In vitro study on efficacy of PHELA, an African traditional drug against SARS-CoV-2.

In 2019, coronavirus has made the third apparition in the form of SARS-CoV-2, a novel strain of coronavirus that is extremely pathogenic and it uses the same receptor as SARS-CoV, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). However, more than 182 vaccine candidates have been announced; and 12 vaccines have been approved for use, although, even vaccinated individuals are still vulnerable to infection. In this study, we investigated PHELA, recognized as an herbal combination of four exotic African medicinal plants namely; Clerodendrum glabrum E. Mey. Lamiaceae, Gladiolus dalenii van Geel, Rotheca myricoides (Hochst.) Steane & Mabb, and Senna occidentalis (L.) Link; as a candidate therapy for COVID-19. In vitro testing found that PHELA inhibited > 90% of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection at concentration levels of 0.005 mg/ml to 0.03 mg/ml and close to 100% of MERS-CoV infection at 0.1 mg/ml to 0.6 mg/ml. The in vitro average IC50 of PHELA on SARS-COV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-COV were ~ 0.01 mg/ml. Secondly in silico docking studies of compounds identified in PHELA showed very strong binding energy interactions with the SARS-COV-2 proteins. Compound 5 showed the highest affinity for SARS-COV-2 protein compared to other compounds with the binding energy of - 6.8 kcal mol-1. Our data showed that PHELA has potential and could be developed as a COVID-19 therapeutic.

Relationship among state reopening policies, health outcomes and economic recovery through first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

State governments in the U.S. have been facing difficult decisions involving tradeoffs between economic and health-related outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite evidence of the effectiveness of government-mandated restrictions mitigating the spread of contagion, these orders are stigmatized due to undesirable economic consequences. This tradeoff resulted in state governments employing mandates at widely different ways. We compare the different policies states implemented during periods of restriction ("lockdown") and reopening with indicators of COVID-19 spread and consumer card spending at each state during the first "wave" of the pandemic in the U.S. between March and August 2020. We find that while some states enacted reopening decisions when the incidence rate of COVID-19 was minimal or sustained in its relative decline, other states relaxed socioeconomic restrictions near their highest incidence and prevalence rates experienced so far. Nevertheless, all states experienced similar trends in consumer card spending recovery, which was strongly correlated with reopening policies following the lockdowns and relatively independent from COVID-19 incidence rates at the time. Our findings suggest that consumer card spending patterns can be attributed to government mandates rather than COVID-19 incidence in the states. We estimate the recovery in states that reopened in late April was more than the recovery in states that did not reopen in the same period- 15% for consumer card spending and 18% for spending by high income households. This result highlights the important role of state policies in minimizing health impacts while promoting economic recovery and helps planning effective interventions in subsequent waves and immunization efforts.

Systematic screening for a proximal DVT in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: Results of a comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a high incidence of venous thromboembolism questioning the utility of a systematic screening for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalised patients. METHODS: In this prospective bicentric controlled study, 4-point ultrasound using a pocket device was used to screen for DVT, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls admitted for acute medical illness not related to COVID-19 hospitalised in general ward, in order to assess the utility of a routine screening and to estimate the prevalence of VTE among those patients. RESULTS: Between April and May 2020, 135 patients were screened, 69 in the COVID+ group and 66 in the control one. There was no significant difference in the rate of proximal DVT between the two groups (2.2% vs. 1.5%; P=0.52), despite the high rate of PE diagnosed among COVID-19 infected patients (10.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.063). No isolated DVT was detected, 37.5% of PE was associated with DVT. Mortality (7.2% vs. 1.5%) was not different (P=0.21) between COVID-19 patients and controls. CONCLUSION: The systematic screening for proximal DVT was not found to be relevant among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general ward despite the increase of VTE among this population. Further studies are needed to confirm the hypothesis of a local pulmonary thrombosis which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Assessment of Multiplex Digital Droplet RT-PCR as a Diagnostic Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Saliva Samples

BACKGROUND: Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs is currently the reference COVID-19 diagnosis method but exhibits imperfect sensitivity. METHODS: We developed a multiplex reverse transcription-digital droplet PCR (RT-ddPCR) assay, targeting 6 SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions, and evaluated it on nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples collected from 130 COVID-19 positive or negative ambulatory individuals, who presented symptoms suggestive of mild or moderate SARS-CoV2 infection. RESULTS: For the nasopharyngeal swab samples, the results obtained using the 6-plex RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR assays were all concordant. The 6-plex RT-ddPCR assay was more sensitive than RT-qPCR (85% versus 62%) on saliva samples from patients with positive nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Multiplex RT-ddPCR represents an alternative and complementary tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19, in particular to control RT-qPCR ambiguous results. It can also be applied to saliva for repetitive sampling and testing individuals for whom nasopharyngeal swabbing is not possible.

Relationship among state reopening policies, health outcomes and economic recovery through first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S (preprint)

State governments in the U.S. have been facing difficult decisions involving tradeoffs between economic and health-related outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite evidence of the effectiveness of government-mandated restrictions mitigating the spread of contagion, these orders are stigmatized due to undesirable economic consequences. This tradeoff resulted in state governments employing mandates in widely different ways. We compare the different policies states implemented during periods of restriction (lockdown) and reopening with indicators of COVID-19 spread and consumer card spending at each state during the first wave of the pandemic in the U.S. between March and August 2020. We find that while some states enacted reopening decisions when the incidence rate of COVID-19 was minimal or sustained in its relative decline, other states relaxed socioeconomic restrictions near their highest incidence and prevalence rates experienced so far. Nevertheless, all states experienced similar trends in consumer card spending recovery, which was strongly correlated with reopening policies following the lockdowns and relatively independent from COVID-19 incidence rates at the time. Our findings suggest that consumer card spending patterns can be attributed to government mandates rather than COVID-19 incidence in the states. We estimate the recovery in states that reopened in late April was more than the recovery in states that did not reopen in the same period - 15% for consumer card spending and 18% for spending by high income households. This result highlights the important role of state policies in minimizing health impacts while promoting economic recovery and helps planning effective interventions in subsequent waves and immunization efforts.