ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and affected socioeconomic structure worldwide and the search for new antivirals and treatments are still ongoing. In the search for new drug target and to increase our understanding of the disease, we used large scale immunofluorescence to explore the host cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among the 602 host proteins studied in this host response screen, changes in abundance and subcellular localization were observed for 97 proteins, with 45 proteins showing increased abundance and 10 reduced abundances. 20 proteins displayed changed localization upon infection and an additional 22 proteins displayed altered abundance and localization, together contributing to diverse reshuffling of the host cell protein landscape. We then selected existing and approved small-molecule drugs (n =123) against our identified host response proteins and identified 3 compounds - elesclomol, crizotinib and rimcazole, that significantly reduced antiviral activity. Our study introduces a novel, targeted and systematic approach based on host protein profiling, to identify new targets for drug repurposing. The dataset of ~75,000 immunofluorescence images from this study are published as a resource available for further studies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
Remote consultations are likely to grow in importance in the following years, especially if the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic continues. Patients’ opinions on teledermatology have already been analyzed, but a current analysis during the COVID‐19 pandemic is lacking. The purpose of this survey was to investigate the satisfaction of patients who had received dermatological advice via telephone during the COVID‐19 pandemic and to analyze their general opinion about eHealth as well as possible limitations for a broad implementation. Ninety‐one patients managed in the dermatology department using telephone consultation during the COVID‐19 pandemic were interviewed. An anonymous questionnaire, including the established quality of life questionnaire (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI]), was used. It was found that men were more satisfied with telephone consultations than women (p = 0.029), educational level and age did not correlate with satisfaction (p = 0.186 and 388, respectively), and the longer the waiting time for a telephone consultation, the lower the satisfaction (p = 0.001). Grouped analysis of all participants showed that the majority (54.0% n = 38/71) were “very happy” with the telephone consultation. Higher disease burden (DLQI) was associated with lower satisfaction (p = 0.042). The main stated reasons for using telemedicine were shorter waiting times (51.6% n = 47/91) and no travel requirement (57.1% n = 47/91). Almost one‐quarter (23.1% n = 21/89) of patients would use teledermatology in the future, 17.6% (n = 16/89) would not, and 57.1% (n = 51/89) would only use it in addition to a traditional consultation with personal contact. In conclusion, most patients in the study group still preferred traditional face‐to‐face medical consultations to telephone consultations, but also desired an add‐on telemedical tool. Dermatological care using more modern telemedicine technologies than telephone conferencing is needed to better address patients’ desires, especially in times of the COVID‐19 pandemic.