Effect of Nebulized BromAc on Rheology of Artificial Sputum: Relevance to Muco-Obstructive Respiratory Diseases.

Respiratory diseases such as cystic fibrosis, COPD, and COVID-19 are difficult to treat owing to viscous secretions in the airways that evade mucocilliary clearance. Earlier studies have shown success with BromAc as a mucolytic agent. Hence, we tested the formulation on two gelatinous airway representative sputa models, to determine whether similar efficacy exist. Sputum lodged in an endotracheal tube was treated to aerosol N-acetylcysteine, bromelain, or their combination (BromAc). After measuring the particle size of aerosolized BromAc, the apparent viscosity was measured using a capillary tube method, whilst the sputum flow was assessed using a 0.5 mL pipette. Further, the concentration of the agents in the sputa after treatment were quantified using chromogenic assays. The interaction index of the different formulations was also determined. Results indicated that the mean particle size of BromAc was suitable for aerosol delivery. Bromelain and N-acetylcysteine affected both the viscosities and pipette flow in the two sputa models. BromAc showed a greater rheological effect on both the sputa models compared to individual agents. Further, a correlation was found between the rheological effects and the concentration of agents in the sputa. The combination index using viscosity measurements showed synergy only with 250 µg/mL bromelain + 20 mg/mL NAC whilst flow speed showed synergy for both combinations of bromelain (125 and 250 µg/mL) with 20 mg/mL NAC. Hence, this study indicates that BromAc may be used as a successful mucolytic for clearing airway congestion caused by thick mucinous immobile secretions.

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.

Oral high-dose acetylcysteine: Effective against the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)?

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has a high rate of transmission and it exhibits immune escape characteristics. N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) is a precursor of reduced glutathione (GSH), which can enter cells to play an antioxidant role, so it is better than glutathione. Patients tolerate NAC well, and adverse reactions are rare and mild, so this type of drug with multiple actions is considered to be a mucolytic agent as well as a drug for the prevention/treatment of various diseases, including COVID-19. Previous studies indicated that the clinical effectiveness of NAC is dose-dependent. Low-dose NAC (0.2 g tid for adults) is a mucolytic expectorant, high-dose NAC (0.6 g bid or tid) has expectorant action as well as antioxidant action, and extreme-dose NAC (300 mg/kg.d) is used for detoxification in cases of an acetaminophen overdose. Presumably, orally administered high-dose NAC (0.6 g tid for adults and 10 mg/kg tid for children) could be used as an adjuvant to treat an Omicron infection. It should reduce the time to negative conversion and prevent severe COVID-19, reducing the duration of hospitalization and increasing the bed turnover rate.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added.  OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin.  Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Ex-vivo mucolytic and anti-inflammatory activity of BromAc in tracheal aspirates from COVID-19.

COVID-19 is a lethal disease caused by the pandemic SARS-CoV-2, which continues to be a public health threat. COVID-19 is principally a respiratory disease and is often associated with sputum retention and cytokine storm, for which there are limited therapeutic options. In this regard, we evaluated the use of BromAc®, a combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (NAC). Both drugs present mucolytic effect and have been studied to treat COVID-19. Therefore, we sought to examine the mucolytic and anti-inflammatory effect of BromAc® in tracheal aspirate samples from critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. METHOD: Tracheal aspirate samples from COVID-19 patients were collected following next of kin consent and mucolysis, rheometry and cytokine analysis using Luminex kit was performed. RESULTS: BromAc® displayed a robust mucolytic effect in a dose dependent manner on COVID-19 sputum ex vivo. BromAc® showed anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the action of cytokine storm, chemokines including MIP-1alpha, CXCL8, MIP-1b, MCP-1 and IP-10, and regulatory cytokines IL-5, IL-10, IL-13 IL-1Ra and total reduction for IL-9 compared to NAC alone and control. BromAc® acted on IL-6, demonstrating a reduction in G-CSF and VEGF-D at concentrations of 125 and 250 µg. CONCLUSION: These results indicate robust mucolytic and anti-inflammatory effect of BromAc® ex vivo in tracheal aspirates from critically ill COVID-19 patients, indicating its potential to be further assessed as pharmacological treatment for COVID-19.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post-viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15-day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.

Inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase by ambroxol prevents SARS-CoV-2 entry into epithelial cells.

The acid sphingomyelinase/ceramide system has been shown to be important for cellular infection with at least some viruses, for instance, rhinovirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Functional inhibition of the acid sphingomyelinase using tricyclic antidepressants prevented infection of epithelial cells, for instance with SARS-CoV-2. The structure of ambroxol, that is, trans-4-[(2,4-dibromanilin-6-yl)-methyamino]-cyclohexanol, a mucolytic drug applied by inhalation, suggests that the drug might inhibit the acid sphingomyelinase and thereby infection with SARS-CoV-2. To test this, we used vesicular stomatitis virus pseudoviral particles presenting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on their surface (pp-VSV-SARS-CoV-2 spike), a bona fide system for mimicking SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Viral uptake and formation of ceramide localization were determined by fluorescence microscopy, activity of the acid sphingomyelinase by consumption of [14C]sphingomyelin and ceramide was quantified by a kinase method. We found that entry of pp-VSV-SARS-CoV-2 spike required activation of acid sphingomyelinase and release of ceramide, events that were all prevented by pretreatment with ambroxol. We also obtained nasal epithelial cells from human volunteers prior to and after inhalation of ambroxol. Inhalation of ambroxol reduced acid sphingomyelinase activity in nasal epithelial cells and prevented pp-VSV-SARS-CoV-2 spike-induced acid sphingomyelinase activation, ceramide release, and entry of pp-VSV-SARS-CoV-2 spike ex vivo. The addition of purified acid sphingomyelinase or C16 ceramide restored entry of pp-VSV-SARS-CoV-2 spike into ambroxol-treated epithelial cells. We propose that ambroxol might be suitable for clinical studies to prevent coronavirus disease 2019.

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.

Sputum characteristics and airway clearance methods in patients with severe COVID-19.

Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high case fatality rate. Hence, controlling the disease progression of severely ill COVID-19 patients to avoid the development of severe-to-critical COVID-19 is the most important target of COVID-19 treatment. The latest autopsy results of COVID-19 patients have shown the presence of viscous secretions in the airways. However, no studies are available that specifically describe and analyze the sputum characteristics and the effects of various sputum drainage methods on the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. In our study, we found that elderly COVID-19 patients were more susceptible to progression to critical illness (P = .024) and were likely to have accompanying lymphopenia (P = .035) or increased neutrophil counts (P = .019). We observed that there was a higher proportion of patients with Grade 3 sticky sputum in the critically ill group than in the noncritically ill group (P = .026), suggesting that changes in sputum characteristics may be one of the early warning signs of critical COVID-19. In addition, we found that the application rates of large doses of ambroxol (P = .043) and prone-position drainage (P = .037) were relatively high in COVID-19 patients with good prognoses, suggesting that the early application of large doses of expectorant drugs and prone-position drainage in COVID-19 patients may avoid progression to critical illness and improve the prognosis.

Value of chest imaging in the newborn with suspected COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a newborn (G2P2, gestational age of 39+6 weeks, birth weight of 3,200 g, with normal fetal amniotic fluid) with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to our hospital on February 10, 2020, at the birth age of 16 hours and 34 minutes. The Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were 9 and 10 points, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The mother of the newborn was exposed to a patient with COVID-19 five days before delivery. The newborn had nausea and vomiting after birth, with feeding intolerance, and full enteral feeding was given on the 6th day after birth. The newborn was in good general condition during the period of hospitalization. RESULTS: The two 2019-nCoV nucleic acid tests of the newborn were negative on the 5th and 7th days after birth. On the 1st and 8th days after birth, typical pulmonary lesions were detected in the newborn by chest CT. Our study supports that chest imaging examination should be actively performed in the newborn even with a negative 2019-nCoV nucleic acid test in cases where a pregnant woman is exposed to a patient with COVID-19 or is confirmed with 2019-nCoV infection. CONCLUSIONS: For newborns with typical pulmonary lesions, strict quarantine measures are suggested if the possibility of COVID-19 cannot be excluded.

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.

A hypothesis on the role of the human immune system in covid-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not spared any continent. The disease has affected more than 7,500,000 individuals globally and killed approximately 450,000 individuals. The disease is caused by a very small virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is an enveloped single-stranded RNA virus with a spike-like structure on its envelope that can interact with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor after cleavage. ACE2 receptors are present in the human lungs and other organs. SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus that belongs to the subgenus Sarbecovirus; viruses in this subgenus have spread widely in the previous years and caused outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndromes.

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.