ACE2 and COVID-19 and the resulting ARDS.

This article reviews the correlation between ACE2 and COVID-19 and the resulting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ACE2 is a crucial component of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). The classical ACE-angiotensin Ⅱ (Ang II)-angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT1R) axis and the ACE2-Ang(1-7)-Mas counter-regulatory axis play an essential role in RAS system. ACE2 antagonises the activation of the classical RAS ACE-Ang II-AT1R axis and protects against lung injury. Similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) also uses ACE2 for cell entry. ARDS is a clinical high-mortality disease which is probably due to the excessive activation of RAS caused by 2019-nCoV infection, and ACE2 has a protective effect on ARDS caused by COVID-19. Because of these protective effects of ACE2 on ARDS, the development of drugs enhancing ACE2 activity may become one of the most promising approaches for the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. In the meantime, however, the use of RAS blockers such as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers that inhibit the damaging (ACE-Ang II) arm of the RAS cascade in the lung may also be promising. Trial registration number: NCT04287686.

Efficacy of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for the treatment of viral pneumonia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Viral pneumonia has always been a problem faced by clinicians because of its insidious onset, strong infectivity, and lack of effective drugs. Patients with advanced age or underlying diseases may experience more severe symptoms and are prone to severe ventilation dysfunction. Reducing pulmonary inflammation and improving clinical symptoms is the focus of current treatment. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) can mitigate inflammation and inhibit edema formation. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of therapeutic LIPUS in improving lung inflammation in hospitalized patients with viral pneumonia. METHODS: Sixty eligible participants with clinically confirmed viral pneumonia will be assigned to either (1) intervention group (LIPUS stimulus), (2) control group (null stimulus), or (3) self-control group (LIPUS stimulated areas versus non-stimulated areas). The primary outcome will be the difference in the extent of absorption and dissipation of lung inflammation on computed tomography. Secondary outcomes include changes in lung inflammation on ultrasonography images, pulmonary function, blood gas analysis, fingertip arterial oxygen saturation, serum inflammatory factor levels, the sputum excretion volume, time to the disappearance of pulmonary rales, pneumonia status score, and course of pneumonia. Adverse events will be recorded. DISCUSSION: This study is the first clinical study of the efficacy of therapeutic LIPUS in the treatment of viral pneumonia. Given that the current clinical recovery mainly depends on the body's self-limiting and conventional symptomatic treatment, LIPUS, as a new therapy method, might be a major advance in the treatment of viral pneumonia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2200059550 Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, May 3, 2022.

Role for antimalarials in the management of COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review highlights recent insights into direct antiviral effects by antimalarials against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 and other viruses and their potential indirect effects on the host by avoiding exaggerated immune responses (reduced cytokine release, Toll-like receptor response, antigen presentation related to lysosomal processing). RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, there is a large debate on the use of antimalarials for prophylaxis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2-induced disease based on preclinical in-vitro data, small case series and extrapolation from earlier studies of their effect on intracellular pathogens, including many viruses. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine have not demonstrated robust efficacy in prior randomized controlled studies against several other viruses. In-vitro data indicate a reduced viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Especially immunomodulatory effects of antimalarials might also contribute to a clinical efficacy. For SARS-CoV-2 various large studies will provide answers as to whether antimalarials have a place in prophylaxis or treatment of the acute virus infection with SARS-CoV-2 but compelling data are missing so far. SUMMARY: In-vitro data provide a theoretical framework for an efficacy of antimalarials in SARS-CoV-2-induced disease but clinical proof is currently missing.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

UPDATES: This is the twelfth version (eleventh update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and under way. The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as omicron) and subvariants are also changing the role of therapeutics. This update provides updated recommendations for remdesivir, addresses the use of combination therapy with corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with severe or critical covid-19, and modifies previous recommendations for the neutralising monoclonal antibodies sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in patients with non-severe covid-19. NEW OR UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: • Remdesivir: a conditional recommendation for its use in patients with severe covid-19; and a conditional recommendation against its use in patients with critical covid-19. • Concomitant use of IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib: these drugs may now be combined, in addition to corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical covid-19. • Sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab: strong recommendations against their use in patients with covid-19, replacing the previous conditional recommendations for their use. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS: When moving from new evidence to updated recommendations, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) considered a combination of evidence assessing relative benefits and harms, values and preferences, and feasibility issues. For remdesivir, new trial data were added to a previous subgroup analysis and provided sufficiently trustworthy evidence to demonstrate benefits in patients with severe covid-19, but not critical covid-19. The GDG considered benefits of remdesivir to be modest and of moderate certainty for key outcomes such as mortality and mechanical ventilation, resulting in a conditional recommendation. For baricitinib, the GDG considered clinical trial evidence (RECOVERY) demonstrating reduced risk of death in patients already receiving corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers. The GDG acknowledged that the clinical trials were not representative of the world population and that the risk-benefit balance may be less advantageous, particularly in patients who are immunosuppressed at higher risk of opportunistic infections (such as serious fungal, viral, or bacteria), those already deteriorating where less aggressive or stepwise addition of immunosuppressive medications may be preferred, and in areas where certain pathogens such as HIV or tuberculosis, are of concern. The panel anticipated that there would be situations where clinicians may opt for less aggressive immunosuppressive therapy or to combine medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are deteriorating. The decision to combine the medications will depend on their availability, and the treating clinician's perception of the risk-benefit balance associated with combination immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patient populations at risk of opportunistic infections who may have been under-represented in clinical trials. When making a strong recommendation against the use of monoclonal antibodies for patients with covid-19, the GDG considered in vitro neutralisation data demonstrating that sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab evaluated in clinical trials have meaningfully reduced neutralisation activity of the currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 and their subvariants. There was consensus among the panel that the absence of in vitro neutralisation activity strongly suggests absence of clinical effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies. However, there was also consensus regarding the need for clinical trial evidence in order to confirm clinical efficacy of new monoclonal antibodies that reliably neutralise the circulating strains in vitro. Whether emerging new variants and subvariants might be susceptible to sotrovimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or other anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies cannot be predicted. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­strong recommendations for systemic corticosteroids; IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) in combination with corticosteroids; and baricitinib as an alternative to IL-6 receptor blockers, in combination with corticosteroids. • Recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at highest risk of hospitalisation­a strong recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; conditional recommendations for molnupiravir and remdesivir. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids; a strong recommendation against convalescent plasma; a recommendation against fluvoxamine, except in the context of a clinical trial; and a strong recommendation against colchicine. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at low risk of hospitalisation­a conditional recommendation against nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. • Not recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a recommendation against convalescent plasma except in the context of a clinical trial; and a conditional recommendation against the JAK inhibitors ruxolitinib and tofacitinib. • Not recommended, regardless of covid-19 disease severity­a strong recommendations against hydroxychloroquine and against lopinavir/ritonavir; and a recommendation against ivermectin except in the context of a clinical trial. ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline.

Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious and potentially lethal pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). No specific antiviral treatment is currently available. The purpose of this review is to highlight the main repurposed drug treatments with in-vitro or in-vivo efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical trials suggested remdesivir, IFN-ß-1b and favipiravir have potential clinical and/or virological benefits on patients with COVID-19. Short course of stress dose of corticosteroids might be used as adjunctive treatment to patients who are late presenters with cytokine storm. Convalescent plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients with high neutralizing antibody might also be beneficial in the treatment of severe disease. SUMMARY: Early effective antiviral therapy in COVID-19 patients will suppress the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Adjunctive therapy with corticosteroid and convalescent plasma might further ameliorate the cytokine response. Further randomized clinical trials of combination therapy are needed.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Benign COVID-19 in an immunocompromised cancer patient - the case of a married couple.

Respiratory failure in COVID-19 is a common feature in fatal cases and has been considered as a failure of the immune system to control the virus. Here we report the case of COVID-19 affecting an immunocompromised women and her presumably immunocompetent spouse. A married couple (age 60 years) was simultaneously admitted to the emergency department on 10 March 2020 because of dyspnoea and fever, consistent with COVID-19. The wife (patient 1) was partially immunocompromised as a consequence of a recently started chemotherapy with fulvestrant and abemaciclid for recurring breast cancer, her husband (patient 2) had been healthy except for a history of controlled arterial hypertension. Both patients were treated with darunavir/cobicistat and hydroxychloroquine. The clinical course of the immunocompromised partner was benign, without need of intensive care. She was able to leave the hospital on day 6 after admission. In contrast, her husband needed intensive care and his recovery was slow, although eventually successful too. These findings suggest that the course of COVID-19 is not necessarily ominous in the presence of a compromised immune response and tend to reinforce the emerging therapeutic concepts of a controlled mitigation of the immune cascade following SARS CoV-2 infection.

Is copper beneficial for COVID-19 patients?

Copper (Cu) is an essential micronutrient for both pathogens and the hosts during viral infection. Cu is involved in the functions of critical immune cells such as T helper cells, B cells, neutrophils natural killer (NK) cells, and macrophages. These blood cells are involved in the killing of infectious microbes, in cell-mediated immunity and the production of specific antibodies against the pathogens. Cu-deficient humans show an exceptional susceptibility to infections due to the decreased number and function of these blood cells. Besides, Cu can kill several infectious viruses such as bronchitis virus, poliovirus, human immunodeficiency virus type 1(HIV-1), other enveloped or nonenveloped, single- or double-stranded DNA and RNA viruses. Moreover, Cu has the potent capacity of contact killing of several viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Since the current outbreak of the COVID-19 continues to develop, and there is no vaccine or drugs are currently available, the critical option is now to make the immune system competent to fight against the SARS-CoV-2. Based on available data, we hypothesize that enrichment of plasma copper levels will boost both the innate and adaptive immunity in people. Moreover, owing to its potent antiviral activities, Cu may also act as a preventive and therapeutic regime against COVID-19.

Pharmacologic Therapy for COVID-19 Infection.

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused attention on issues of epidemiology, public health, and vaccine design. I submit that attention to COVID-19 pharmacologic therapy needs similar emphasis, including identifying any existing medications that can be repurposed to treat COVID-19 patients.

Full recovery of lung tissue after severe viral pneumonia H1N1: A case report with 10 years follow-up.

RATIONALE: World healthcare frequently faced severe viral pneumonia cases in the last decades, due to pandemic situations such as H1N1, MERS-CoV, and SARS-COVID-19. PATIENT CONCERNS: The impact of viral infection on lung structure, lung function, and overall mortality was significant. The quality of life and assumed life expectancy was decreased with the supposed development of lung fibrosis in involved survived patients. DIAGNOSES: We described the course and treatment of severe pneumonia H1N1 in a 30-year-old patient. INTERVENTIONS: Patient was included in a study regarding the therapeutic efficacy of selenium ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02026856 with 10 years follow-up with concurrently documented X-ray lung examinations and final histology of lung tissue after sudden death. OUTCOMES: All sequential examinations and histological findings show a healing trend with the final full recovery of lung tissue.

COVID-19 and corticosteroids: a narrative review.

It has been reported that corticosteroid therapy was effective in the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and recently in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Corticosteroids are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that mitigate the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia, despite a reduction of viral clearance; corticosteroids inhibit the development of cytokine storm and multi-organ damage. The risk-benefit ratio should be assessed for critical COVID-19 patients. In conclusion, corticosteroid therapy is an effective way in the management of COVID-19, it reduces the risk of complications primarily acute lung injury and the development of ARDS. Besides, corticosteroid therapy mainly dexamethasone and methylprednisolone are effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19 and associated comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Emergence of novel coronavirus and progress toward treatment and vaccine.

In late December 2019, a group of patients was observed with pneumonia-like symptoms that were linked with a wet market in Wuhan, China. The patients were found to have a novel coronavirus genetically related to a bat coronavirus that was termed SARS-CoV-2. The virus gradually spread worldwide and was declared a pandemic by WHO. Scientists have started trials on potential preventive and treatment options. Currently, there is no specific approved treatment for SARS-CoV-2, and various clinical trials are underway to explore better treatments. Some previously approved antiviral and other drugs have shown some in vitro activity. Here we summarize the fight against this novel coronavirus with particular focus on the different treatment options and clinical trials exploring treatment as well as work done toward development of vaccines.

Respiratory viral testing and antibacterial treatment in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Viruses are more common than bacteria in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Little is known, however, about the frequency of respiratory viral testing and its associations with antimicrobial utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study included 179 US hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults admitted with pneumonia between July 2010 and June 2015. METHODS: We assessed the frequency of respiratory virus testing and compared antimicrobial utilization, mortality, length of stay, and costs between tested versus untested patients, and between virus-positive versus virus-negative patients. RESULTS: Among 166,273 patients with pneumonia on admission, 40,787 patients (24.5%) were tested for respiratory viruses, 94.8% were tested for influenza, and 20.7% were tested for other viruses. Viral assays were positive in 5,133 of 40,787 tested patients (12.6%), typically for influenza and rhinovirus. Tested patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities than untested patients, but patients with positive viral assays were older and had more comorbidities than those with negative assays. Blood cultures were positive for bacterial pathogens in 2.7% of patients with positive viral assays versus 5.3% of patients with negative viral tests (P < .001). Antibacterial courses were shorter for virus-positive versus -negative patients overall (mean 5.5 vs 6.4 days; P < .001) but varied by bacterial testing: 8.1 versus 8.0 days (P = .60) if bacterial tests were positive; 5.3 versus 6.1 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were negative; and 3.3 versus 5.2 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were not obtained (interaction P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients hospitalized with pneumonia were tested for respiratory viruses; only a fraction of potential viral pathogens were assayed; and patients with positive viral tests often received long antibacterial courses.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Utilizing Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as a Treatment for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has presented clinicians with a difficult therapeutic dilemma. With supportive care as the current mainstay of treatment, the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 6.9%. There are currently several trials assessing the efficacy of different antivirals as treatment. Of these, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have garnered the most attention. METHODS: In this study, the literature currently available on CQ and HCQ as treatment of COVID-19 was surveyed using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, MedRxiv, and one clinical trial registry. Upon gathering published and preprint trials, risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. RESULTS: There are currently seven completed clinical trials and 29 registered clinical trials focusing on HCQ or CQ as a therapeutic avenue for COVID-19. Of these, five of seven trials have shown favorable outcomes for patients using CQ or HCQ and two of seven have shown no change compared to control. However, all seven trials carried varying degrees of bias and poor study design. CONCLUSION: There are currently not enough data available to support the routine use of HCQ and CQ as therapies for COVID-19. Pending further results from more extensive studies with more stringent study parameters, clinicians should defer from routine use of HCQ and CQ. There are several clinical trials currently under way with results expected soon.