Sigma-1 Receptors in Depression: Mechanism and Therapeutic Development.

Depression is the most common type of neuropsychiatric illness and has increasingly become a major cause of disability. Unfortunately, the recent global pandemic of COVID-19 has dramatically increased the incidence of depression and has significantly increased the burden of mental health care worldwide. Since full remission of the clinical symptoms of depression has not been achieved with current treatments, there is a constant need to discover new compounds that meet the major clinical needs. Recently, the roles of sigma receptors, especially the sigma-1 receptor subtype, have attracted increasing attention as potential new targets and target-specific drugs due to their translocation property that produces a broad spectrum of biological functions. Even clinical first-line antidepressants with or without affinity for sigma-1 receptors have different pharmacological profiles. Thus, the regulatory role of sigma-1 receptors might be useful in treating these central nervous system (CNS) diseases. In addition, long-term mental stress disrupts the homeostasis in the CNS. In this review, we discuss the topical literature concerning sigma-1 receptor antidepressant mechanism of action in the regulation of intracellular proteostasis, calcium homeostasis and especially the dynamic Excitatory/Inhibitory (E/I) balance in the brain. Furthermore, based on these discoveries, we discuss sigma-1 receptor ligands with respect to their promise as targets for fast-onset action drugs in treating depression.

Treatment Effect of Qingfei Paidu Decoction Combined With Conventional Treatment on COVID-19 Patients and Other Respiratory Diseases: A Multi-Center Retrospective Case Series.

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPDD) has been widely used in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. However, studies on the treatment effect of COVID-19 patients and other respiratory diseases have not been well demonstrated. Our study aims to determine the treatment effect of QFPDD in combination with conventional treatment on COVID-19 patients and other respiratory diseases. Methods: This retrospective study recruited COVID-19 patients who were treated with QFPDD for at least two courses (6 days) from seven hospitals in five provinces from January 21 to March 18 2020. Demographic, epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, computed tomography characteristics, treatment, and outcome data were collected and analyzed. The improvements in clinical symptoms before and after QFPDD treatment were compared. Results: Eight COVID-19 patients were included in this study. Of them, six were males (75.0%). The median age of the patients was 66 (60-82) years. Four patients were classified as mild and moderate cases (50.0%); there were two severe cases (25.0%) and critical cases (25.0%). The most common symptom was cough (7 [87.5%]), followed by fever (6 [75.0%]), fatigue (4 [50.0%]), asthma (4 [50.0%]), and anorexia (3 [37.5%]). Abnormal findings included decrease in neutrophils (3 [37.5%]), lymphocytes (2 [25.0%]), alkaline phosphatase (3 [37.5%]), lactic dehydrogenase (4 [50.0%]), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (2 [25.0%]), and C-reactive protein (5 [83.3%]) at admission. After one course (3 days) of QFPDD, nasal obstruction and sore throat completely disappeared, and fever (5 [83.3%]), fatigue (2 [50.0%]), and cough (2 [28.6%]) were improved. After two courses (6 days), the fever disappeared completely in all patients, and the other symptoms showed a tendency to improve. In non-severe patients, 87.5% baseline symptoms completely disappeared. In severe patients, 61.1% of the baseline symptoms completely disappeared after patients were administered QFPDD for two courses. Of the abnormal indicators, 55.6% returned to normal levels. The median duration to complete fever recovery was 1.0 day. The median durations of viral shedding and hospitalization were 10.5 and 21.5 days, respectively. None of the patients worsened and died, and no serious adverse events occurred related to QFPDD during hospitalization. Conclusion: QFPDD combined with conventional treatment improved clinical symptoms in COVID-19 patients with other respiratory diseases, and no serious adverse reactions associated with QFPDD were observed. Larger sample studies confirm our findings in the future.

Analysis of mortality surveillance of residents in Minhang district of Shanghai from January to April in 2016-2020

Objective: To characterize the mortality rate of residents in Minhang District of Shanghai from January to April in 2016-2020, and to determine the change in the epidemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2020.

Reflections on development of rapid and living evidence-based Chinese medicine guidelines for Coronavirus disease 2019

As evidence is rapidly accumulated and updated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, rapid and living guidelines are needed to guide the clinical practice of Chinese medicine (CM), for which the WHO handbook of rapid guideline development should be referred to, and the characteristics of CM should be addressed. When constructing the body of evidence, we need to systematically search the studies related to COVID-19 (direct) and indirect diseases, and to collect the experience evidence from ancient documents and expert consensus, thereby maximumly presenting the advantages of CM. When the recommendations are developed, the co-existing direct and indirect evidence, as well as the co-existing research and experience evidence should be fully considered and synthesized by taking priority on whichever higher level evidence it is. The development of the rapid and living CM guidelines meets the ever-changing clinical needs during COVID-19 pandemic, and can provide CM evidence supports for decision making during public health emergencies.

The clinical profile and associated mortality in people with and without diabetes with Coronavirus disease 2019 on admission to acute hospital services.

INTRODUCTION: To assess if in adults with COVID-19, whether those with diabetes and complications (DM+C) present with a more severe clinical profile and if that relates to increased mortality, compared to those with diabetes with no complications (DM-NC) and those without diabetes. METHODS: Service-level data was used from 996 adults with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK, from March to June 2020. All individuals were categorized into DM+C, DM-NC, and non-diabetes groups. Physiological and laboratory measurements in the first 5 days after admission were collated and compared among groups. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate associations between diabetes status and the risk of mortality. RESULTS: Among the 996 individuals, 104 (10.4%) were DM+C, 295 (29.6%) DM-NC and 597 (59.9%) non-diabetes. There were 309 (31.0%) in-hospital deaths documented, 40 (4.0% of total cohort) were DM+C, 99 (9.9%) DM-NC and 170 (17.0%) non-diabetes. Individuals with DM+C were more likely to present with high anion gap/metabolic acidosis, features of renal impairment, and low albumin/lymphocyte count than those with DM-NC or those without diabetes. There was no significant difference in mortality rates among the groups: compared to individuals without diabetes, the adjusted HRs were 1.39 (95% CI 0.95-2.03, p = 0.093) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.90-1.54, p = 0.226) in DM+C and DM-C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Those with COVID-19 and DM+C presented with a more severe clinical and biochemical profile, but this did not associate with increased mortality in this study.

Association between early treatment with Qingfei Paidu decoction and favorable clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has been almost controlled in China under a series of policies, including "early diagnosis and early treatment". This study aimed to explore the association between early treatment with Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPDD) and favorable clinical outcomes. In this retrospective multicenter study, we included 782 patients (males, 56 %; median age 46) with confirmed COVID-19 from 54 hospitals in nine provinces of China, who were divided into four groups according to the treatment initiation time from the first date of onset of symptoms to the date of starting treatment with QFPDD. The primary outcome was time to recovery; days of viral shedding, duration of hospital stay, and course of the disease were also analyzed. Compared with treatment initiated after 3 weeks, early treatment with QFPDD after less than 1 week, 1-2 weeks, or 2-3 weeks had a higher likelihood of recovery, with adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95 % confidence interval [CI]) of 3.81 (2.65-5.48), 2.63 (1.86-3.73), and 1.92 (1.34-2.75), respectively. The median course of the disease decreased from 34 days to 24 days, 21 days, and 18 days when treatment was administered early by a week (P < 0.0001). Treatment within a week was related to a decrease by 1-4 days in the median duration of hospital stay compared with late treatment (P<0.0001). In conclusion, early treatment with QFPDD may serve as an effective strategy in controlling the epidemic, as early treatment with QFPDD was associated with favorable outcomes, including faster recovery, shorter time to viral shedding, and a shorter duration of hospital stay. However, further multicenter, prospective studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to confirm the benefits of early treatment with QFPDD.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Susceptibility to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether active use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases susceptibility to developing suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the use of other common analgesics. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched cohort study with active comparators, using a large UK primary care data set. The cohort consisted of adult patients age ≥18 years with osteoarthritis (OA) who were followed up from January 30 to July 31, 2020. Patients prescribed an NSAID (excluding topical preparations) were compared to those prescribed either co-codamol (paracetamol and codeine) or co-dydramol (paracetamol and dihydrocodeine). A total of 13,202 patients prescribed NSAIDs were identified, compared to 12,457 patients prescribed the comparator drugs. The primary outcome measure was the documentation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, and the secondary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up, the incidence rates of suspected/confirmed COVID-19 were 15.4 and 19.9 per 1,000 person-years in the NSAID-exposed group and comparator group, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 among the unmatched and propensity score-matched OA cohorts, using data from clinical consultations in primary care settings, were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62-1.10) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.57-1.11), respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of all-cause mortality were 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.27) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.61-1.20), respectively. There was no effect modification by age or sex. CONCLUSION: No increase in the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or mortality was observed among patients with OA in a primary care setting who were prescribed NSAIDs as compared to those who received comparator drugs. These results are reassuring and suggest that in the absence of acute illness, NSAIDs can be safely prescribed during the ongoing pandemic.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension: a propensity score-matched cohort study in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors have been postulated to influence susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study investigated whether there is an association between their prescription and the incidence of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study comparing the incidence of COVID-19 among patients with hypertension prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme I (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II type-1 receptor blockers (ARBs) to those treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in a large UK-based primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). We estimated crude incidence rates for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 in each drug exposure group. We used Cox proportional hazards models to produce adjusted hazard ratios for COVID-19. We assessed all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The incidence rate of COVID-19 among users of ACE inhibitors and CCBs was 9.3 per 1000 person-years (83 of 18,895 users [0.44%]) and 9.5 per 1000 person-years (85 of 18,895 [0.45%]), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). The incidence rate among users of ARBs was 15.8 per 1000 person-years (79 out of 10,623 users [0.74%]). The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.38 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.95). There were no significant associations between use of RAS inhibitors and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Use of ACE inhibitors was not associated with the risk of COVID-19 whereas use of ARBs was associated with a statistically non-significant increase compared to the use of CCBs. However, no significant associations were observed between prescription of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality.

Frontline Science: COVID-19 infection induces readily detectable morphologic and inflammation-related phenotypic changes in peripheral blood monocytes.

Excessive monocyte/macrophage activation with the development of a cytokine storm and subsequent acute lung injury, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), is a feared consequence of infection with COVID-19. The ability to recognize and potentially intervene early in those patients at greatest risk of developing this complication could be of great clinical utility. In this study, we performed flow cytometric analysis of peripheral blood samples from 34 COVID-19 patients in early 2020 in an attempt to identify factors that could help predict the severity of disease and patient outcome. Although we did not detect significant differences in the number of monocytes between patients with COVID-19 and normal healthy individuals, we did identify significant morphologic and functional differences, which are more pronounced in patients requiring prolonged hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients with COVID-19 have larger than normal monocytes, easily identified on forward scatter (FSC), side scatter analysis by routine flow cytometry, with the presence of a distinct population of monocytes with high FSC (FSC-high). On more detailed analysis, these CD14+ CD16+ , FSC-high monocytes show features of mixed M1/M2 macrophage polarization with higher expression of CD80+ and CD206+ compared with the residual FSC-low monocytes and secretion of higher levels of IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α, when compared with the normal controls. In conclusion, the detection and serial monitoring of this subset of inflammatory monocytes using flow cytometry could be of great help in guiding the prognostication and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and merits further evaluation.

Association of Metformin with Susceptibility to COVID-19 in People with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes has emerged as an important risk factor for mortality from COVID-19. Metformin, the most commonly prescribed glucose-lowering agent, has been proposed to influence susceptibility to and outcomes of COVID-19 via multiple mechanisms. We investigated whether, in patients with diabetes, metformin is associated with susceptibility to COVID-19 and its outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched cohort study with active comparators using a large UK primary care dataset. Adults with type 2 diabetes patients and a current prescription for metformin and other glucose-lowering agents (MF+) were compared to those with a current prescription for glucose-lowering agents that did not include metformin (MF-). Outcomes were confirmed COVID-19, suspected/confirmed COVID-19, and associated mortality. A negative control outcome analysis (back pain) was also performed. RESULTS: There were 29 558 and 10 271 patients in the MF+ and MF- groups, respectively, who met the inclusion criteria. In the propensity score-matched analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios for suspected/confirmed COVID-19, confirmed COVID-19, and COVID-19-related mortality were 0.85 (95% CI 0.67, 1.08), 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.34, 2.20) respectively. The negative outcome control analysis did not suggest unobserved confounding. CONCLUSION: Current prescription of metformin was not associated with the risk of COVID-19 or COVID-19-related mortality. It is safe to continue prescribing metformin to improve glycemic control in patients with.

Leptin correlates with monocytes activation and severe condition in COVID-19 patients.

Excessive monocyte activation with the development of excessive or uncontrolled release of proinflammatory cytokines often results in host tissue injury and even death in patients with pneumonia caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus. However, the changes of cytokine profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, as well as the underlying mechanisms that are involved, remain unknown. Using a cytokine array containing 174 inflammation-related cytokines, we found significantly altered cytokine profiles in severe COVID-19 patients compared with those in mild patients or healthy controls, and identified leptin, CXCL-10, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12, and TNF-α as the top differentially expressed cytokines. Notably, leptin showed high consistency with CXCL-10 and TNF-α in predicting disease severity, and correlated with body mass index, decreased lymphocyte counts, and disease progression. Further analysis demonstrated that monocytes in severe patients with higher leptin levels were inclined toward M1 polarization. Mechanistic studies revealed that leptin synergistically up-regulated expression levels of inflammatory cytokines and surface markers with IL-6 in monocytes through STAT3 and NF-κB signaling pathways. Collectively, our results suggest that overweight COVID-19 patients were prone to have higher leptin levels, which further activated monocytes, resulting in amplified or dysregulated immune responses. Taken together, our findings argue that leptin correlates severity of COVID-19 and may indicate a possible mechanism by which overweight patients have a greater tendency to develop severe conditions.

Traditional Chinese Medicine guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practice in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and provide timely clinical practice guidance. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with the World Health Organization rapid guideline process. The evidence on TCM for COVID-19 from published guidelines, direct and indirect published clinical evidence, first hand clinical data, and expert experience and consensus were collected. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) method was used to grade the evidence and make the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence, the guidelines recommended 17 Chinese medicines for COVID-19: 2 Chinese herbal granules, 7 Chinese patent medicines, and 8 Chinese herbal injections. CONCLUSION: As the literature search was conducted on March, any subsequent versions of these guidelines require an up-to-date literature review. We hope that the evidence summary in these will be helpful in global efforts to address COVID-19.

Development of Rapid Advice Guidelines for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 with Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either "strong" or "weak" recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and susceptibility to COVID-19: A population-based retrospective cohort study.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are widely prescribed in people with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate whether SGLT2 inhibitor prescription is associated with COVID-19, when compared with an active comparator. We performed a propensity-score-matched cohort study with active comparators and a negative control outcome in a large UK-based primary care dataset. Participants prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 9948) and a comparator group prescribed dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (n = 14 917) were followed up from January 30 to July 27, 2020. The primary outcome was confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19. The incidence rate of COVID-19 was 19.7/1000 person-years among users of SGLT2 inhibitors and 24.7/1000 person-years among propensity-score-matched users of DPP-4 inhibitors. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.29), and there was no evidence of residual confounding in the negative control analysis. We did not observe an increased risk of COVID-19 in primary care amongst those prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, suggesting that clinicians may safely use these agents in the everyday care of people with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.