The 'myth of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19' is far from reality.

The efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19 was contentious. In this randomized control double-blind clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals with direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were randomized into PEP/HCQ (N = 574) and control/placebo (N = 594) group. The PEP/HCQ group received tablet HCQ 400 mg q 12 hourly on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks, and the control/Placebo group received matching Placebo. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar (p = 0.761) in PEP [N = 24 out of 574, (4.2%)] and control [N = 27 out of 594, (4.5%)] groups. Total absolute risk reduction for the incidence of new-onset COVID-19 was -0.3% points with an overall relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.60) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 333 to prevent the incident of one case of COVID-19. The study found that, PEP with HCQ was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Though HCQ is a safer drug, the practice of irrational and indiscriminate use of HCQ for COVID-19 should be restrained with better pharmacovigilance.

Resuscitative Effect of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) in Hypovolemic Shock Patients: A Randomized, Multicentric, Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) showed significant efficacy as a resuscitative agent in animal models of haemorrhagic shock. Its safety and tolerability were confirmed in healthy human volunteers. In this study, our primary objective was to determine the safety, and the secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of centhaquine in patients with hypovolemic shock. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II study was conducted in male and female patients aged 18-70 years with hypovolemic shock having systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the control or centhaquine group. The control group received 100 ml of normal saline infusion over 1 h, while the centhaquine group received 0.01 mg/kg of centhaquine in 100 ml normal saline infusion over 1 h. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included, and 45 completed the trial: 22 in the control group and 23 in the centhaquine group. The demographics of patients in both groups were comparable. No adverse event related to centhaquine was recorded in the 28-day observation period. The baseline, Injury Scoring System score, haemoglobin, and haematocrit were similar in both groups. However, 91% of the patients in the centhaquine group needed major surgery, whereas only 68% in the control group (p = 0.0526). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 0/23 in the centhaquine group and 2/22 in the control group. The percent time in ICU and ventilator support was less in the centhaquine group than in the control group. The total amount of vasopressors needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation was lower in the centhaquine group than in the control group (3.12 ± 2.18 vs. 9.39 ± 4.28 mg). An increase in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline through 48 h was more marked in the centhaquine group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, blood lactate level was lower by 1.75 ± 1.07 mmol/l in the centhaquine group on day 3 of resuscitation. Improvements in base deficit, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were greater in the centhaquine group than in the control group. CONCLUSION: When added to SOC, centhaquine is a well-tolerated and effective resuscitative agent. It improves the clinical outcome of patients with hypovolemic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT04056065.

nCoV-2019 infection induced neurological outcome and manifestation, linking its historical ancestor SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The first systematic review and meta-analysis to help clinician to identify early signs and symptoms of neurological manifestation in COVID-19 positive patients which will further help in early management of patients. Present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to discuss the prevalence of neurological involvement of the 2019-nCoV patients and assess the symptomatic trend of events as compared to the 2002 "SARS" and 2012 "MERS" pandemics. The articles were systematically screened through several search engine and databases. The articles published or in preprint were included in the study till 15th May 2020. The systematic review done as per the published literatures which included 31 cross sectional, observational studies and case reports which revealed neurological signs and symptoms in SARS-COV-2 disease. For meta-analysis, we included 09 observational and cross-sectional studies which included COVID-19 positive patients and assessed the predominance of various neurological signs and symptoms in COVID-19 patients with relation to SARS-2002 and MERS-2012. Data was analyzed by using the "MedCalc" Statistical Software version 19.2.6 and reported as pooled prevalence. Standard I2 test was used to analyze the heterogeneity. We have collected and screened about a total 2615articles, finally we have included 31articles for the systematic review and 09 for meta-analysis as per the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The analysis was made as per the prevalence rate of neurological symptoms in COVID-19 positive patients. The cumulative neurological outcome of SARS-2002 and MERS-2012 was assessed to get the trends which was further tried to correlate the events with the current pandemic. During the analysis severity and outcome of neurological manifestations range from simple headache to vague non-focal complaints to severe neurologic impairment associated with seizure or meningitis. Central and peripheral nervous system (CNS/PNS) manifestations were seen during the SARS-2002, MERS-2012 and COVID-19. However, none of the publication had primary or secondary objectives of searching neurological manifestations in the COVID-19 patients and the pathogenic mechanism which will subsequently strengthen the importance to start more prospective clinical trials. The prevalence of neurological signs and symptoms were taken as primary objective. Thereafter, the prevalence of each CNS/PNS symptoms was categorized and their prevalence studied. The selection of Bagheri et al., 2020 may be discussed because they have done the cross-sectional study with the neurological finding and correlated the data with prevalence of the COVID-19 positive patients. The proportion of patients presenting with neurological outcome and clinical/PCR positivity were done. We had searched and followed all the possible online/web source, still the data collection process may remain a limitation of work due to addition of several publications on COVID-19 every day. Due to lack of data of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, we have included the case reports, MERS and COVID-19 in CNS/PNS manifestations.

Clinical spectrum and outcome of patients visiting coronavirus screening centre in North India and clinical predictors for COVID-19.

AIM: The aim of this study is to elucidate the demographics, symptoms and outcome of sick persons visiting coronavirus (COVID) screening OPD of a tertiary institute in North India. STUDY DESIGN: The present descriptive, prospective study was done on 1030 patients and information about presenting symptoms, demographics (age, sex, nationality, residence), contact and travel history, comorbidities etc., were recorded. On the basis of criteria given by Indian Council of Medical Research, patients were divided into suspected (SARS-CoV-2) and non-suspected group. Of the suspected patients, with RT-PCR test positive were classified as confirmed COVID-19 case and negative RT-PCR symptomatic individual were defined as negative COVID-19 case. RESULTS: Out of the total patients, 65.6% were male and 34.4% were females. The mean age was 37.04 years. Fever 49.3%, cough 57.1% and sore throat 43.5% were the main symptoms. Comorbidities were seen in 8.5% patients with hypertension (3.5%) and diabetes mellitus (3.4%). Forty patients were positive. Highly significant correlation (P < 0.01) was found between COVID-19 positive status and in patients without any symptoms, between COVID-19 and cough and sore throat, between COVID-19 and comorbidity (diabetes mellitus), between COVID-19 and high-risk exposures (resident of hot spot and history of contact with confirmed case). Our study also found COVID-19 positive status, shortness of breath and tachycardia as independent predictors of mortality (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients were young adults and males were mainly affected. Main presentation was cough followed by fever. Infectivity was higher in patients who had underlying comorbid diseases, especially diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Critical patients with decreased oxygen saturation, tachypnoea and tachycardia had strong predictability for COVID-19 positivity. COVID-19 positive status, shortness of breath and tachycardia are important predictors of mortality.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in the management of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients.

Multiple options are being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection since its pandemic started. Favipiravir (FPV) is one of drugs, which is also being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FPV in published literature. Comparative randomized or nonrandomized controlled clinical trials comparing FPV to the standard of care (SOC)/control or other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 12 databases were searched and identify four studies which were further used for final analysis. The data analysis was done as pooled prevalence using a random effect model by "RevMan manager version 5.4.1 and "R" software. The point estimate, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous data. In the present study, the marginal beneficial effect was seen in the FPV group in overall clinical improvement comparison to SOC/control, i.e., (4 studies, log OR [95% CI] (-0.19 [-0.51, 0.13]). However, in all other outcomes, it was found to be comparable to the SOC/control arm namely "clinical improvement on day 7-10" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.63 [1.07, 2.48]) while "clinical improvement on day 10-14" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.37 [0.24, 7.82]) and viral negativity was seen (4 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.91 [0.91, 4.01]). No difference in efficacy was found between FPV versus lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol groups. Regarding adverse effects, except for the occurrence of rash (higher in the FPV group), safety was comparable to SOC. In our study, there was a marginal difference between the FPV and the SOC arm in terms of "clinical improvement" on day 7-10 or 10-14, and "virological negativity" on day 10-14." However, some benefit was observed in a few studies, but it was also comparable to the control drugs or SOC.

Post-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19, a myth or a reality? The PEP-CQ Study.

Many drugs have been tried for the treatment/prevention of COVID-19 with limited success. Direct household contacts of COVID-19 patients are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been tried against COVID-19 owing to its in vitro virucidal action against SARS-CoV-2, but the role of HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) remains inconclusive. In this open-label, controlled clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals who had direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases or had undertaken international travel in the last 2 weeks were offered HCQ prophylaxis and assigned to PEP (n = 132) or control (n = 185) group. The PEP group received HCQ 800 mg on Day 1 followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks. Both groups undertook home quarantine for 2 weeks along with social distancing and personal hygiene. Over 4-week follow-up, 50/317 participants (15.8%) had new-onset COVID-19. The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly (P = 0.033) lower in the PEP (14/132; 10.6%) compared to the control (36/185; 19.5%) group (total absolute risk reduction, -8.9% points). The NNT to prevent the occurrence of 1 COVID-19 case was 12. Overall relative risk was 0.59 (95% CI 0.33-1.05). Compliance was good. The most common adverse event was epigastric discomfort with burning sensation (three participants), with no serious adverse events. PEP with HCQ has the potential for the prevention of COVID-19 in at-risk individuals. Until definitive therapy is available, continuing PEP with HCQ may be considered in suitable at-risk individuals. Further randomised clinical trials with larger samples are required for better evaluation of HCQ as PEP for COVID-19 prevention.

Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Following the demonstration of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro, many trials started to evaluate its efficacy in clinical settings. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis have addressed the issue of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the objectives of evaluation of safety and efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination in terms of "time to clinical cure," "virological cure," "death or clinical worsening of disease," "radiological progression," and safety. RevMan was used for meta-analysis. We searched 16 literature databases out of which seven studies (n = 1358) were included in the systematic review. In terms of clinical cure, two studies reported possible benefit in "time to body temperature normalization" and one study reported less "cough days" in the HCQ arm. Treatment with HCQ resulted in less number of cases showing the radiological progression of lung disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.9). No difference was observed in virological cure (OR, 2.37, 95% CI, 0.13-44.53), death or clinical worsening of disease (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.37-21.97), and safety (OR, 2.19, 95% CI, 0.59-8.18), when compared with the control/conventional treatment. Five studies reported either the safety or efficacy of HCQ + azithromycin. Although seems safe and effective, more data are required for a definitive conclusion. HCQ seems to be promising in terms of less number of cases with radiological progression with a comparable safety profile to control/conventional treatment. We need more data to come to a definite conclusion.

In-silico homology assisted identification of inhibitor of RNA binding against 2019-nCoV N-protein (N terminal domain).

The N terminal domain (NTD) of Nucleocapsid protein (N protein) of coronavirus (CoV) binds to the viral (+) sense RNA and results in CoV ribonucleoprotien (CoV RNP) complex, essential for the virus replication. In this study, the RNA-binding N terminal domain (NTD) of the N protein was targeted for the identification of possible inhibitors of RNA binding. Two NTD structures of N proteins were selected (2OFZ and 1SSK, 92% homology) for virtual screening of 56,079 compounds from Asinex and Maybridge library to identify top 15 hits for each of the targets based on 'docking score'. These top-hits were further screened for MM-GBSA binding free energy, pharmacokinetic properties (QikProp) and drug-likeness (SwissADME) and subjected to molecular dynamics (MD) studies. Two suitable binders (ZINC00003118440 and ZINC0000146942) against the target 2OFZ were identified. ZINC00003118440 is a theophylline derivative under the drug class 'bronchodilators' and further screening with approved bronchodilators was also studied to identify their ability to bind to the RNA binding region on the N protein. The other identified top hit is ZINC0000146942, which is a 3,4dihydropyrimidone class molecule. Hence this study suggests two important class of compounds, theophylline and pyrimidone derivaties as possible inhibitors of RNA binding to the N terminal domain of N protein of coronavirus, thus opening new avenues for in vitro validations. Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.