ABSTRACT
In 2019, COVID-19 emerged as a severe respiratory disease that is caused by the novel coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease has been associated with high mortality rate, especially in patients with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney diseases. This could be attributed to dysregulated immune responses and severe systemic inflammation in COVID-19 patients. The use of effective antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 and modulation of the immune responses could be a potential therapeutic strategy for COVID-19. Studies have shown that natural phenolic compounds have several pharmacological properties, including anticoronavirus and immunomodulatory activities. Therefore, this review discusses the dual action of these natural products from the perspective of applicability at COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Flavonoids/therapeutic use , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Phytochemicals/therapeutic use , Protease Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Animals , Antiviral Agents/chemistry , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Coronavirus/drug effects , Flavonoids/chemistry , Flavonoids/pharmacology , Humans , Immunologic Factors/chemistry , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , Phytochemicals/chemistry , Phytochemicals/pharmacology , Protease Inhibitors/chemistry , Protease Inhibitors/pharmacologyABSTRACT
Background: The efficiency of isolation and purification of the viral genome is a critical step to the accuracy and reliability of RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2. However, COVID-19 testing laboratories were overwhelmed by a surge in diagnostic demand that affected supply chains especially in low and middle-income facilities. Objectives: Thus, this study compares the performance of alternative methods to extraction and purification of viral RNA in samples of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Study design: Nasopharyngeal swabs were submitted to three in-house protocols and three commercial methods; viral genome was detected using the primer-probe (N1 and N2) described by CDC and viral load of samples were determined. Results: The in-house protocols resulted in detection of virus in 82.4 to 86.3% of samples and commercial methods in 94.1 to 98%. The disagreement results were observed in samples with low viral load or below the estimated limit of detection of RT-qPCR. Conclusion: The simplified methods proposed might be less reliable for patients with low viral load and alternative commercial methods showed comparable performance.