10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Non-evidenced based treatment: An unintended cause of morbidity and mortality related to COVID-19

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In light of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, world leaders and the media have propelled various treatment modalities that have not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent or cure acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Such treatments include nucleotide analogs (remdesivir), anti-malarial drugs (chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine), protease inhibitors (lopinavir/ritonavir), interferon-β, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists [[1], [2], [3]]. The unprecedented circumstances surrounding this pandemic does not discard the responsibility of respecting medical ethics, ensuring that medical information is accurate, and the published data meets expected scientific standards. Clinical trials testing the efficacy of single and combination treatments are needed to make clear recommendations for treating COVID-19. To date, there are no evidence-based treatments for COVID-19. Nonevidence-based remedies are spreading across different populations and endangering the lives of individuals, particularly those with low health literacy. For example, given the sacredness of cows in India, some Hindus are drinking cow urine to prevent COVID-19, a practice backed by government officials [4]. In Iran, social media accounts circulated false stories of curing COVID-19 by drinking high-proof alcohol, poisoning over 2000 people due to the inadvertent consumption of methanol with bleach to hide its color [5]. The quick spread of misinformation regarding nonevidence-based treatments for COVID-19 may be due to feelings of fear, helplessness, and hope. Because there is no definitive treatment for COVID-19, people seek remedies based on their level of knowledge and personal or popular beliefs, which is detrimental to both their own health and the public's health. In the United States, President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of injecting a disinfectant into patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection or treating them with ultraviolet rays [6]. These remarks are not only dangerous because disinfectants are poisonous when mishandled, but when these statements are circulated to populations with low health literacy, people may poison themselves from self-administration. Of note, even before this statement, there had been a 20% increase in calls to U.S. poison centers related to disinfectants and cleaning products compared to last year [7]. While some of these calls are related to accidental pediatric exposures, others involve inadvertent misuse of the product [7]. There were notable increases in inhalational exposures, as well as exposures to bleach products and alcohol-based sanitizers [7]. Even though chloroquine derivates are not approved treatments for COVID-19, President Trump has tweeted and publicly suggested the therapeutic benefit of the drugs. Due to the media attention surrounding chloroquine, an Arizona man died after ingesting chloroquine phosphate (an additive to household products meant to treat fish parasites) in an effort to prevent himself from getting infected with coronavirus. [8]. In Madagascar, President Andry Rojoelina launched an herbal coronavirus “cure” produced from the artemisia plant, yet the WHO stated that the tonic is not evidence-based and is potentially toxic [9]. Touting unproven COVID-19 treatments will only worsen the current healthcare crisis, as people will certainly experiment with these remedies. As a result, health care systems will become overwhelmed with many critically ill patients, from both COVID-19 and those with toxicity from nonevidence-based treatments. There has also been increased media coverage for “alternative” remedies to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, the Chinese government encourages the use of herbal plants to fight the virus including jinhua qinggan capsules, lianhua qinwen capsules, and shufeng jiedu capsules [10]. These herbal formulas contain a combination of many herbs and the exact proprietary mixture is not available, posing a major health risk to patients due to their potential toxicity, contamination, or adulteration [10]. Although traditional medicine techniques were widely used during past epidemics such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 influenza, a Cochran Review found that Chinese herbs combined with western medicine did not decrease mortality versus western medicine alone [11]. Use of Chinese herbal products for treating viruses is not guided by viral pathology, rather herbs are prescribed by herbalists according to Chinese diagnostic patterns (inspection, listening, smelling, inquiry, and palpitation) [12,13]. The implications of medicating with herbal-based formulas are serious and dangerous because there is no scientific evidence suggesting that these alternative remedies can prevent or cure COVID-19. There are several adverse effects noted with herbal medications, such as hepatotoxicity, and there have been numerous reports of toxic contaminants, including pesticides and heavy metals [14]. Furthermore, although supplementing with vitamins and minerals may improve immune function, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of any supplement will prevent or cure COVID-19. Similarly, “cures” spread by Iranian social media accounts (which include gargling vinegar and rosewater or salt, and drinking concoctions of mint or white willow with saffron, turmeric, and cinnamon) are not evidence-based, though they may have other nutritional benefits [15]. Medicating with these herbal formulas or supplements may lead to adverse health effects due to imprecise dosing of the supplement or herb, inherent toxicity of the herb itself, or toxicity of the contaminants in the product, thus complicating the clinical picture. The spread of nonevidence-based COVID-19 treatments or cures will undoubtedly worsen the magnitude of the pandemic. As people turn to traditional and nonevidence-based medicine techniques, it may further stress an already overwhelmed heath care system. Like the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN), future efforts from world leaders and the media should promote the communication of accurate, reliable, and data-driven content to avoid the spread of misinformation [16]. Financial support This is a non-funded study, with no compensation or honoraria for conducting the study. Declaration of competing interest The authors do not have a financial interest or relationship to disclose regarding this research project.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A Trial of Lopinavir–Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19

          Abstract Background No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. Methods We 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. Results A 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 In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection?

            The most distinctive comorbidities of 32 non-survivors from a group of 52 intensive care unit patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the study by Xiaobo Yang and colleagues 1 were cerebrovascular diseases (22%) and diabetes (22%). Another study 2 included 1099 patients with confirmed COVID-19, of whom 173 had severe disease with comorbidities of hypertension (23·7%), diabetes mellitus (16·2%), coronary heart diseases (5·8%), and cerebrovascular disease (2·3%). In a third study, 3 of 140 patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 30% had hypertension and 12% had diabetes. Notably, the most frequent comorbidities reported in these three studies of patients with COVID-19 are often treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; however, treatment was not assessed in either study. Human pathogenic coronaviruses (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus [SARS-CoV] and SARS-CoV-2) bind to their target cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is expressed by epithelial cells of the lung, intestine, kidney, and blood vessels. 4 The expression of ACE2 is substantially increased in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who are treated with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers (ARBs). 4 Hypertension is also treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, which results in an upregulation of ACE2. 5 ACE2 can also be increased by thiazolidinediones and ibuprofen. These data suggest that ACE2 expression is increased in diabetes and treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARBs increases ACE2 expression. Consequently, the increased expression of ACE2 would facilitate infection with COVID-19. We therefore hypothesise that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19. If this hypothesis were to be confirmed, it could lead to a conflict regarding treatment because ACE2 reduces inflammation and has been suggested as a potential new therapy for inflammatory lung diseases, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension. A further aspect that should be investigated is the genetic predisposition for an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which might be due to ACE2 polymorphisms that have been linked to diabetes mellitus, cerebral stroke, and hypertension, specifically in Asian populations. Summarising this information, the sensitivity of an individual might result from a combination of both therapy and ACE2 polymorphism. We suggest that patients with cardiac diseases, hypertension, or diabetes, who are treated with ACE2-increasing drugs, are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 infection and, therefore, should be monitored for ACE2-modulating medications, such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs. Based on a PubMed search on Feb 28, 2020, we did not find any evidence to suggest that antihypertensive calcium channel blockers increased ACE2 expression or activity, therefore these could be a suitable alternative treatment in these patients. © 2020 Juan Gaertner/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              In silico screening of Chinese herbal medicines with the potential to directly inhibit 2019 novel coronavirus

              Objective In this study we execute a rational screen to identify Chinese medical herbs that are commonly used in treating viral respiratory infections and also contain compounds that might directly inhibit 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an ongoing novel coronavirus that causes pneumonia. Methods There were two main steps in the screening process. In the first step we conducted a literature search for natural compounds that had been biologically confirmed as against sever acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Resulting compounds were cross-checked for listing in the Traditional Chinese Medicine Systems Pharmacology Database. Compounds meeting both requirements were subjected to absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) evaluation to verify that oral administration would be effective. Next, a docking analysis was used to test whether the compound had the potential for direct 2019-nCoV protein interaction. In the second step we searched Chinese herbal databases to identify plants containing the selected compounds. Plants containing 2 or more of the compounds identified in our screen were then checked against the catalogue for classic herbal usage. Finally, network pharmacology analysis was used to predict the general in vivo effects of each selected herb. Results Of the natural compounds screened, 13 that exist in traditional Chinese medicines were also found to have potential anti-2019-nCoV activity. Further, 125 Chinese herbs were found to contain 2 or more of these 13 compounds. Of these 125 herbs, 26 are classically catalogued as treating viral respiratory infections. Network pharmacology analysis predicted that the general in vivo roles of these 26 herbal plants were related to regulating viral infection, immune/inflammation reactions and hypoxia response. Conclusion Chinese herbal treatments classically used for treating viral respiratory infection might contain direct anti-2019-nCoV compounds.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Am J Emerg Med
                Am J Emerg Med
                The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
                Elsevier Inc.
                0735-6757
                1532-8171
                6 May 2020
                6 May 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
                [b ]Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA
                [c ]Department of Emergency Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
                [d ]Department of Emergency Medicine, King Abdullah Medical City, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Medical Center, 2120 L St., Washington, DC 20037, USA. pourmand@ 123456gwu.edu
                Article
                S0735-6757(20)30317-X
                10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.001
                7202810
                32402498
                40edb80c-a5a4-4cbf-be69-67154fd1f907
                © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 29 April 2020
                : 1 May 2020
                Categories
                Article

                sars-cov-2,covid-19,therapy,evidence based medicine,traditional

                Comments

                Comment on this article