Background: Gastrointestinal disorders are frequent in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothesized to impact on host microbial flora and gut inflammation, infecting intestinal epithelial cells. Since there are currently no coded therapies or guidelines for treatment of COVID-19, this study aimed to evaluate the possible role of a specific oral bacteriotherapy as complementary therapeutic strategy to avoid the progression of COVID-19. Methods: We provide a report of 70 patients positive for COVID-19, hospitalized between March 9th and April 4th, 2020. All the patients had fever, required non-invasive oxygen therapy and presented a CT lung involvement on imaging more than 50%. Forty-two patients received hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, and tocilizumab, alone or in combination. A second group of 28 subjects received the same therapy added with oral bacteriotherapy, using a multistrain formulation. Results: The two cohorts of patients were comparable for age, sex, laboratory values, concomitant pathologies, and the modality of oxygen support. Within 72 h, nearly all patients treated with bacteriotherapy showed remission of diarrhea and other symptoms as compared to less than half of the not supplemented group. The estimated risk of developing respiratory failure was eight-fold lower in patients receiving oral bacteriotherapy. Both the prevalence of patients transferred to ICU and mortality were higher among the patients not treated with oral bacteriotherapy. d'Ettorre et al. Bacteriotherapy in Treating COVID-19 Conclusions: A specific bacterial formulation showed a significant ameliorating impact on the clinical conditions of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results also stress the importance of the gut-lung axis in controlling the COVID-19 disease.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) global pandemic is a devastating event that is causing thousands of victims every day around the world. One of the main reasons of the great impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on society is its unexpected spread, which has not allowed an adequate preparation. The scientific community is fighting against time for the production of a vaccine, but it is difficult to place a safe and effective product on the market as fast as the virus is spreading. Similarly, for drugs that can directly interfere with viral pathways, their production times are long, despite the great efforts made. For these reasons, we analyzed the possible role of non-pharmacological substances such as supplements, probiotics, and nutraceuticals in reducing the risk of Sars-CoV-2 infection or mitigating the symptoms of COVID-19. These substances could have numerous advantages in the current circumstances, are generally easily available, and have negligible side effects if administered at the already used and tested dosages. Large scientific evidence supports the benefits that some bacterial and molecular products may exert on the immune response to respiratory viruses. These could also have a regulatory role in systemic inflammation or endothelial damage, which are two crucial aspects of COVID-19. However, there are no specific data available, and rigorous clinical trials should be conducted to confirm the putative benefits of diet supplementation, probiotics, and nutraceuticals in the current pandemic.

Background: Several studies have provided convincing evidence that in apparently healthy subjects elevated serum levels of plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) are associated with an increased risk of experiencing myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death. It has been claimed that, in dialytic patients, the hepatic synthesis of this ‘acute phase response’ plasma protein is primarily induced by the macrophage-derived interleukin 6 (IL-6). Little information is available, however, regarding CRP and IL-6 plasma levels in pre-dialytic renal failure. Methods: Plasma CRP by a modification of the laser nephelometry technique, IL-6 and serum albumin were determined in 103 chronic pre-dialytic patients (mean age 50 ± 6.3 years; creatinine clearance (Cr.cl.) 36.3 ± 23.1 ml/min). Results: CRP was >5 mg/l (normal upper range) in 42% of the global population. CRP and IL-6 were significantly related (r = 0.35, p < 0.0004). CRP and IL-6 were related to renal function (CRP vs. Cr.cl., r = –0.56, p < 0.0001; IL-6 vs. Cr.cl., r = –0.55, p < 0.0001, Spearman correlation coefficient). When patients were divided in tertiles according to renal function, CRP median value resulted 7.9 mg/l (interquartile interval: 5–12) in the first tertile (Cr.cl. <18.5 ml/min), 4.0 mg/l (3–6) in the second tertile (Cr.cl. 18.5–45 ml/min) and 3.2 mg/l (2.7–4.0) in the last tertile (Cr.cl. >45 ml/min) (p < 0.0001). A negative correlation between CRP and S-albumin was also found (r = –0.52, p < 0.0001, Spearman correlation coefficient). Conclusions: IL-6 and CRP were increased and were inversely related to creatinine clearance in our population of 103 chronic predialytic patients. The possibility of a decreased renal clearance of CRP and/or cytokines as a cause of an activated acute-phase response is discussed. A negative correlation between CRP and S-albumin was found confirming the link between chronic inflammation and malnutrition in chronic renal patients.

IL-6 has a stronger predictive value than CRP for cardiovascular mortality and provides independent prognostic information, while conveying most of that provided by CRP.

ESA responsiveness can be considered a strong prognostic factor in HD patients and seems to be tightly related to protein-energy wasting and inflammation.