Virtual screening of substances used in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and analysis of compounds with known action on structurally similar proteins from other viruses.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is considered the etiological agent of the disease that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, and for which there is currently no effective treatment. This pandemic has shown that the rapid identification of therapeutic compounds is critical (when a new virus with high transmissibility occurs) to prevent or reduce as much as possible the loss of human lives. To meet the urgent need for drugs, many strategies were applied for the discovery, respectively the identification of potential therapies / drugs for SARS-CoV-2. Molecular docking and virtual screening are two of the in silico tools/techniques that provided the identification of few SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors, removing ineffective or less effective drugs and thus preventing the loss of resources such as time and additional costs. The main target of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of how in-silico tools have been used in the crisis management of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, especially in virtual screening of substances used in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and analysis of compounds with known action on structurally similar proteins from other viruses; also, completions were added to the way in which these methods came to meet the requirements of biomedical research in the field. Moreover, the importance and impact of the topic approached for researchers was highlighted by conducting an extensive bibliometric analysis.

Efficiency of antiviral treatment in COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is responsible for generating a global effort to discover urgent therapeutic solutions to limit the human damage caused by COVID-19. In the period of April to June 2020, 105 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 met the conditions for inclusion in the present study. They were treated with antiviral therapy according to local guidelines: D group (53 cases), treated with darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r); and K group (52 cases), treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Patients from the K group required 7.5 days of hospitalization less compared to those from the D group (P<0.001). The blood oxygen saturation values recorded in the groups were statistically different [K group (94.02±3.12%) vs. D group (92.13±4.24%), P=0.010]. The percentage of patients with unsatisfactory clinical evolution were non-significantly higher in the D group compared with the K group [20 (37.74%) vs. 12 (23.08%), P=0.157]. We did not note statistically significant differences between the two groups tracked considering the values for the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BCRSS) of the patients with unsatisfactory clinical evolution, nor of the chest CT' evolution after 10 days of therapy. We did not register significant adverse effects after antiviral therapy in the two groups. Antiviral therapy with LPV/r had some favorable results compared to DRV/r in patients with COVID-19. Both therapies were well tolerated.