One stone two birds: anti-inflammatory bronchodilators as a potential pharmacological strategy for COVID-19.

The ongoing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has imposed a huge threat to public health across the world. While vaccinations are essential for reducing virus transmission and attenuating disease severity, the nature of high mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 renders vaccines less effective, urging quick development of effective therapies for COVID-19 disease. However, developing novel drugs remains extremely challenging due to the lengthy process and high cost. Alternatively, repurposing of existing drugs on the market represents a rapid and safe strategy for combating COVID-19 pandemic. Bronchodilators are first line drugs for inflammatory lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared to other anti-inflammatory drugs repurposed for COVID-19, bronchodilators are unique in that they have both anti-inflammatory and bronchodilating properties. Whether the dual properties of bronchodilators empower them greater potential to be repurposed for COVID-19 is worth exploring. In fact, clinical and preclinical studies have recently emerged to investigate the benefits of bronchodilators such assalbutamol, formoterol and theophylline in treating COVID-19, and many of them have shown encouraging efficacy on attenuating disease severity of pneumonia and other associated symptoms. To comprehensively understand the latest progress on COVID-19 intervention with bronchodilators, this review will summarize recent findings in this area and highlight the promising clinical benefits and possible adverse effects of bronchodilators as therapeutic options for COVID-19 with a focus on ß2 receptor agonists, anticholinergic drugs and theophylline.

Long COVID: diagnosis and treatment of respiratory syndrome in post COVID-19 conditions

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to another medical burden that came from the symptoms experienced by patients after acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, a condition often called as Long COVID. As the number of COVID-19 cases remain rising, various studies and scientific researches are being conducted to understand more about Long COVID, and findings have consistently shown increased burden due to Long COVID that needs more attention from the clinical world. This article review collects various sources regarding the diagnosis and management of respiratory syndrome in post-COVID-19 conditions. Long COVID, currently referred to as a post-COVID-19 condition, consists of symptom(s) that occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with symptoms lasting at least two months and cannot be explained by any alternative diagnosis. Symptoms that occur are very diverse from various organ systems, including the respiratory system. Knowledge regarding the possible symptoms as well as a thorough evaluation is needed to identify and diagnose post-COVID-19 conditions, and multidisciplinary management through a tiered system may help reach more cases of post-COVID-19 conditions. The treatment for post-COVID-19 conditions needs to be adjusted to the patient's condition, and the administration of pharmacological therapy such as steroids, bronchodilators, and mucolytics/antioxidants has to be based on clinical symptoms and radiological abnormalities.

Aerosol delivery through high-flow nasal therapy: Technical issues and clinical benefits.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is an oxygen delivery method particularly used in patients affected by hypoxemic respiratory failure. In comparison with the conventional "low flow" oxygen delivery systems, it showed several important clinical benefits. The possibility to nebulize drugs via HFNC represents a desirable medical practice because it allows the administration of inhaled drugs, mostly bronchodilators, without the interruption or modification of the concomitant oxygen therapy. HFNC, by itself has shown to exert a small but significant bronchodilator effect and improves muco-ciliary clearance; thus, the nebulization of bronchodilators through the HFNC circuit may potentially increase their pharmacological activity. Several technical issues have been observed which include the type of the nebulizer that should be used, its position within the HFNC circuit, and the optimal gas flow rates to ensure an efficient drug delivery to the lungs both in "quiet" and "distressed" breathing patterns. The aim of this review has been to summarize the scientific evidence coming from "in vitro" studies and to discuss the results of "in vivo" studies performed in adult subjects, mainly affected by obstructive lung diseases. Most studies seem to indicate the vibrating mesh nebulizer as the most efficient type of nebulizer and suggest to place it preferentially upstream from the humidifier chamber. In a quite breathing patterns, the inhaled dose seems to increase with lower flow rates while in a "distressed" breathing pattern, the aerosol delivery is higher when gas flow was set below the patient's inspiratory flow, with a plateau effect seen when the gas flow reaches approximately 50% of the inspiratory flow. Although several studies have demonstrated that the percentage of the loaded dose nebulized via HFNC reaching the lungs is small, the bronchodilator effect of albuterol seems not to be impaired when compared to the conventional inhaled delivery methods. This is probably attributed to its pharmacological activity. Prospective and well-designed studies in different cohort of patients are needed to standardize and demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure.

Inhaled bronchodilators use and clinical course of adult inpatients with Covid-19 pneumonia in Spain: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the current coronavirus health crisis, inhaled bronchodilators(IB) have been suggested as a possible treatment for patients hospitalized. Patients with evidence of Covid-19 pneumonia worldwide have been prescribed these medications as part of therapy for the disease, an indication for which this medications could be ineffective taken on account the pathophysiology and mechanisms of disease progression. OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to evaluate whether there is an association between IB use and length of stay. Primary end points were the number of days that a patient stayed in the hospital and death as a final event in a time to event analysis. Pneumonia severity, oxygen requirement, involved drugs, comorbidity, historical or current respiratory diagnoses and other drugs prescribed to treat coronavirus pneumonia were also evaluated. METHODS: A descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study was performed in this tertiary hospital in Madrid (Spain). Data were obtained regarding patients hospitalized with Covid-19, excluding those who were intubated. The primary and secondary outcomes such as duration of hospitalization and death were compared in patients who received IB with those in patients who did not. RESULTS: 327 patients were evaluated, mean age was 64.4 ± 15.8 years. Median length of hospitalization stay was 10 days. Of them 292 (89.3%) overcame the disease, the remaining 35 died. Patients who had received IB did not have less mortality rate (odds ratio 0.839; 95% CI: 0.401 to 1.752) and less hospitalization period when compared with patients who did not received IB (odds ratio 1.280; 95% CI: 0.813 to 2.027). There was no significant association between IB use and recovery or death. Hypertension and diabetes were the most common comorbidities. The prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in our cohort was low (21.1%). Anticholinergics were the IB more frequently prescribed for Covid-19 pneumonia. Better response in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids was not observed. CONCLUSION: Off-label indication of inhaled-bronchodilators for Covid-19 patients are common in admitted patients. Taken on account our results, the use of IB for coronavirus pneumonia apparently is not associated with a significantly patient's improvement. Our study confirms the hypothesis that inhaled bronchodilators do not improve clinical outcomes or reduce the risk of Covid-19 mortality. This could be due to the fact that the virus mainly affects the lung parenchyma and the pulmonary vasculature and probably not the airway. More researches are necessary in order to fill the gap in evidence for this new indication.

Bronchodilator reversibility testing in post-COVID-19 patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of bronchodilators in coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) survivors is still uncertain, especially for patients with a concomitant obstructive lung disease. We aimed at verifying the level of bronchodilator reversibility in COVID-19 patients undergoing multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation after the acute phase. METHODS: We enrolled 105 consecutive patients referring to the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit of Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri Spa SB, IRCCS of Telese Terme, Benevento, Italy after being discharged from the COVID-19 acute care ward and after recovering from acute COVID-19 pneumonia. All subjects performed a spirometry before and after inhalation of salbutamol 400 µg to determine the bronchodilation response within 48 h of admission to the unit. RESULTS: All patients had suffered from a moderate to severe COVID-19, classified 3 or 4 according to the WHO classification, Seventeen patients had concomitant obstructive lung disease (14 suffering from COPD and 3 from asthma). FEV1 after salbutamol improved on average by 41.7 mL in the entire examined sample, by 29.4 mL in subjects without concomitant obstructive lung diseases, by 59.3 mL in COPD patients and by 320.0 mL in asthma patients. Mean FVC after salbutamol improved by 65.7 mL in the entire examined sample, by 52.5 mL in subjects without concomitant obstructive lung diseases, by 120.0 mL in COPD patients, and by 200.0 mL in asthma patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a treatment with bronchodilators must always be taken into consideration in post-COVID-19 patients because it can induce a functional improvement that, even if small, can facilitate the breathing of these patients.

Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, for nebulized maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: This article reviews the efficacy and safety of revefenacin, the first once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, when delivered via a standard jet nebulizer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SUMMARY: Revefenacin 175 µg is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Preclinical studies showed that revefenacin is a potent and selective antagonist with similar affinity for the different subtypes of muscarinic receptors (M1-M5). Furthermore, prevention of methacholine- and acetylcholine-induced bronchoconstrictive effects was dose dependent and lasted longer than 24 hours, demonstrating a long duration of action. In phase 2 and 3 trials, treatment with revefenacin was demonstrated to result in statistical improvements in pulmonary function (≥100 mL, P < 0.05) vs placebo, including among patients with markers of more severe disease and those who received concomitant long-acting ß-agonists or long-acting ß-agonists together with inhaled corticosteroids. Revefenacin was also demonstrated to have efficacy similar to that of tiotropium. The clinical trial findings indicated no significant difference between revefenacin and tiotropium with regard to rates of adverse events. Overall, revefenacin was well tolerated, with COPD worsening/exacerbation, dyspnea, headache, and cough among the most common adverse events noted in the clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin treatment delivered via nebulization led to improvements in lung function in patients with COPD. It was also generally well tolerated, with no major safety concerns. Revefenacin provides a viable treatment option for patients with COPD and may be a suitable alternative for those with conditions that may impair proper use of traditional handheld inhalers.