Hydroxychloroquine and Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review of a Scientific Failure

The Omic Insights on Unfolding Saga of COVID-19

The year 2019 has seen an emergence of the novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). Since the onset of the pandemic, biological and interdisciplinary research is being carried out across the world at a rapid pace to beat the pandemic. There is an increased need to comprehensively understand various aspects of the virus from detection to treatment options including drugs and vaccines for effective global management of the disease. In this review, we summarize the salient findings pertaining to SARS-CoV-2 biology, including symptoms, hosts, epidemiology, SARS-CoV-2 genome, and its emerging variants, viral diagnostics, host-pathogen interactions, alternative antiviral strategies and application of machine learning heuristics and artificial intelligence for effective management of COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the major public health problem worldwide. Neutral electrolyzed saline solution that contains reactive chlorine and oxygen species may be an effective therapeutic. In the present study, the treatment efficacy of intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone was evaluated in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. A prospective, 2-arm, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multi-center, phase I-II clinical trial including 214 patients was performed. The following two outcomes were evaluated during the 20-day follow-up: i) The number of patients with disease progression; and ii) the patient acceptable symptom state. Serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 naso/oro-pharyngeal detection by reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q) PCR was performed in certain patients of the experimental group. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were also evaluated in the experimental group. The experimental treatment decreased the risk of hospitalization by 89% [adjusted relative risk (RR)=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.37, P<0.001] and the risk of death by 96% (adjusted RR=0.04, 95% CI: 0.01-0.42, P=0.007) and also resulted in an 18-fold higher probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR=18.14, 95% CI: 7.29-45.09, P<0.001), compared with usual medical care alone. Overall, neutral electrolyzed saline solution was better than usual medical care alone. Of the patients analyzed, >50% were negative for the virus as detected by RT-qPCR in naso/oro-pharyngeal samples on day 4, with only a small number of positive patients on day 6. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, aberrant monocytes and increased lymphocytes and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated and a decrease in cortisol levels and an increase in the testosterone-cortisol ratio were observed on days 2 and 4. The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, neutral electrolyzed saline solution markedly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. The present clinical trial was registered in the Cuban public registry of clinical trials (RPCEC) database (May 5, 2020; no. TX-COVID19: RPCEC00000309).

State of Sweat: Emerging Wearable Systems for Real-Time, Noninvasive Sweat Sensing and Analytics

Skin-interfaced wearable systems with integrated colorimetric assays, microfluidic channels, and electrochemical sensors offer powerful capabilities for noninvasive, real-time sweat analysis. This Perspective details recent progress in the development and translation of novel wearable sensors for personalized assessment of sweat dynamics and biomarkers, with precise sampling and real-time analysis. Sensor accuracy, system ruggedness, and large-scale deployment in remote environments represent key opportunity areas, enabling broad deployment in the context of field studies, clinical trials, and recent commercialization. On-body measurements in these contexts show good agreement compared to conventional laboratory-based sweat analysis approaches. These device demonstrations highlight the utility of biochemical sensing platforms for personalized assessment of performance, wellness, and health across a broad range of applications.

Understanding Viral Infection Mechanisms and Patient Symptoms for the Development of COVID-19 Therapeutics

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has become a worldwide pandemic. Symptoms range from mild fever to cough, fatigue, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and organ failure, with a mortality rate of 2.2%. However, there are no licensed drugs or definitive treatment strategies for patients with severe COVID-19. Only antiviral or anti-inflammatory drugs are used as symptomatic treatments based on clinician experience. Basic medical researchers are also trying to develop COVID-19 therapeutics. However, there is limited systematic information about the pathogenesis of COVID-19 symptoms that cause tissue damage or death and the mechanisms by which the virus infects and replicates in cells. Here, we introduce recent knowledge of time course changes in viral titers, delayed virus clearance, and persistent systemic inflammation in patients with severe COVID-19. Based on the concept of drug reposition, we review which antiviral or anti-inflammatory drugs can effectively treat COVID-19 patients based on progressive symptoms and the mechanisms inhibiting virus infection and replication.

Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 physicians survey: Despite lack of evidence, many would take or give to dear ones, and despite the perceived necessity of an RCT, few would participate

INTRODUCTION

There was no evidence concerning the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine, and only low-grade evidence regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. We performed a survey among Romanian physicians in order to see how many of them would administer prophylactically hydroxychloroquine to themselves or to people close to them, and if they would participate to a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Between March 30 and April 02, 2020, a 16-item questionnaire was shared in a Romanian Facebook group of 2645 physicians dedicated to COVID-19 information, asking to be completed by physicians who could be directly involved in the care of these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 785 answers were collected. Nine physicians (1.1%) thought that there was clear evidence on prescribing hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, 375 (48%) considered the evidence acceptable, 348 (44.3%) considered it weak, whereas 53 (6.8%) answered there was no evidence. 59 (7.5%) respondents were determined to take it (of which 31 = 4% already took), 192 (24.5%) were inclined to take, 271 (34.5%) were not decided yet. 175 (22.3%) of respondents declared they (would) give the treatment to their close ones, and this decision was associated with a higher age (P = 0.003), and the opinion that there was evidence (P < 0.001). When asked about the source of the treatment regimen, 286 (36.4%) indicated a scientific paper, while no scientific paper about the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine existed at that time. 718 (91.5%) considered a randomized clinical trial necessary (RCT), but only 333 (42.4%) answered they would enrol in such a trial. There was only a very weak correlation (Kendall's tau _b = 0.255, P < 0.001) between the belief that an RCT is necessary and the willingness to enrol in such an RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of evidence, many physicians considered the evidence as existing, and were ready to take or to give hydroxychloroquine prophylactically to family. They considered an RCT necessary, but they were not willing to participate.

Patient-Reported Health Outcomes After Treatment of COVID-19 with Nebulized and/or Intravenous Neutral Electrolyzed Saline Combined with Usual Medical Care Versus Usual Medical care alone: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial

Background:

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19.

Methods:

A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group.

Results:

The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22–200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4.

Conclusions:

The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19.

Trial registration:

Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En