IFI27 transcription is an early predictor for COVID-19 outcomes, a multi-cohort observational study.

Purpose: Robust biomarkers that predict disease outcomes amongst COVID-19 patients are necessary for both patient triage and resource prioritisation. Numerous candidate biomarkers have been proposed for COVID-19. However, at present, there is no consensus on the best diagnostic approach to predict outcomes in infected patients. Moreover, it is not clear whether such tools would apply to other potentially pandemic pathogens and therefore of use as stockpile for future pandemic preparedness. Methods: We conducted a multi-cohort observational study to investigate the biology and the prognostic role of interferon alpha-inducible protein 27 (IFI27) in COVID-19 patients. Results: We show that IFI27 is expressed in the respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients and elevated IFI27 expression in the lower respiratory tract is associated with the presence of a high viral load. We further demonstrate that the systemic host response, as measured by blood IFI27 expression, is associated with COVID-19 infection. For clinical outcome prediction (e.g., respiratory failure), IFI27 expression displays a high sensitivity (0.95) and specificity (0.83), outperforming other known predictors of COVID-19 outcomes. Furthermore, IFI27 is upregulated in the blood of infected patients in response to other respiratory viruses. For example, in the pandemic H1N1/09 influenza virus infection, IFI27-like genes were highly upregulated in the blood samples of severely infected patients. Conclusion: These data suggest that prognostic biomarkers targeting the family of IFI27 genes could potentially supplement conventional diagnostic tools in future virus pandemics, independent of whether such pandemics are caused by a coronavirus, an influenza virus or another as yet-to-be discovered respiratory virus.

Melatonin effects on sleep quality and outcomes of COVID-19 patients: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial.

This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of adding melatonin to the treatment protocol of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This was an open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving melatonin plus standard care or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The trial's primary endpoint was sleep quality examined by the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ). The trial's secondary endpoints were symptoms alleviation by Day 7, intensive care unit admission, 10-day mortality, white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein status, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation. Ninety-six patients were recruited and allocated to either the melatonin arm (n = 48) or control arm (n = 48). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in symptoms on Day 7. The mean of the LSEQ scores was significantly higher in the melatonin group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in laboratory data, except for blood oxygen saturation, which has improved significantly in the melatonin group compared with the control group (95.81% vs. 93.65% respectively, p = 0.003). This clinical trial study showed that the combination of oral melatonin tablets and standard treatment could substantially improve sleep quality and blood oxygen saturation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The role of vitamin D in the age of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be a crucial supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID-19. Hence, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to maximise the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science up to December 18, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the systematic review. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies containing 11 901 participants entered into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that 41% of COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 29%-55%), and in 42% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 24%-63%). The serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was 20.3 ng/mL among all COVID-19 patients (95% CI, 12.1-19.8). The odds of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 are 3.3 times higher among individuals with vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 2.5-4.3). The chance of developing severe COVID-19 is about five times higher in patients with vitamin D deficiency (OR: 5.1, 95% CI, 2.6-10.3). There is no significant association between vitamin D status and higher mortality rates (OR: 1.6, 95% CI, 0.5-4.4). CONCLUSION: This study found that most of the COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Also, there is about three times higher chance of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 among vitamin-D-deficient individuals and about five times higher probability of developing the severe disease in vitamin-D-deficient patients. Vitamin D deficiency showed no significant association with mortality rates in this population.

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments are urgently needed to tackle the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This trial aims to evaluate sofosbuvir and daclatasvir versus standard care for outpatients with mild COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial in outpatients with mild COVID-19. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir/daclatasvir plus hydroxychloroquine or a control arm receiving hydroxychloroquine alone. The primary endpoint of the trial was symptom alleviation after 7 days of follow-up. The secondary endpoint of the trial was hospital admission. Fatigue, dyspnoea and loss of appetite were investigated after 1 month of follow-up. This study is registered with the IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200403046926N1. RESULTS: Between 8 April 2020 and 19 May 2020, 55 patients were recruited and allocated to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir treatment arm (n = 27) or the control arm (n = 28). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in symptoms at Day 7. One patient was admitted to hospital in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and four in the control arm, but the difference was not significant. After 1 month of follow-up, two patients reported fatigue in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 16 in the control arm; P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir did not significantly alleviate symptoms after 7 days of treatment compared with control. Although fewer hospitalizations were observed in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm, this was not statistically significant. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir significantly reduced the number of patients with fatigue and dyspnoea after 1 month. Larger, well-designed trials are warranted.

Dexamethasone vs COVID-19: An experimental study in line with the preliminary findings of a large trial.

BACKGROUND: The preliminary report of the RECOVERY large randomised controlled trial indicated a promising survival effect for dexamethasone therapy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the anti-hypoxic activities of dexamethasone to understand a possible mechanism of its action in hypoxia-induced lethality through experimental models of hypoxia. METHODS: In this investigation, 84 Male BALB/c mice were randomly divided into groups of seven (12 groups). Treatment groups received 10 days of dexamethasone intraperitoneal injection at both human dose (~0.1 mg/kg) and the animal does (~1 mg/kg). Control negative and positive groups were treated with 10 ml/kg of normal saline and 30 mg/kg of propranolol, respectively. Three experimental models of hypoxia, asphyctic, circulatory, and hemic were applied in this study. RESULTS: The findings showed that dexamethasone significantly prolonged the latency for death in the asphyctic model concerning the control group in both humans (P < .0001) and animal dose (P < .0001). The results were also highly significant for both doses in the hemic model (P < .001). In the circulatory model, although a small increase was observed in death prolongation, results were not statistically significant for both doses in this model (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This experimental in vivo investigation demonstrated an excellent protective effect for 10 days of dexamethasone treatment against hypoxia, especially in asphyctic and hemic models. In addition to promising dexamethasone outcomes, using propranolol as the positive control illustrated a very substantial anti-hypoxic effect even much better than dexamethasone in all models. It seems that propranolol would be a safe, potential, and prudent choice to invest in treating COVID-19 patients.

The Role of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to examine the role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CochraneLibrary, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and medRxiv pre-print databases using available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. Data from all studies that focused on the effectiveness of HCQ with or without the addition of azithromycin (AZM) in confirmed COVID-19 patients, which were published up to 12 September 2020, were collated for analysis using CMA v.2.2.064. RESULTS: Our systematic review retrieved 41 studies. Among these, 37 studies including 45,913 participants fulfilled the criteria for subsequent meta-analysis. The data showed no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the HCQ and control groups (RR: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.81-1.27). Combination of HCQ with AZM also did not lead to improved treatment outcomes (RR: 1.26, 95% CI, 0.91-1.74). Furthermore, the mortality difference was not significant, neither in HCQ treatment group (RR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.71-1.03) nor in HCQ plus AZM treatment group (RR: 1.28, 95% CI, 0.76-2.14) in comparison to controls. Meta-regression analysis showed that age was the factor that significantly affected mortality (P<0.00001). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis found that there was no clinical benefit of using either HCQ by itself or in combination with AZM for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Hence, it may be prudent for clinicians and researchers to focus on other therapeutic options that may show greater promise in this disease.

Cardiovascular diseases burden in COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.