The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is infecting the human population, killing people, and destroying livelihoods. This research sought to explore the associations of daily average temperature (AT) and air quality (PM 2.5) with the daily new cases of COVID-19 in the top four regions of Spain

BACKGROUNDNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2 ) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTSA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS

To face SARS-CoV-2 pandemic various attempts are made to identify potential effective treatments by repurposing available drugs. Among them, indomethacin, an anti-inflammatory drug, was shown to have potent in-vitro antiviral properties on human SARS-CoV-1, canine CCoV, and more recently on human SARS-CoV-2 at low micromolar range. Our objective was to show that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide criteria for comparing benefits of alternative dosage regimens using a model-based approach. A multi-stage model-based approach was developed to characterize % of recovery and viral load in CCoVinfected dogs, to estimate the PK of indomethacin in dog and human using published data after administration of immediate (IR) and sustained-release (SR) formulations, and to estimate the expected antiviral activity as a function of different assumptions on the effective exposure in human. Different dosage regimens were evaluated for IR formulation (25 mg and 50 mg three-times-a-day, and 25 mg four-times-a-day), and SR formulation (75 mg once and twice-a-day). The best performing dosing regimens were: 50 mg three-times-a-day for the IR formulation, and 75 mg twice-a-day for the SR formulation. The treatment with the SR formulation at the dose of 75 mg twice-a-day is expected to achieve a complete response in three days for the treatment in patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. These results suggest that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 whose potential therapeutic effect needs to be further assessed in a prospective clinical trial.

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Currently, little is known about the viral kinetics of influenza A during infection within an individual. We utilize a series of mathematical models of increasing complexity, which incorporate target cell limitation and the innate interferon response, to examine influenza A virus kinetics in the upper respiratory tracts of experimentally infected adults. The models were fit to data from an experimental H1N1 influenza A/Hong Kong/123/77 infection and suggest that it is important to include the eclipse phase of the viral life cycle in viral dynamic models. Doing so, we estimate that after a delay of ϳ6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ϳ5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ϳ11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ϳ3 h. We calculated the basic reproductive number, R 0 , which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ϳ22 new productive infections. This suggests that antiviral treatments have a large hurdle to overcome in moderating symptoms and limiting infectiousness and that treatment has to be initiated as early as possible. For about 50% of patients, the curve of viral titer versus time has two peaks. This bimodal behavior can be explained by incorporating the antiviral effects of interferon into the model. Our model also compared well to an additional data set on viral titer after experimental infection and treatment with the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir, which suggests that such models may prove useful in estimating the efficacies of different antiviral therapies for influenza A infection.