Bioinformatic assay reveal the potential mechanism of Guizhi-Shaoyao-Zhimu decoction against rheumatoid arthritis and mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are more susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than healthy population, but there is still no therapeutic strategy available for RA patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Guizhi-Shaoyao-Zhimu decoction (GSZD), Chinese ancient experience decoction, has a significant effect on the treatment of Rheumatism and gout. To prevent RA patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 from developing into severe COVID-19, this study explored the potential possibility and mechanism of GSZD in the treatment of this population. METHODS: In this study, we used bioinformatic approaches to explore common pharmacological targets and signaling pathways between RA and mild-to-moderate COVID-19, and to assess the potential mechanisms of in the treatment of patients with both diseases. Beside, molecular docking was used to explore the molecular interactions between GSZD and SARS-CoV-2 related proteins. RESULTS: Results showed that 1183 common targets were found in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and RA, of which TNF was the most critical target. The crosstalk signaling pathways of the two diseases focused on innate immunity and T cells pathways. In addition, GSZD intervened in RA and mild-to-moderate COVID-19 mainly by regulating inflammation-related signaling pathways and oxidative stress. Twenty hub compounds in GSZD exhibited good binding potential to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, 3C-like protease (3CLpro), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), papain-like protease (PLpro) and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), thereby intervening in viral infection, replication and transcription. CONCLUSIONS: This finding provides a therapeutic option for RA patients against mild-to-moderate COVID-19, but further clinical validation is still needed.

The Impact of Isolation on Elderly Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19.

Objectives: Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who require hospitalization are prone to physical inactivity. This study examined the impact of mild to moderate COVID-19 on the activities of daily living (ADLs) of patients who received rehabilitation therapy. Methods: Between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, of 216 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, 36 were selected for rehabilitation therapy. Of these, 28 received direct rehabilitation therapy, whereas 7 were discharged before rehabilitation therapy could start and 1 carried out indirect rehabilitation. The Barthel Index (BI) scores at the beginning and the end of therapy were compared in 18 patients (10 patients who did not undergo a final BI evaluation were excluded). Results: In total, 27 of the 28 patients receiving direct rehabilitation therapy were more than 65 years of age or had underlying diseases. The BI score decreased in 6 patients and was maintained or improved in 12 patients. However, the 6 patients with decreased BI scores after rehabilitation therapy had significantly higher BI values at the start of therapy (P=0.014). Conclusions: It was considered that the isolated environment of these COVID-19 patients likely resulted in a decrease in activity levels, leading to a decrease in ADLs. Older adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 need to reduce their isolation as much as possible to ensure adequate activity levels.

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study.

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700-1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200-1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants.

The Musculoskeletal Involvement After Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infection.

COVID-19, a disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has been drastically affecting the daily lives of millions of people. COVID-19 is described as a multiorgan disease that affects not only the respiratory tract of infected individuals, but it has considerable effects on the musculoskeletal system, causing excessive fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, muscle weakness and skeletal muscle damage. These symptoms can persist for months, decreasing the quality of life of numerous individuals. Curiously, most studies in the scientific literature focus on patients who were hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and little is known about the mechanism of action of COVID-19 on skeletal muscles, especially of individuals who had the mild to moderate forms of the disease (non-hospitalized patients). In this review, we focus on the current knowledge about the musculoskeletal system in COVID-19, highlighting the lack of researches investigating the mild to moderate cases of infection and pointing out why it is essential to care for these patients. Also, we will comment about the need of more experimental data to assess the musculoskeletal manifestations on COVID-19-positive individuals.

Efficacy and Safety of Complementary Therapy With Jing Si Herbal Tea in Patients With Mild-To-Moderate COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Since late 2019, there has been a global COVID-19 pandemic. To preserve medical capacity and decrease adverse health effects, preventing the progression of COVID-19 to severe status is essential. Jing-Si Herbal Tea (JSHT), a novel traditional Chinese medicine formula was developed to treat COVID-19. This study examined the clinical efficacy and safety of JSHT in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled 260 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. The enrolled patients were divided into the JSHT (n = 117) and control (n = 143) groups. Both groups received standard management. The JSHT group was treated with JSHT as a complementary therapy. Results: Compared with standard management alone, JSHT combined with standard management more effectively improved the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold value, C-reactive protein level, and Brixia score in the adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, especially in the male and older patients (those aged ≥60 years). The results revealed that the patients treated with JSHT combined with standard management had 51, 70, and 100% lower risks of intubation, Medisave Care Unit admission, and mortality compared with those receiving standard management only. Conclusions: JSHT combined with standard management more effectively reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load and systemic inflammation and alleviated lung infiltrates in the patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, especially in the male and older patients (those aged ≥60 years). JSHT combined with standard management may prevent critical status and mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. JSHT is a promising complementary therapy for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Encephalopathy Due to COVID-19 With Great Response to Glucocorticoids.

Minor neurological symptoms such as anosmia are relatively common manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, severe affection of the central nervous system (CNS) occurs in a minority of cases and its treatment and pathophysiology is not yet well understood. It has been described that encephalitis due to COVID-19 may be caused by the proinflammatory state due to the cytokine storm or direct invasion of the virus in the CNS. Here we present a case of a 66-year-old man with bipolar disorder and moderate respiratory COVID-19 symptoms who presented to the emergency department with a decreased level of consciousness. Brain computerized tomography (CT) showed no acute pathology. A thorough investigation of other possible causes of CNS affection was negative. The patient was treated with pulse therapy with methylprednisolone and presented a significant improvement of his neurological condition, being discharged with a complete neurological recovery five days after the start of the treatment. This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion in diagnosing severe CNS impairment in mild respiratory COVID-19 cases. Also, this case corroborates with previous reports of glucocorticoid response in CNS impairment associated with COVID-19, although more robust studies are required to confirm this relation.

Efficacy of two siddha polyherbal decoctions, Nilavembu Kudineer and Kaba Sura Kudineer, along with standard allopathy treatment in the management of mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients-a double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Globally, the ongoing pursuit in exploring an effective drug to combat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has not met with significant success to date. Indian traditional medicines, especially polyherbal formulations like Nilavembu Kudineer (NVK) and Kaba Sura Kudineer (KSK) of the Siddha system of medicine, have been used as public health interventions for controlling viral epidemics like dengue and Chikungunya. These traditional therapies have been found safe, effective, and widely accepted. The current study evaluates the comparative efficacy of NVK and KSK as opposed to the placebo, in the management of mild to moderate COVID-19 disease. METHODS: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparative clinical trial, with the primary objective of determining the efficacy of KSK and NVK. Patients (n=125) diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms were enrolled in the study over a period of 4 months (Aug 2020-Dec 2020). Participants were randomized into 3 arms; placebo-decaffeinated tea in Arm I, NVK in Arm II, and KSK in Arm III. Each arm received 60 ml of the respective treatment twice a day, post morning and evening meals, along with standard allopathy treatment for a maximum of 10 days. The main outcome measures of the study were the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load, hospital stay, and time taken by the patients to become asymptomatic from symptomatic. Efficacy assessments included clinical symptoms (fever, cough, and breathlessness) each day and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), liver function test (LFT), renal function test (RFT), and electrolytes and electrocardiogram (ECG) at baseline (day 0) and days 3, 6, and 10. Post-treatment, participants were followed up for 30 days via phone for adverse effects if any. Effects of drugs on inflammatory markers (IL6) at the end of treatment were also recorded. Adverse events (AE) were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: The results revealed that when compared to patients in the placebo arm, those in NVK and KSK arms showed a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay time, reduction in viral load of SARS-CoV-2, and the time taken to become symptomatic from asymptomatic. Out of 125 COVID-19 patients recruited, 120 completed the study; two from the placebo group developed severe symptoms and were shifted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and three patients from Arms II and III withdrew from the study. The mean age of females (n=60) and males (n=60) enrolled was between 40.2 and 44.3 years, respectively. Results were more promising for all the patients in NVK and KSK arms as all enrolled participants (100%) under this group got discharged by day 6 as compared to only 42.5% (n=17) from the placebo group on that day. The hospital stay time for patients in Arm I was significantly longer (mean [SD]=8.4 [2.0] days) as compared to the Arms II and III (mean [SD]=4.7 [1.5] and 4.2 [1.5] days, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.0001). Patients in the three groups took a significantly different number of days to become asymptomatic. While Arm II and III patients took mean of 2.5 and 1.7 days, respectively, Arm I, patients took a mean of 4.2 days (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.0001). In all, two adverse events were recorded, one for vomiting and one for diarrhea lasting a day in Arm I and Arm II, respectively. The mean value of interleukin-6 (IL6) was significantly different in comparison to the placebo-decaffeinated tea arm (NVK=2.6 and KSK=2.2, placebo=4.0, P=0.02). The other blood biochemical parameters like C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and D-dimer that were analyzed at the baseline and at the time of discharge from the hospital, were not significantly different in the three arms. CONCLUSION: NVK and KSK arms showed a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay time, reduction in viral load of SARS-CoV-2, and time taken for patients to become asymptomatic from symptomatic, when compared to the placebo (decaffeinated tea). The primary outcome measures of the KSK arm were significantly better than those in the NVK arm.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients with false-negative SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid.

This study investigates the clinical and imaging characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with false-negative nucleic acids. Mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, including 19 cases of nucleic acid false-negative patients and 31 cases of nucleic acid positive patients, were enrolled. Their epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory examination data and imaging characteristics were analyzed. Risk factors for false negatives were discussed. Compared with the nucleic acid positive group, the false-negative group had less epidemiological exposure (52.6% vs 83.9%; P = .025), less chest discomfort (5.3% vs 32.3%; P = .035), and faster recovery (10 [8, 13] vs 15 [11, 18.5] days; P = .005). The number of involved lung lobes was (2 [1, 2.5] vs 3 [2, 4] days; P = .004), and the lung damage severity score was (3 [2.5, 4.5] vs 5 [4, 9] days; P = .007), which was lighter in the nucleic acid false-negative group. Thus, the absence of epidemiological exposure may be a potential risk factor for false-negative nucleic acids. The false-negative cases of COVID-19 are worth noting because they have a risk of viral transmission without positive test results, lighter clinical manifestations, and less history of epidemiological exposure.

No Statistically Apparent Difference in Antiviral Effectiveness Observed Among Ribavirin Plus Interferon-Alpha, Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Interferon-Alpha, and Ribavirin Plus Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Interferon-Alpha in Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results of a Randomized, Open-Labeled Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread globally, causing an unprecedented pandemic. However, there is no specific antiviral therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of three antiviral treatment regimens in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, open-labeled, prospective clinical trial. Eligible patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 were randomized into three groups: ribavirin (RBV) plus interferon-α (IFN-α), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) plus IFN-α, and RBV plus LPV/r plus IFN-α at a 1:1:1 ratio. Each patient was invited to participate in a 28-d follow-up after initiation of an antiviral regimen. The outcomes include the difference in median interval to SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negativity, the proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negativity at day 14, the mortality at day 28, the proportion of patients re-classified as severe cases, and adverse events during the study period. RESULTS: In total, we enrolled 101 patients in this study. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients were comparable among the three groups. In the analysis of intention-to-treat data, the median interval from baseline to SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negativity was 12 d in the LPV/r+IFN-α-treated group, as compared with 13 and 15 d in the RBV+IFN-α-treated group and in the RBV+LPV/r+ IFN-α-treated group, respectively (p=0.23). The proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negativity in the LPV/r+IFN-α-treated group (61.1%) was higher than the RBV+ IFN-α-treated group (51.5%) and the RBV+LPV/r+IFN-α-treated group (46.9%) at day 14; however, the difference between these groups was calculated to be statistically insignificant. The RBV+LPV/r+IFN-α-treated group developed a significantly higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events than the LPV/r+ IFN-α-treated group and the RBV+ IFN-α-treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that there are no significant differences among the three regimens in terms of antiviral effectiveness in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Furthermore, the combination of RBV and LPV/r is associated with a significant increase in gastrointestinal adverse events, suggesting that RBV and LPV/r should not be co-administered to COVID-19 patients simultaneously. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: ChiCTR2000029387. Registered on January 28, 2019.