Degradation kinetics and formation of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products during chlorination of two expectorants ambroxol and bromhexine.

Ambroxol hydrochloride (AMB) and bromhexine hydrochloride (BRO) are classic expectorants and bronchosecretolytic pharmaceuticals. In 2022, both AMB and BRO were recommended by medical emergency department of China to alleviate cough and expectoration for symptoms caused by COVID-19. The reaction characteristics and mechanism of AMB/BRO with chlorine disinfectant in the disinfection process were investigated in this study. The reaction of chlorine with AMB/BRO were well described by a second-order kinetics model, first-order in both AMB/BRO and chlorine. The second order rate reaction constant of AMB and BRO with chlorine at pH 7.0 were 1.15 × 102 M-1s-1 and 2.03 × 102 M-1s-1, respectively. During chlorination, a new class of aromatic nitrogenous disinfection by-products (DBPs) including 2-chloro-4, 6-dibromoaniline and 2, 4, 6-tribromoaniline were identified as the intermediate aromatic DBPs by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The effect of chlorine dosage, pH, and contact time on the formation of 2-chloro-4, 6-dibromoaniline and 2, 4, 6-tribromoaniline were evaluated. In addition, it was found that bromine in AMB/BRO were vital bromine source to greatly promote the formation of classic brominated DBPs, with the highest Br-THMs yields of 23.8% and 37.8%, respectively. This study inspired that bromine in brominated organic compounds may be an important bromine source of brominated DBPs.

Kinetics of Drug Molecule Interactions with a Newly Developed Nano-Gold-Modified Spike Protein Electrochemical Receptor Sensor.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and the spike protein has been reported to be an important drug target for anti-COVID-19 treatment. As such, in this study, we successfully developed a novel electrochemical receptor biosensor by immobilizing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and using AuNPs-HRP as an electrochemical signal amplification system. Moreover, the time-current method was used to quantify seven antiviral drug compounds, such as arbidol and chloroquine diphosphate. The results show that the spike protein and the drugs are linearly correlated within a certain concentration range and that the detection sensitivity of the sensor is extremely high. In the low concentration range of linear response, the kinetics of receptor-ligand interactions are similar to that of an enzymatic reaction. Among the investigated drug molecules, bromhexine exhibits the smallest Ka value, and thus, is most sensitively detected by the sensor. Hydroxychloroquine exhibits the largest Ka value. Molecular docking simulations of the spike protein with six small-molecule drugs show that residues of this protein, such as Asp, Trp, Asn, and Gln, form hydrogen bonds with the -OH or -NH2 groups on the branched chains of small-molecule drugs. The electrochemical receptor biosensor can directly quantify the interaction between the spike protein and drugs such as abidor and hydroxychloroquine and perform kinetic studies with a limit of detection 3.3 × 10-20 mol/L, which provides a new research method and idea for receptor-ligand interactions and pharmacodynamic evaluation.

[Bromhexine is a potential drug for COVID-19; From hypothesis to clinical trials].

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has various clinical manifestations and several pathogenic pathways. Although several therapeutic options have been used to control COVID-19, none of these medications have been proven to be a definitive cure. Transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) is a protease that has a key role in the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into host cells. Following the binding of the viral spike (S) protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors of the host cells, TMPRSS2 processes and activates the S protein on the epithelial cells. As a result, the membranes of the virus and host cell fuse. Bromhexine is a specific TMPRSS2 inhibitor that potentially inhibits the infectivity cycle of SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, several clinical trials are evaluating the efficacy of bromhexine in COVID-19 patients. The findings of these studies have shown that bromhexine is effective in improving the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and has prophylactic effects by inhibiting TMPRSS2 and viral penetration into the host cells. Bromhexine alone cannot cure all of the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it could be an effective addition to control and prevent the disease progression along with other drugs that are used to treat COVID-19. Further studies are required to investigate the efficacy of bromhexine in COVID-19.

Inhibitory mechanism of Ambroxol and Bromhexine Hydrochlorides as potent blockers of molecular interaction between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and human angiotensin-converting Enzyme-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infects the host cells through interaction of its spike protein with human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE-2). High binding affinity between the viral spike protein and host cells hACE-2 receptor has been reported to enhance the viral infection. Thus, the disruption of this molecular interaction will lead to reduction in viral infectivity. This study, therefore, aimed to analyze the inhibitory potentials of two mucolytic drugs; Ambroxol hydrochlorides (AMB) and Bromhexine hydrochlorides (BHH), to serve as potent blockers of these molecular interactions and alters the binding affinity/efficiency between the proteins employing computational techniques. The study examined the effects of binding of each drug at the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and the exopeptidase site of hACE-2 on the binding affinity (ΔGbind) and molecular interactions between the two proteins. Binding affinity revealed that the binding of the two drugs at the RBD-ACE-2 site does not alter the binding affinity and molecular interaction between the proteins. However, the binding of AMB (-56.931 kcal/mol) and BHH (-46.354 kcal/mol) at the exopeptidase site of hACE-2, significantly reduced the binding affinities between the proteins compared to the unbound, ACE-2-RBD complex (-64.856 kcal/mol). The result further showed the two compounds have good affinity at the hACE-2 site, inferring they might be potent inhibitors of hACE-2. Residue interaction networks analysis further revealed the binding of the two drugs at the exopeptidase site of hACE-2 reduced the number of interacting amino residues, subsequently leading to loss of interactions between the two proteins, with BHH showing better reduction in the molecular interaction and binding affinity than AMB. The result of the structural analyses additionally, revealed that the binding of the drugs considerably influences the dynamic of the complexes when compared to the unbound complex. The findings from this study suggest the binding of the two drugs at the exopeptidase site reduces the binding effectiveness of the proteins than their binding at the RBD site, and consequently might inhibit viral attachment and entry.

New prophylaxis regimen for SARS-CoV-2 infection in health professionals with low doses of hydroxychloroquine and bromhexine: a randomised, double-blind placebo clinical trial (ELEVATE Trial).

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infection in Mexico has caused ~2.7 million confirmed cases; around 20%-25% of health workers will be infected by the virus at their workplace, with approximately 4.4% of mortality. High infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 is related with cell entry mechanism, through the ACE receptor. SARS-CoV-2 requires transmembrane protease serine 2 to cleave its spike glycoprotein and ensure fusion of host cell and virus membrane. We propose studying prophylactic treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and bromhexine (BHH), which have been shown to be effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection progression when administered in early stages. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of HCQ and BHH as prophylactic treatments for SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthy health workers exposed to the virus. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Double-blind randomised clinical trial, with parallel allocation at a 1:1 ratio with placebo, of low doses of HCQ plus BHH, for 60 days. Study groups will be defined as follows: (1) HCQ 200 mg/day+BHH 8 mg/8 hours versus (2) HCQ placebo plus BHH placebo. Primary endpoint will be efficacy of both interventions for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by the risk ratio of infected personnel and the absolute risk. At least a 16% reduction in absolute risk is expected between the intervention and placebo groups; a minimum of 20% infection is expected in the placebo group. The sample size calculation estimated a total of 214 patients assigned: two groups of 107 participants each. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee (National Institute of Rehabilitation 'Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra', approval number INRLGII/25/20) and by the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS, approval number 203 300 410A0058/2020). The results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04340349.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV Spike-Mediated Cell-Cell Fusion Differ in Their Requirements for Receptor Expression and Proteolytic Activation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infects cells through interaction of its spike protein (SARS2-S) with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and activation by proteases, in particular transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Viruses can also spread through fusion of infected with uninfected cells. We compared the requirements of ACE2 expression, proteolytic activation, and sensitivity to inhibitors for SARS2-S-mediated and SARS-CoV-S (SARS1-S)-mediated cell-cell fusion. SARS2-S-driven fusion was moderately increased by TMPRSS2 and strongly by ACE2, while SARS1-S-driven fusion was strongly increased by TMPRSS2 and less so by ACE2 expression. In contrast to that of SARS1-S, SARS2-S-mediated cell-cell fusion was efficiently activated by batimastat-sensitive metalloproteases. Mutation of the S1/S2 proteolytic cleavage site reduced effector cell-target cell fusion when ACE2 or TMPRSS2 was limiting and rendered SARS2-S-driven cell-cell fusion more dependent on TMPRSS2. When both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were abundant, initial target cell-effector cell fusion was unaltered compared to that of wild-type (wt) SARS2-S, but syncytia remained smaller. Mutation of the S2 cleavage (S2') site specifically abrogated activation by TMPRSS2 for both cell-cell fusion and SARS2-S-driven pseudoparticle entry but still allowed for activation by metalloproteases for cell-cell fusion and by cathepsins for particle entry. Finally, we found that the TMPRSS2 inhibitor bromhexine, unlike the inhibitor camostat, was unable to reduce TMPRSS2-activated cell-cell fusion by SARS1-S and SARS2-S. Paradoxically, bromhexine enhanced cell-cell fusion in the presence of TMPRSS2, while its metabolite ambroxol exhibited inhibitory activity under some conditions. On Calu-3 lung cells, ambroxol weakly inhibited SARS2-S-driven lentiviral pseudoparticle entry, and both substances exhibited a dose-dependent trend toward weak inhibition of authentic SARS-CoV-2.IMPORTANCE Cell-cell fusion allows viruses to infect neighboring cells without the need to produce free virus and contributes to tissue damage by creating virus-infected syncytia. Our results demonstrate that the S2' cleavage site is essential for activation by TMPRSS2 and unravel important differences between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, among those, greater dependence of SARS-CoV-2 on ACE2 expression and activation by metalloproteases for cell-cell fusion. Bromhexine, reportedly an inhibitor of TMPRSS2, is currently being tested in clinical trials against coronavirus disease 2019. Our results indicate that bromhexine enhances fusion under some conditions. We therefore caution against the use of bromhexine in high dosages until its effects on SARS-CoV-2 spike activation are better understood. The related compound ambroxol, which similarly to bromhexine is clinically used as an expectorant, did not exhibit activating effects on cell-cell fusion. Both compounds exhibited weak inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV-2 infection at high concentrations, which might be clinically attainable for ambroxol.

[Results of Open-Label non-Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial: "BromhexIne and Spironolactone for CoronаvirUs Infection requiring hospiTalization (BISCUIT)].

Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of bromhexine at a dose of 8 mg 4 times a day and spironolactone 50 mg per day in patients with mild and moderate COVID 19.Material and methods It was an open, prospective comparative non-randomized study. 103 patients were included (33 in the bromhexine and spironolactone group and 70 in the control group). All patients had a confirmed 2019 novel coronavirus infection (COVID 19) based on a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA and/or a typical pattern of viral pneumonia on multispiral computed tomography. The severity of lung damage was limited to stage I-II, the level of CRP should not exceed 60 mg / dL and SO2 in the air within 92-98%. The duration of treatment is 10 days.Results The decrease in scores on the SHOKS-COVID scale, which, in addition to assessing the clinical status, the dynamics of CRP (a marker of inflammation), D-dimer (a marker of thrombus formation), and the degree of lung damage on CT (primary endpoint) was statistically significant in both groups and differences between them was not identified. Analysis for the group as a whole revealed a statistically significant reduction in hospitalization time from 10.4 to 9.0 days (by 1.5 days, p=0.033) and fever time from 6.5 to 3.9 days (by 2.5 days, p<0.001). Given the incomplete balance of the groups, the main analysis included 66 patients who were match with using propensity score matching. In matched patients, temperature normalization in the bromhexine/spironolactone group occurred 2 days faster than in the control group (p=0.008). Virus elimination by the 10th day was recorded in all patients in the bromhexine/spironolactone group; the control group viremia continued in 23.3% (p=0.077). The number of patients who had a positive PCR to the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the 10th day of hospitalization or longer (≥10 days) hospitalization in the control group was 20/21 (95.2%), and in the group with bromhexine /spironolactone -14/24 (58.3%), p=0.012. The odds ratio of having a positive PCR or more than ten days of hospitalization was 0.07 (95% CI: 0.008 - 0.61, p=0.0161) with bromhexine and spironolactone versus controls. No side effects were reported in the study group.Conclusion The combination of bromhexine with spironolactone appeared effective in treating a new coronavirus infection by achieving a faster normalization of the clinical condition, lowering the temperature one and a half times faster, and reducing explanatory combine endpoint the viral load or long duration of hospitalization (≥ 10 days).

[Combination therapy at an early stage of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Case series and design of the clinical trial "BromhexIne and Spironolactone for CoronаvirUs Infection requiring hospiTalization (BISCUIT)"].

The article focuses on effective treatment of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) at early stages and substantiates the requirement for antiviral therapy and for decreasing the viral load to prevent the infection progression. The absence of a specific antiviral therapy for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is stated. The authors analyzed results of early randomized studies using lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and favipiravir in COVID-19 and their potential for the treatment of novel coronavirus infection. Among the drugs blocking the virus entry into cells, the greatest attention was paid to the antimalaria drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The article addresses in detail ineffectiveness and potential danger of hydroxychloroquine, which demonstrated neither a decrease in the time of clinical recovery nor any improvement of prognosis for patients with COVID-19. The major objective was substantiating a possible use of bromhexine, a mucolytic and anticough drug, which can inhibit transmembrane serin protease 2 required for entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into cells. Spironolactone may have a similar feature. Due to its antiandrogenic effects, spironolactone can inhibit X-chromosome-related synthesis of ACE-2 receptors and activation of transmembrane serin protease 2. In addition to slowing the virus entry into cells, spironolactone decreases severity of fibrosis in different organs, including the lungs. The major part of the article addresses clinical examples of managing patients with COVID-19 at the University Clinic of the Medical Research and Educational Centre of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, including successful treatment with schemes containing bromhexine and spironolactone. In conclusion, the authors described the design of a randomized, prospective BISCUIT study performed at the University Clinic of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University with an objective of evaluating the efficacy of this scheme.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of bromhexine hydrochloride tablets in treating pediatric COVID-19: A protocol for meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bromhexine hydrochloride tablets may be effective in the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children. This study will further evaluate the efficacy and safety of bromhexine hydrochloride tablets in the treatment of COVID-19 in children. METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched, with all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2020 to be included: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chongqing VIP China Science and Technology Database (VIP), Wanfang, the Technology Periodical Database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). As well as the above, Baidu, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Google Scholar, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) will also be searched to obtain more comprehensive data. Besides, the references of the included literature will also be traced to supplement our search results and to obtain all relevant literature. RESULTS: This systematic review will evaluate the current status of bromhexine hydrochloride in the treatment of COVID-19 in children, to evaluate its efficacy and safety. CONCLUSION: This study will provide the latest evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of bromhexine hydrochloride in the treatment of COVID-19 in children. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020199805. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The private information of individuals will not be published. This systematic review will also not involve endangering participant rights. Ethical approval is not available. The results may be published in peer-reviewed journals or disseminated at relevant conferences.

Bromhexine Hydrochloride Tablets for the Treatment of Moderate COVID-19: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

This open-label randomized controlled pilot study aimed to test the study feasibility of bromhexine hydrochloride (BRH) tablets for the treatment of mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to explore its clinical efficacy and safety. Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 were randomly divided into the BRH group or the control group at a 2:1 ratio. Routine treatment according to China's Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Diagnosis and Treatment Plan was performed in both groups, whereas patients in the BRH group were additionally given oral BRH (32 mg t.i.d.) for 14 consecutive days. The efficacy and safety of BRH were evaluated. A total of 18 patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomized into the BRH group (n = 12) or the control group (n = 6). There were suggestions of BRH advantage over placebo in improved chest computed tomography, need for oxygen therapy, and discharge rate within 20 days. However, none of these findings were statistically significant. BRH tablets may potentially have a beneficial effect in patients with COVID-19, especially for those with lung or hepatic injury. A further definitive large-scale clinical trial is feasible and necessary.

Comprehensive analysis of drugs to treat SARS­CoV­2 infection: Mechanistic insights into current COVID­19 therapies (Review).

The major impact produced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) focused many researchers attention to find treatments that can suppress transmission or ameliorate the disease. Despite the very fast and large flow of scientific data on possible treatment solutions, none have yet demonstrated unequivocal clinical utility against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19). This work represents an exhaustive and critical review of all available data on potential treatments for COVID­19, highlighting their mechanistic characteristics and the strategy development rationale. Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, and target based methods are the most used strategies to advance therapeutic solutions into clinical practice. Current in silico, in vitro and in vivo evidence regarding proposed treatments are summarized providing strong support for future research efforts.

Pulmonary surfactant itself must be a strong defender against SARS-CoV-2.

Pulmonary surfactant is considered to be one of the soaps. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the other enveloped viruses become very weak against surfactant. The SARS virus binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE2) receptor and causes pneumonia. In the lung, the ACE2 receptor sits on the top of lung cells known as alveolar epithelial type II (AE2) cells. These cells play an important role in producing surfactant. Pulmonary surfactant is believed to regulate the alveolar surface tension in mammalian lungs. To our knowledge, AE2 cells are believed to act as immunoregulatory cells; however, pulmonary surfactant itself has not been believed to act as a defender against the enveloped viruses. This study hypothesises that pulmonary surfactant may be a strong defender of enveloped viruses. Therefore, old coronaviruses merely cause pneumonia. On the contrary, new SARS-CoV-2 can suppress the production of surfactant that binds to the ACE2 of AE2 cells. The coronavirus can survive in the lung tissue because of the exhaustion of pulmonary surfactant.

Potential new treatment strategies for COVID-19: is there a role for bromhexine as add-on therapy?

Of huge importance now is to provide a fast, cost-effective, safe, and immediately available pharmaceutical solution to curb the rapid global spread of SARS-CoV-2. Recent publications on SARS-CoV-2 have brought attention to the possible benefit of chloroquine in the treatment of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Whether chloroquine can treat SARS-CoV-2 alone and also work as a prophylactic is doubtful. An effective prophylactic medication to prevent viral entry has to contain, at least, either a protease inhibitor or a competitive virus ACE2-binding inhibitor. Using bromhexine at a dosage that selectively inhibits TMPRSS2 and, in so doing, inhibits TMPRSS2-specific viral entry is likely to be effective against SARS-CoV-2. We propose the use of bromhexine as a prophylactic and treatment. We encourage the scientific community to assess bromhexine clinically as a prophylactic and curative treatment. If proven to be effective, this would allow a rapid, accessible, and cost-effective application worldwide.