that present with active UC. To answer this question, it is of utmost importance that future cases of patients with UC and COVID-19 are documented carefully in international registries, such as the SECURE-IBD registry.

Therapeutic Agents for COVID-19: an Overview

Background::

The pathological agent of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus termed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). COVID-19 has its origin in Wuhan, China, and spread to other provinces of China and subsequently to other countries resulting in a pandemic worldwide. The virus is extremely contagious and causes pneumonia and respiratory failure. Since its emergence, researchers around the world are trying to develop vaccines and find suitable drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.

Objective::

To give an overview of the various therapeutic agents for COVID-19 such as vaccines and drugs that are in preclinical stage or under different stages of clinical trials.

Results::

As per World Health Organization (WHO), there are 137 vaccines under development to date, out of which few vaccines have successfully completed preclinical studies and reached clinical trials. According to the present scenario, only one coronavirus vaccine (sputnik-V) has been approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Till date, there are no United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approved drugs to treat COVID-19 patients. However, depending on patient’s condition, different drugs such as antiviral agents like Remdesivir, antimalarial drugs like Hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics like Azithromycin and corticosteroids like Dexamethasone are being applied and some of them have proved to be effective up to a certain extent.

Conclusion::

Although several vaccines for COVID-19 are under development and various drugs have been tried for its treatment, an ideal drug candidate or a vaccine is still lacking. Almost all the big pharmaceutical companies are associated with one or more research initiatives in order to develop vaccines and drugs. Many of them are going through clinical stages, expecting a positive outcome by the end of 2020.

Current COVID-19 treatments: Rapid review of the literature

BACKGROUND

As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread worldwide, it has already resulted in over 110 million cases and 2.5 million deaths. Currently, there are no effective COVID-19 treatments, although numerous studies are under way. SARS-CoV-2, however, is not the first coronavirus to cause serious outbreaks. COVID-19 can be compared with previous human coronavirus diseases, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), to better understand the development of treatments.

METHODS

Databases Medline, Embase and WHO COVID-19 was systematically searched on 9 February 2021 for studies reporting on therapeutic effect of COVID-19 treatments. Clinical trials, case reports, observational studies and systematic reviews in the English language were eligible.

RESULTS

1416 studies were identified and 40 studies were included in this review. Therapies included are: remdesivir, convalescent plasma, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ ritonavir, interferon, corticosteroids, cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. Remdesivir, convalescent plasma and interferon seems to provide some clinical benefits such as faster recovery time and reduced mortality, but these effects are not clinically significant. Some corticosteroids are effective in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine do not convey any beneficial, and therapies such as cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies were also not effective and require further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no single therapy effective against COVID-19. However, a combination of therapies administered at different stages of infection may provide some benefit. This conclusion is reflected in the limited effects of these treatments in previous human coronaviruses.

COVID-19 versus SARS: A comparative review

The two genetically similar severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, have each been responsible for global epidemics of vastly different scales. Although both viruses arose from similar origins, they quickly diverged due to differences in their transmission dynamics and spectrum of clinical presentations. The potential involvement of multiple organs systems, including the respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal and neurological, during infection necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the clinical pathogenesis of each virus. The management of COVID-19, initially modelled after SARS and other respiratory illnesses, has continued to evolve as we accumulate more knowledge and experience during the pandemic, as well as develop new therapeutics and vaccines. The impact of these two coronaviruses has been profound for our health care and public health systems, and we hope that the lessons learned will not only bring the current pandemic under control, but also prevent and reduce the impact of future pandemics.

Label-Free Screening of SARS-CoV-2 NSP14 Exonuclease Activity Using SAMDI Mass Spectrometry

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus responsible for the global COVID-19 pandemic. Nonstructural protein 14 (NSP14), which features exonuclease (ExoN) and guanine N7 methyltransferase activity, is a critical player in SARS-CoV-2 replication and fidelity and represents an attractive antiviral target. Initiating drug discovery efforts for nucleases such as NSP14 remains a challenge due to a lack of suitable high-throughput assay methodologies. This report describes the combination of self-assembled monolayers and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry to enable the first label-free and high-throughput assay for NSP14 ExoN activity. The assay was used to measure NSP14 activity and gain insight into substrate specificity and the reaction mechanism. Next, the assay was optimized for kinetically balanced conditions and miniaturized, while achieving a robust assay (Z factor > 0.8) and a significant assay window (signal-to-background ratio > 200). Screening 10,240 small molecules from a diverse library revealed candidate inhibitors, which were counterscreened for NSP14 selectivity and RNA intercalation. The assay methodology described here will enable, for the first time, a label-free and high-throughput assay for NSP14 ExoN activity to accelerate drug discovery efforts and, due to the assay flexibility, can be more broadly applicable for measuring other enzyme activities from other viruses or implicated in various pathologies.

Role of interferon therapy in severe COVID-19: the COVIFERON randomized controlled trial

Type 1 Interferons (IFNs) have been associated with positive effects on Coronaviruses. Previous studies point towards the superior potency of IFNβ compared to IFNα against viral infections. We conducted a three-armed, individually-randomized, open-label, controlled trial of IFNβ1a and IFNβ1b, comparing them against each other and a control group. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to IFNβ1a (subcutaneous injections of 12,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), IFNβ1b (subcutaneous injections of 8,000,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), or the control group. All three arms orally received Lopinavir/Ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice a day for ten days) and a single dose of Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg on the first day. Our utilized primary outcome measure was Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI) defined as the time from enrollment to discharge or a decline of two steps on the clinical seven-step ordinal scale, whichsoever came first. A total of 60 severely ill patients with positive RT-PCR and Chest CT scans underwent randomization (20 patients to each arm). In the Intention-To-Treat population, IFNβ1a was associated with a significant difference against the control group, in the TTCI; (HR; 2.36, 95% CI 1.10–5.17, P-value = 0.031) while the IFNβ1b indicated no significant difference compared with the control; HR; 1.42, (95% CI 0.63–3.16, P-value = 0.395). The median TTCI for both of the intervention groups was five days vs. seven days for the control group. The mortality was numerically lower in both of the intervention groups (20% in the IFNβ1a group and 30% in the IFNβ1b group vs. 45% in the control group). There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding the adverse events. In patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared with the base therapeutic regiment, the benefit of a significant reduction in TTCI was observed in the IFNβ1a arm. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies.

Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04343768. (Submitted: 08/04/2020; First Online: 13/04/2020) (Registration Number: NCT04343768).

Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone, which one is superior corticosteroid in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although almost a year has passed since the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and promising reports of vaccines have been presented, we still have a long way until these measures are available for all. Furthermore, the most appropriate corticosteroid and dose in the treatment of COVID-19 have remained uncertain. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone treatment versus dexamethasone for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

In this prospective triple-blinded randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from August to November 2020, in Shiraz, Iran. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day; intervention group) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day; control group). Data were assessed based on a 9-point WHO ordinal scale extending from uninfected (point 0) to death (point 8).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups on admission. However, the intervention group demonstrated significantly better clinical status compared to the control group at day 5 (4.02 vs. 5.21, p = 0.002) and day 10 (2.90 vs. 4.71, p = 0.001) of admission. There was also a significant difference in the overall mean score between the intervention group and the control group, (3.909 vs. 4.873 respectively, p = 0.004). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.43 ± 3.64 and 10.52 ± 5.47 days in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.015). The need for a ventilator was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (18.2% vs 38.1% p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

In hospitalized hypoxic COVID-19 patients, methylprednisolone demonstrated better results compared to dexamethasone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with IRCT.IR (08/04/2020-No. IRCT20200204046369N1 ).

Impact of corticosteroids in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are a potential therapeutic agent for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The RECOVERY (Randomised Trials in COVID-19 Therapy) trial provided data on the mortality benefits of corticosteroids. The study aimed to determine the association between corticosteroid use on mortality and infection rates and to define subgroups who may benefit from corticosteroids in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Clinical data were extracted that included demographic, laboratory data and details of the therapy, including the administration of corticosteroids, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab and anticoagulation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcomes were compared in patients who did and did not receive corticosteroids using the multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

4313 patients were hospitalised with COVID-19 during the study period, of whom 1270 died (29.4%). When administered within the first 7 days after admission, corticosteroids were associated with reduced mortality (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, p=0.03) and decreased transfers to the ICU (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.11, p=0.02). This mortality benefit was particularly impressive in younger patients (<65 years of age), females and those with elevated inflammatory markers, defined as C reactive protein ≥150 mg/L (p≤0.05), interleukin-6 ≥20 pg/mL (p≤0.05) or D-dimer ≥2.0 µg/L (p≤0.05). Therapy was safe with similar rates of bacteraemia and fungaemia in corticosteroid-treated and non-corticosteroid-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia, corticosteroid use within the first 7 days of admission decreased mortality and ICU admissions with no associated increase in bacteraemia or fungaemia.

Within-host mathematical modeling on crucial inflammatory mediators and drug interventions in COVID-19 identifies combination therapy to be most effective and optimal☆

The unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 14.75 million infections and 6, 10, 839 deaths in 212 countries. Appropriate interventions can decrease the rate of Covid-19 related mortality. Fast track clinical trials around the world are addressing the efficacy of individual pharmaceutical agent acting at various stages of pathogenesis. However, lessons learnt while dealing with past viral epidemics mandates, simultaneous use of such drugs in combination amongst different populations. Mathematical modelling studies can be extremely helpful in understanding the efficacy of drugs both individually and in combination. The current within-host mathematical model studies the natural history of Covid-19 in terms of complex interplay of virus replication and behaviour of host immune response. Additionally it studies the role of various drugs at various stages of pathogenesis. The model was validated by generating two-parameter heat plots, representing the characteristics of Covid-19, the sensitivity analysis identified the crucial parameters. The efficacy of interventions was assessed by optimal control problem. The model dynamics exhibited disease-free equilibrium and the infected equilibrium with their stability, based on the reproduction number R0, the transcritical bifurcation observed at R0=1. The burst rate and the natural death rate of the virus were observed as most significant parameters in the life-threatening Covid-19 pneumonia. The antiviral drugs affecting viral replication and those modulating the immune response, reduce the infected cells and viral load significantly. However, the yield was optimal and most effective when the combination therapy involving one or more antiviral and one or more immunomodulating drugs were administered together. These findings may help physicians with early decision making in treatment of life-threatening Covid-19 infection.

Repeated Pulses of Methyl-Prednisolone in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Preliminary Before-After Study (CortiCOVID Study)

Introduction

The use of systemic corticosteroids in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid pulses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study, before and after, was performed in a tertiary referral hospital, including admitted patients showing COVID-19-associated pneumonia. The standard treatment protocol included targeted COVID-19 antiviral therapy from 23rd March 2020, and additionally pulses of methylprednisolone from 30th March 2020. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint combining oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and death within 7 days.

Results

A total of 24 patients were included. Standard of care (SOC) (before intervention) was prescribed in 14 patients, while 10 received SOC plus pulses of methylprednisolone (after intervention). The median age of patients was 64.5 years and 83.3% of the patients were men. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 13 patients (92.9%) who received SOC vs. 2 patients (20%) that received pulses of methylprednisolone (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.001 to 0.25; p = 0.019). Length of hospitalization in survivors was shorter in the corticosteroids group (median, 14.5 [8.5-21.8] days vs. 29 [23-31] days, p = 0.003). There were no differences in the development of infections between both groups. There were 3 deaths, none of them in the corticosteroids group.

Conclusions

In patients with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19, the administration of methylprednisolone pulses was associated with a lower rate of OTI and/or death and a shorter hospitalization episode.

Coronaviruses in humans and animals: the role of bats in viral evolution

Bats act as a natural reservoir for many viruses, including coronaviruses, and have played a crucial epidemiological role in the emergence of many viral diseases. Coronaviruses have been known for 60 years. They are usually responsible for the induction of mild respiratory signs in humans. However, since 2002, the bat-borne virus started to induce fatal epidemics according to WHO reports. In this year, the first serious human coronavirus epidemic (severe acute respiratory syndrome; SARS) occurred (China, 8098 cases, 774 deaths [9.5% of the cases] in 17 countries). The case fatality was higher in elderly patients above 60 years and reached 50% of the cases. SARS epidemic was followed 10 years later by the emergence of the middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) in Saudi Arabia (in 2012, 2260 cases, 803 deaths [35.5% of the cases] in 27 countries). Finally, in December 2019, a new epidemic in Wuhan, China, (corona virus disease 2019, COVID-19) emerged and could spread to 217 countries infecting more than 86,255,226 cases and killing 1,863,973 people by the end of 2020. There are many reasons why bats are ideal reservoir hosts for viral diseases such as the tolerance of their immune system to the invading viruses for several months. They can actively shed the viruses, although they develop no clinical signs (will be discussed in details later in the review). Bats were directly or indirectly involved in the three previous coronavirus epidemics. The indirect transmission takes place via intermediate hosts including civet cats for SARS and dromedary camels in the case of MERS. Although bats are believed to be the source of COVID-19 pandemic, direct pieces of evidence are still lacking. Therefore, coronaviruses' role in epidemics induction and the epidemiological role of bats are discussed. The current work also presents different evidence (phylogenetic data, animal experiments, bats artificial infection studies, and computerized models of SARS-CoV2 evolution) that underline the involvement of bats in the epidemiology of the pandemic.

COVID-19 illness and autoimmune diseases: recent insights

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to explore whether patients with autoimmune diseases (AIDs) were at high risk of infection during the COVID-19 epidemic and how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic affected immune system.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the foreign databases (NCBI, web of science, EBSCO, ELSEVIER ScienceDirect) and Chinese databases (WanFang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP, CBM) to locate all relevant publications (up to January 10, 2021). The search strategies used Medical Search Headings (MeSH) headings and keywords for "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus" and "autoimmune disease".

RESULTS

This review evaluates the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the immune system through ACE-2 receptor binding as the main pathway for cell attachment and invasion. It is speculated that SARS-COV-2 infection can activate lymphocytes and inflammatory response, which may play a role in the clinical onset of AIDs and also patients were treated with immunomodulatory drugs during COVID-19 outbreak. Preliminary studies suggested that the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 in patients with AIDs treated with immunomodulators or biologics might not increase. A large number of samples are needed for further verification, leading to an excessive immune response to external stimuli.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between autoimmune diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection is complex. During the COVID-19 epidemic, individualized interventions for AIDs should be provided such as Internet-based service.

Nanocarrier vaccines for SARS-CoV-2

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has seen rapid spread, disease morbidities and death associated with substantive social, economic and societal impacts. Treatments rely on re-purposed antivirals and immune modulatory agents focusing on attenuating the acute respiratory distress syndrome. No curative therapies exist. Vaccines remain the best hope for disease control and the principal global effort to end the pandemic. Herein, we summarize those developments with a focus on the role played by nanocarrier delivery.

Current Understanding of Novel Coronavirus: Molecular Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment Approaches

An outbreak of “Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology” occurred in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019. Later, the agent factor was identified and coined as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease was named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In a shorter period, this newly emergent infection brought the world to a standstill. On 11 March 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 as a pandemic. Researchers across the globe have joined their hands to investigate SARS-CoV-2 in terms of pathogenicity, transmissibility, and deduce therapeutics to subjugate this infection. The researchers and scholars practicing different arts of medicine are on an extensive quest to come up with safer ways to curb the pathological implications of this viral infection. A huge number of clinical trials are underway from the branch of allopathy and naturopathy. Besides, a paradigm shift on cellular therapy and nano-medicine protocols has to be optimized for better clinical and functional outcomes of COVID-19-affected individuals. This article unveils a comprehensive review of the pathogenesis mode of spread, and various treatment modalities to combat COVID-19 disease.

Revisiting Pleiotropic Effects of Type I Interferons: Rationale for Its Prophylactic and Therapeutic Use Against SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic distribution of SARS-CoV-2 together with its particular feature of inactivating the interferon-based endogenous response and accordingly, impairing the innate immunity, has become a challenge for the international scientific and medical community. Fortunately, recombinant interferons as therapeutic products have accumulated a long history of beneficial therapeutic results in the treatment of chronic and acute viral diseases and also in the therapy of some types of cancer. One of the first antiviral treatments during the onset of COVID-19 in China was based on the use of recombinant interferon alfa 2b, so many clinicians began to use it, not only as therapy but also as a prophylactic approach, mainly in medical personnel. At the same time, basic research on interferons provided new insights that have contributed to a much better understanding of how treatment with interferons, initially considered as antivirals, actually has a much broader pharmacological scope. In this review, we briefly describe interferons, how they are induced in the event of a viral infection, and how they elicit signaling after contact with their specific receptor on target cells. Additionally, some of the genes stimulated by type I interferons are described, as well as the way interferon-mediated signaling is torpedoed by coronaviruses and in particular by SARS-CoV-2. Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) gene is one of the interferon response genes. Although for many scientists this fact could result in an adverse effect of interferon treatment in COVID-19 patients, ACE2 expression contributes to the balance of the renin-angiotensin system, which is greatly affected by SARS-CoV-2 in its internalization into the cell. This manuscript also includes the relationship between type I interferons and neutrophils, NETosis, and interleukin 17. Finally, under the subtitle of "take-home messages", we discuss the rationale behind a timely treatment with interferons in the context of COVID-19 is emphasized.

An Overview of Current Knowledge of Deadly CoVs and Their Interface with Innate Immunity

Coronaviruses are a large family of zoonotic RNA viruses, whose infection can lead to mild or lethal respiratory tract disease. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-1 (SARS-CoV-1) first emerged in Guangdong, China in 2002 and spread to 29 countries, infecting 8089 individuals and causing 774 deaths. In 2012, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) emerged in Saudi Arabia and has spread to 27 countries, with a mortality rate of ~34%. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged and has spread to 220 countries, infecting over 100,000,000 people and causing more than 2,000,000 deaths to date. These three human coronaviruses cause diseases of varying severity. Most people develop mild, common cold-like symptoms, while some develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The success of all viruses, including coronaviruses, relies on their evolved abilities to evade and modulate the host anti-viral and pro-inflammatory immune responses. However, we still do not fully understand the transmission, phylogeny, epidemiology, and pathogenesis of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1 and -2. Despite the rapid application of a range of therapies for SARS-CoV-2, such as convalescent plasma, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and type I interferon, no fully effective treatment has been determined. Remarkably, COVID-19 vaccine research and development have produced several offerings that are now been administered worldwide. Here, we summarise an up-to-date understanding of epidemiology, immunomodulation and ongoing anti-viral and immunosuppressive treatment strategies. Indeed, understanding the interplay between coronaviruses and the anti-viral immune response is crucial to identifying novel targets for therapeutic intervention, which may even prove invaluable for the control of future emerging coronavirus.

COVID-19: Antiviral agents and enzyme inhibitors/receptor blockers in development

Novel 2019 coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory syndrome it causes, have shaken the world to its core by infecting and claiming the lives of many people since originating in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. World Health Organization and several states have declared a pandemic situation and state of emergency, respectively. As there is no treatment for COVID-19, several research institutes and pharmaceutical companies are racing to find a cure. Advances in computational approaches have allowed the screening of massive antiviral compound libraries to identify those that may potentially work against SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral agents developed in the past to combat other viruses are being repurposed. At the same time, new vaccine candidates are being developed and tested in preclinical/clinical settings. This review provides a detailed overview of select repurposed drugs, their mechanism of action, associated toxicities, and major clinical trials involving these agents.

Investigation of structural, treatment and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 along with the challenges caused by its prevalence

In the late 2019, a report from China was published stating a disease with unknown cause. After that,the outbreak of the COVID-19 caused a pandemic in the world. On March 11, 2020, the outbreak of this virus was reported in 100 countries. The virus is currently spreading rapidly around the world.In the past, coronaviruses caused life-threatening diseases such as SARS and MERSsome areas.Although there is still a debate about the origin of this new coronavirus, it is most likely linked with some animals including bats, civet and pangolin. In this review, we try to simply describe the features of the new coronavirusas well as the recent diagnostic and therapeutic findings.

Potential therapeutic agents to COVID-19: An update review on antiviral therapy, immunotherapy, and cell therapy

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2020 and coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) was later announced as pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Since then, several studies have been conducted on the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 by potential vaccines and drugs. Although, the governments and global population have been attracted by some vaccine production projects, the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antiviral drugs would be an urge necessity in parallel with the efficient preventive vaccines. Various nonspecific drugs produced previously against other bacterial, viral, and parasite infections were recently evaluated for treating patients with COVID-19. In addition to therapeutic properties of these anti-COVID-19 compounds, some adverse effects were observed in different human organs as well. Not only several attentions were paid to antiviral therapy and treatment of COVID-19, but also nanomedicine, immunotherapy, and cell therapy were conducted against this viral infection. In this review study, we planned to introduce the present and potential future treatment strategies against COVID-19 and define the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment strategy.

Do COVID-19 Infections Result in a Different Form of Secondary Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality across the world, with no current effective treatments available. Recent studies suggest the possibility of a cytokine storm associated with severe COVID-19, similar to the biochemical profile seen in hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), raising the question of possible benefits that could be derived from targeted immunosuppression in severe COVID-19 patients. We reviewed the literature regarding the diagnosis and features of HLH, particularly secondary HLH, and aimed to identify gaps in the literature to truly clarify the existence of a COVID-19 associated HLH. Diagnostic criteria such as HScore or HLH-2004 may have suboptimal performance in identifying COVID-19 HLH-like presentations, and criteria such as soluble CD163, NK cell activity, or other novel biomarkers may be more useful in identifying this entity.

Corticosteroids and pulmonary rehabilitation reducing long-term morbidity in a patient with post-COVID-19 pneumonitis: A case study

Background

Whilst research efforts have focussed on treatment during the acute phase, little work has focussed on the long‐term sequelae of COVID‐19 infection. This case described a patient who remained symptomatic several weeks after discharge from hospital with what was diagnosed as a COVID‐19 infection. There were significant deficits shown in his functional exercise testing, his pulmonary functions testing and there was evidence of fibrotic changes on his radiology.

Methods

As part of a multidisciplinary clinic, he was started on steroids and a tailored pulmonary rehabilitation course over a course of 6–8 weeks. Thereafter, his exercise testing, pulmonary function tests and radiology were all repeated to see progress.

Results

On completing the course of corticosteroids and concurrent personalised pulmonary rehabilitation, there was a dramatic improvement in the patient's symptom severity, radiology and pulmonary function. The most significant improvement noted was in his exercise testing, namely a 6‐min walk test and 1 min of sit‐to‐stands. Before treatment, he had a Medical Reserch Council (MRC) score of 2, and after it returned to his baseline of 0.

Discussion

Using corticosteroids and exercise training that allowed quantitative evaluation throughout the stages of recovery was a valuable tool to gauge progress and response to treatment. These therapies present opportunity to prevent the development of irreversible pulmonary fibrosis that could prove to be a major breakthrough in reducing long‐term morbidity and improving the quality of life of those affected.

Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Treatment of Patients with COVID-19: A Case-control Study

Background: It seems that the risk of developing complications associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is higher among individuals with weakened immune systems. Objectives: Therefore, this study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for the treatment of patients not entering the intubation phase compared to those entering the intubation phase. Methods: This descriptive case-control study was performed on 26 patients with COVID-19 referring to Imam Reza hospital in Mashhad, Iran, in March 2020. For subjects with COVID-19 not responding to the standard three-drug protocol (i.e., ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir), three doses of IVIG (0.4 g/kg/day) were added to the protocol. The patients were divided into two groups of subjects not entering the intubation phase and those entering the intubation phase and compared in terms of different variables. Results: The comparison of laboratory findings showed a significant difference before and after receiving IVIG regarding oxygen saturation (P < 0.005), white blood cell (P = 0.001), hemoglobin level (P = 0.0002), lymphocyte count (P = 0.03), and C-reactive protein (P = 0.001). In general, 53.8% and 46.2% of the patients were discharged and expired, respectively. All the subjects not entering the intubation phase were recovered; nevertheless, only one case entering the intubation phase was recovered, and 92.3% of the patients expired. A significant difference was observed between the patients not entering the intubation phase and those entering the intubation phase in terms of mortality (χ2 = 22.28; P < 0.005). Conclusions: In summary, the obtained results of the current study confirmed the therapeutic effects of IVIG on patients with COVID-19. Moreover, better treatment results, shorter hospital stay, and lower mortality rates were observed among COVID-19 patients who did not enter the intubation phase in comparison with those entering the intubation phase.

Severe COVID-19 Infection Associated with Endothelial Dysfunction Induces Multiple Organ Dysfunction: A Review of Therapeutic Interventions

Since December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has transfixed the medical world. COVID-19 symptoms vary from mild to severe and underlying chronic conditions such as pulmonary/cardiovascular disease and diabetes induce excessive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 and these underlying chronic diseases are mediated by endothelial dysfunction. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the most common cause of death in COVID-19 patients, but coagulation induced by excessive inflammation, thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) also induce death by multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome. These associations imply that maintaining endothelial integrity is crucial for favorable prognoses with COVID-19 and therapeutic intervention to support this may be beneficial. Here, we summarize the extent of heart injuries, ischemic stroke and hemorrhage, acute kidney injury, and liver injury caused by immune-mediated endothelial dysfunction that result in the phenomenon of multi-organ dysfunction seen in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the potential therapeutic effect of angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors that improve endothelial dysfunction as well as the bradykinin storm are discussed.

New Horizons: Does Mineralocorticoid Receptor Activation by Cortisol Cause ATP Release and COVID-19 Complications?

This paper attempts to explain how the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causes the complications that make coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a serious disease in specific patient subgroups. It suggests that cortisol-associated activation of the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) in epithelial and endothelial cells infected with the virus stimulates the release of adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP), which then acts back on purinergic receptors. In the lung this could produce the nonproductive cough via purinergic P2X3 receptors on vagal afferent nerves. In endothelial cells it could stimulate exocytosis of Weibel-Palade bodies (WPBs) that contain angiopoietin-2, which is important in the pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by increasing capillary permeability and von Willebrand factor (VWF), which mediates platelet adhesion to the endothelium and hence clotting. Angiopoietin-2 and VWF levels both are markedly elevated in COVID-19-associated ARDS. This paper offers an explanation for the sex differences in SARS-CoV-2 complications and also for why these are strongly associated with age, race, diabetes, and body mass index. It also explains why individuals with blood group A have a higher risk of severe infection than those with blood group O. Dexamethasone has been shown to be of benefit in coronavirus ARDS patients and has been thought to act as an anti-inflammatory drug. This paper suggests that a major part of its effect may be due to suppression of cortisol secretion. There is an urgent need to trial the combination of dexamethasone and an MR antagonist such as spironolactone to more effectively block the MR and hence the exocytosis of WPBs.

Beware of Steroid-Induced Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head in the Treatment of COVID-19-Experience and Lessons from the SARS Epidemic

Summary

The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global epidemic. Corticosteroids have been widely used in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and the pathological findings seen in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are very similar to those observed in severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection. However, the long-term use of corticosteroids (especially at high doses) is associated with potentially serious adverse events, particularly steroid-induced avascular necrosis of the femoral head (SANFH). In today’s global outbreak, whether corticosteroid therapy should be used, the dosage and duration of treatment, and ways for the prevention, early detection, and timely intervention of SANFH are some important issues that need to be addressed. This review aims to provide a reference for health care providers in COVID-19 endemic countries and regions.

Article Focus

Hormones are a double-edged sword. This review aims to provide a reference for health care providers in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) endemic countries and regions, especially with respect to the pros and cons of corticosteroid use in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Key Messages

In today’s global outbreak, whether corticosteroid therapy should be used, the dosage and duration of treatment, and ways for the prevention, early detection, and timely intervention of SANFH are some important issues that need to be addressed.

Strengths and Limitations

Since SARS was mainly prevalent in China at that time, many evidences in this paper came from the reports of Chinese scholars. There is a bias in the selection of data, which may ignore the differences in environment, race, living habits, medical level and so on. SANFH may be the result of multiple factors. Whether the virus itself is an independent risk factor for SANFH has not been confirmed. In this paper, through literature retrieval, some reference opinions on glucocorticoid usage, diagnosis and treatment of SANFH are given. However, due to the lack of large-scale research data support, it can not be used as the gold standard for the above problems.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

METHODS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Clinical features of hypertensive patients with COVID-19 compared with a normotensive group: Single-center experience in China

Background

SARS-CoV-2 has spread worldwide and poses a great threat to human health. Among COVID-19 patients, those with hypertension have been reported to have higher morbidity and mortality. This study was conducted to provide the international community with a deeper understanding of COVID-19 with hypertension.

Methods

A total of 623 COVID-19 patients enrolled in Wuhan’s hospital were studied from January to March 2020. The epidemiology, clinical features, and laboratory data of hypertensive patients with COVID-19 were collected, retrospectively analyzed, and compared with a normotensive group. The use of antihypertensive drugs, general treatment, and clinical outcomes of hypertensive patients were also analyzed.

Results

The median ages in hypertensive patients with mild and severe COVID-19 were both significantly greater than the median age in the normotensive group. But there was no significant gender difference between the hypertensive and normotensive groups. All patients had lived in Wuhan area. Common symptoms of all patients included fever, cough, and fatigue. Chest computed tomography (CT) scans showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. All (315 (100%)) of the hypertensive patients received antiviral therapy (Umifenovir was used alone or in combination with Ribavirin), antibiotic therapy (215 (68.3%)), and corticosteroids (118 (37.5%)). The results suggest that the combination of Umifenovir and Ribavirin as initial therapy for hypertensive patients with COVID-19 is effective and safe. There were no significant differences in laboratory data between the mild cases in the hypertensive and the normotensive groups. In the severe cases, the hypertensive patients had higher plasma levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the hypertensive patients who were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) were not represented in a statistically significant manner between the mild and severe groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated that the hypertensive patients who were treated with ACEI/ARB did not have an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. Umifenovir and Ribavirin played an important role in the treatment of viral pneumonia. Hypertensive patients with severe viral pneumonia had stronger inflammatory responses than nonhypertensive patients.

Impact of Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group.

RESULTS

A total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens.

INTERPRETATION

Our results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids.

Efficacy of ribavirin and interferon-α therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of ribavirin and interferon-α (RBV/IFN-α) therapy in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to 4 hospitals in Hubei Province, China, from 31 December 2019 to 31 March 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their exposure to RBV/IFN-α therapy within 48 h of admission. Mixed-effect Cox model and Logistic regression were used to explore the association between early treatments of RBV/IFN-α and primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2037 patients included, 1281 received RBV/IFN-α (RBV, IFN-α or RBV combined with IFN-α) treatments and 756 received none of these treatments. In a mixed effect model, RBV/IFN-α therapy was not associated with progression from non-severe into severe type (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.36) or with reduction in 30-day mortality (aHR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.61-1.30). However, it was associated with a higher probability of hospital stay >15 days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.68-2.64) compared with no RBV/IFN-α therapy. The propensity score-matched cohort and subgroup analysis displayed similar results.

CONCLUSION

RBV/IFN-α therapy was not observed to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients suggesting that RBV/IFN-α therapy should be avoided in COVID-19 treatment.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Combination therapy of IFNβ1 with lopinavir-ritonavir, increases oxygenation, survival and discharging of sever COVID-19 infected inpatients

Interferon Beta-1a (IFN-β1-a), an immunomodulatory mediator with antiviral effects, has shown in vivo and in vitro activities especially on coronavirus including SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 defined as the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. The virus has been illustrated inhibits the production of IFN-β1-a from inflammatory cells. We conducted a retrospective study of all adult confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients who received combination of three doses of 12 million international units of IFN-β1-a and Lopinavir 400 mg and Ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h (case group) for 14 days besides standard care and age- and sex- matched COVID-19 patients with receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (control group) at Masih Daneshvari Hospital as a designated hospital for COVID-19 between Feb 19 and Apr 30, 2020. Multivariate analysis was done to determine the impact of IFN-β1-a on outcome and all-cause mortality. 152 cases in IFN-β1-a group and 304 cases as control group were included. IFN-β1-a group stayed at hospital longer and required noninvasive ventilation more than control group (13 vs. 6 days, p = 0.001) and (34% vs. 24%, p = 0.04), respectively. During treatment, 57 (12.5%) patients died. The death rate in case and control groups was 11% and 13% respectively. In multivariate analysis, not receiving IFN-β1-a (HR 5.12, 95% CI: 2.77-9.45), comorbidity (HR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.13-4.60) and noninvasive ventilation (HR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.56-4.93) remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality. In this study, risk of death decreased by using IFN-β1-a in COVID-19 patients. More clinical study will be necessary to measure efficacy of IFN-β1-a in COVID-19 treatment.

Factors associated with delayed viral shedding in COVID-19 infected patients: A retrospective small-scale study

BACKGROUND

The outbreak of COVID-19 has caused ever-increasing attention and public panic all over the world. Until now, data are limited about the risk factors to virus shedding in COVID-19 infected patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, data were collected from 87 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection in Suzhou. Using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the risk factors to COVID-19 RNA shedding was to be established according to demographic information, clinical characteristics, epidemiological history, antiviral medicine and corticosteroid administration.

RESULTS

The median duration of COVID-19 RNA shedding from admission was 13.11 ± 0.76 days. There was no significant difference in viral shedding duration in terms of gender, age, history of Hubei province stay, characteristics of chest CT on admission, lymphocytopenia and clinical severity. By Cox proportional hazards model, excessive 200 mg cumulative corticosteroid (HR, 3.425 [95% CI, 1.339-7.143]), time from illness onset to hospitalization (<5 days) (HR, 2.503 [95% CI, 1.433-4.371]) and arbidol-included therapy (HR, 2.073 [95% CI, 1.185-3.626]) were the independent risk factors to delay COVID-19 RNA shedding. Besides of excessive 200 mg of cumulative corticosteroid (HR, 2.825 [95% CI, 1.201-6.649]), admission within 5 days from illness onset (HR, 2.493 [95% CI, 1.393-4.462]) and arbidol-included therapy (HR, 2.102 [95% CI, 1.073-4.120]), lymphocytopenia (HR, 2.153 [95% CI, 1.097-4.225]) was further identified as another unfavorable factor to 10-day viral shedding.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential risk factors could help clinicians to identify patients with delayed viral shedding, thereby providing the rational strategy of treatment and optimal anti-viral interventions.

Factors Influencing Viral Clearance in Mild COVID-19 and Clinical Characteristics of Asymptomatic Patients

Background

The outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global public health emergency.

Objective

To evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in Anhui and to identify predictors of viral clearance.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data collected from discharged patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. We compared clinical features between viral clearance and viral persistence, and evaluated factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 shedding using multiple linear regression.

Results

Among the 83 patients involved in the study, the median age was 43 years, while 60.2% were male, 35.4% had comorbidities, and the mortality was zero. The median time from illness onset to admission was 5 days (interquartile range (IQR), 2-7 days), and the median time from the illness onset to SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection was 16 days (IQR, 13-18 days). The factors influencing viral clearance were as follows: (1) delayed admission (beta 1.057, 95% CI 0.810-1.304; p ≤ 0.001) and (2) underlying comorbidities (beta 1.907, 95% CI 0.198-3.616; p = 0.029). No significant differences were observed in the length of stay (p = 0.246) and pneumonia between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients based on computed tomography (CT) (p = 0.124).

Conclusions

Delayed admission and underlying comorbidities may effectively predict SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance. For those infected with SARS-CoV-2, even asymptomatic patients without any clinical symptoms should be traced and isolated. This practice may reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and slow the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the virus. Clinical Trial Registration Number: This trial is registered with 2020-051.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

METHODS

In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

METHODS

In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Efficacy and safety of systematic corticosteroids among severe COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The benefits and harms of corticosteroids for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 31, 2019 to October 1, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated corticosteroids in severe COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included a composite disease progression (progression to intubation, ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ICU transfer, or death among those not ventilated at enrollment) and incidence of serious adverse events. A random-effects model was applied to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Seven RCTs involving 6250 patients were included, of which the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial comprised nearly 78% of all included subjects. Results showed that corticosteroids were associated with a decreased all-cause mortality (27.3 vs. 31.1%; RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73–0.99; P = 0.04; low-certainty evidence). Trial sequential analysis suggested that more trials were still required to confirm the results. However, such survival benefit was absent if RECOVERY trial was excluded (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65–1.06; P = 0.13). Furthermore, corticosteroids decreased the occurrence of composite disease progression (30.6 vs. 33.3%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64–0.92; P = 0.005), but not increased the incidence of serious adverse events (3.5 vs. 3.4%; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.39–3.43; P = 0.79).

Inflammation and Antiviral Immune Response Associated With Severe Progression of COVID-19

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a novel respiratory disease induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It remains poorly understood how the host immune system responds to the infection during disease progression. We applied microarray analysis of the whole genome transcriptome to peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) taken from severe and mild COVID-19 patients as well as healthy controls. Functional enrichment analysis of genes associated with COVID-19 severity indicated that disease progression is featured by overactivation of myeloid cells and deficient T cell function. The upregulation of TLR6 and MMP9, which promote the neutrophils-mediated inflammatory response, and the downregulation of SKAP1 and LAG3, which regulate T cells function, were associated with disease severity. Importantly, the regulation of these four genes was absent in patients with influenza A (H1N1). And compared with stimulation with hemagglutinin (HA) of H1N1 virus, the regulation pattern of these genes was unique in PBMCs response to Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 ex vivo. Our data also suggested that severe SARS-CoV-2 infection largely silenced the response of type I interferons (IFNs) and altered the proportion of immune cells, providing a potential mechanism for the hypercytokinemia. This study indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection impairs inflammatory and immune signatures in patients, especially those at severe stage. The potential mechanisms underpinning severe COVID-19 progression include overactive myeloid cells, impaired function of T cells, and inadequate induction of type I IFNs signaling.

A review on function and side effects of systemic corticosteroids used in high-grade COVID-19 to prevent cytokine storms

In December 2019, a cluster of pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), officially known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Cytokine storm is an uncontrolled systemic inflammatory response resulting from the release of large amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines that occurs at phase 3 of viral infection. Such emergence led to the development of many clinical trials to discover efficient drugs and therapeutic protocols to fight with this single-stranded RNA virus. Corticosteroids suppress inflammation of the lungs during the cytokine storm, weaken immune responses, and inhibit the elimination of pathogen. For this reason, in COVID-19 corticosteroid therapy, systemic inhibition of inflammation is observed with a wide range of side effects. The present review discusses the effectiveness of the corticosteroid application in COVID-19 infection and the related side effects of these agents. In summary, a number of corticosteroids, including and especially methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, have demonstrated remarkable efficacy, particularly for COVID-19 patients who underwent mechanical ventilation.

Effects of Methylprednisolone on Ventilator-Free Days in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: A Retrospective Study

Objectives: There are limited data regarding the efficacy of methylprednisolone in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to determine whether methylprednisolone is associated with increases in the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) among these patients. Design: Retrospective single-center study. Setting: Intensive care unit. Patients: All patients with ARDS due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation between 1 March and 29 May 2020 were included. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) for the first 28 days. Defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was analyzed with competing-risks regression based on Fine and Gray's proportional sub hazards model. Death before day 28 was considered to be the competing event. A total of 77 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two patients (41.6%) received methylprednisolone. The median dose was 1 mg·kg-1 (IQR: 1-1.3 mg·kg-1) and median duration for 5 days (IQR: 5-7 days). Patients who received methylprednisolone had a mean 18.8 VFDs (95% CI, 16.6-20.9) during the first 28 days vs. 14.2 VFDs (95% CI, 12.6-16.7) in patients who did not receive methylprednisolone (difference, 4.61, 95% CI, 1.10-8.12, p = 0.001). In the multivariable competing-risks regression analysis and after adjusting for potential confounders (ventilator settings, prone position, organ failure support, severity of the disease, tocilizumab, and inflammatory markers), methylprednisolone was independently associated with a higher number of VFDs (subhazards ratio: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.45, p = 0.003). Hospital mortality did not differ between the two groups (31.2% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.82). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the methylprednisolone group (24 days [IQR: 15-41 days] vs. 37 days [IQR: 23-52 days], p = 0.046). The incidence of positive blood cultures was higher in patients who received methylprednisolone (37.5% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.052). However, 81% of patients who received methylprednisolone also received tocilizumab. The number of days with hyperglycemia was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Methylprednisolone was independently associated with increased VFDs and shortened hospital length of stay. The combination of methylprednisolone and tocilizumab was associated with a higher rate of positive blood cultures. Further trials are needed to evaluate the benefits and safety of methylprednisolone in moderate or severe COVID-19 ARDS.