Effect of ArtemiC in patients with COVID-19: A Phase II prospective study.

Despite intensive efforts, there is no effective remedy for COVID-19. Moreover, vaccination efficacy declines over time and may be compromised against new SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for simple, accessible, low-cost and effective pharmacological anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. ArtemiC is a medical product comprising artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C, all of which possess anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties. The present Phase II placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multi-centred, prospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ArtemiC in patients with COVID-19. The study included 50 hospitalized symptomatic COVID-19 patients randomized (2:1) to receive ArtemiC or placebo oral spray, twice daily on Days 1 and 2, beside standard care. A physical examination was performed, and vital signs and blood tests were monitored daily until hospital discharge (or Day 15). A PCR assessment of SARS-CoV-2 carriage was performed at screening and on last visit. ArtemiC improved NEWS2 in 91% of patients and shortened durations of abnormal SpO2 levels, oxygen supplementation and fever. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. These findings suggest that ArtemiC curbed deterioration, possibly by limiting cytokine storm of COVID-19, thus bearing great promise for COVID-19 patients, particularly those with comorbidities.

Nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory samples for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection. METHODS: The new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development.