COVID-19 and off label use of drugs: an ethical viewpoint

Navigating the ethical terrain: Off-label and experimental treatments in medical case reports

This article explores the ethical considerations surrounding the reporting of off-label and experimental treatments in medical case reports, with a focus on fields such as oncology, psychiatry, and pediatrics. It emphasizes the balance between innovation and evidence-based medicine, highlighting the critical role of case reports in disseminating clinical experiences and advancing medical knowledge. The discussion delves into the ethical framework guiding case reporting, including principles of patient autonomy, informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and transparency. Challenges such as negative outcome reporting, commercial interests, and the balance between innovation and caution are examined. Recommendations for ethical vigilance, the development of comprehensive guidelines, and the role of regulatory bodies are proposed to ensure patient safety and uphold scientific integrity. The article concludes by underscoring the importance of a collaborative effort among clinicians, researchers, ethicists, and regulatory bodies to foster the responsible advancement of medical science while adhering to the highest ethical standards.

Current trends in pharmaceutical industry: Post -CoVid-19 pandemic effects

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a period of significant transformation. This is driven by advances in technology, increased regulatory scrutiny and evolving market demands. The post Covid-19 pandemic era has affected the pharmaceutical industry to meet these requirements. In this regard, emerging trends include the adoption of digitalization, block chain technology and de-centralized clinical trials. Hence, we review the current trends describing evolving challenges post Covid-19 pandemic.

Off-Label Pediatric Medication Prescribing and Dispensing: Awareness and Attitudes among Community Pharmacists: A Questionnaire-Based Study

Off-label practice in pediatrics requires relentless engagement from all the health professionals involved. Community pharmacists are the last ones in the prescribing-dispensing chain; therefore, they have the key responsibility of verifying the correctness of a treatment. A cross-sectional study was conducted for assessing the awareness and views of Romanian community pharmacists, regarding off-label drugs in the pediatric population, through a 28-item questionnaire comprising five sections of different topics (general knowledge, frequency of prescribing and dispensing off-label medication, views, and attitudes). The sample size was 236 questionnaires with a response rate of 41.11%. A statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed with GraphPad Prism v.9. The results indicate that 55.1% of the community pharmacists have a good general knowledge and awareness regarding the off-label practice, although the legal frame is unclear. The responses highlight a high frequency of prescribing and request of medication for respiratory conditions (45.3%) and antibiotics (23.5%), with a concerning gap regarding the adverse events related to the off-label treatments (56.7%). A very small percentage of pharmacists (7.1%) contact a fellow healthcare professional when encountering an off-label prescription. In conclusion, in addition to the pharmacist's conduct towards the best interest of the patient, there is a clear need to improve the doctor-pharmacist collaboration in order to make an off-label treatment successful.

Off-label prescription: developing a guideline and validating an instrument to measure physicians' and clinical pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes toward off-label medication use

Purpose

Off-label medications have been challenging in healthcare systems, and their significance is emphasized throughout pandemics. The study was designed to develop an ethics guideline for prescribing off-label medications and also aimed to develop a valid instrument for evaluating physicians' and clinical pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes regarding off-label medication use.

Methods

In 2021, the two-phase study was done. A gap analysis study and a review of relevant guidelines and peer-reviewed papers were conducted in the first phase. There were three hybrid expert panel discussions with nine specialists until a consensus was reached. In the second phase, a questionnaire was developed to assess physicians' and pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes toward off-label prescribing medications. An expert panel of nine ethicists, physicians, and pharmacists determined the face and content validity. To evaluate the reliability and construct validity of the instrument, 201 physicians and clinical pharmacists participated.

Results

This guideline provides 24 recommendations classified into seven themes to assist clinicians, pharmacists, and policymakers in managing off-label medication use. The preliminary questionnaire contained 72 items. Items were removed if their I-CVI and CVR were less than 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The S-CVI/Average ratio was 0.937. The Cronbach α was 0.848. Ten factors were identified through exploratory factor analysis. These ten factors comprised 64.652% of the variance. There was no significant difference between general physicians, specialist physicians, and clinical pharmacists in one-way ANOVA [F = 0.584, P = 0.559].

Conclusion

We developed an ethical guideline for off-label medication use that can integrate ethical principles into related practice. Moreover, our valid and reliable questionnaire can evaluate the ethical adherence of physicians and pharmacists to scientific and ethical challenges of off-label medications in the country, especially during pandemics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01288-0.

Erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin inhibit cytopathic effect, papain-like protease, and MPRO enzymes of SARS-CoV-2

Background

Although tremendous success has been achieved in the development and deployment of effective COVID-19 vaccines, developing effective therapeutics for the treatment of those who do come down with the disease has been with limited success. To repurpose existing drugs for COVID-19, we previously showed, qualitatively, that erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin inhibit SARS-COV-2-induced cytopathic effect (CPE) in Vero cells.

Aim

This study aimed to quantitatively explore the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2-induced CPE by erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin and to determine the effect of these drugs on SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease and 3CL protease (MPRO) enzymes.

Methods

Neutral red (3-amino-7-dimethylamino-2-methyl-phenazine hydrochloride) cell viability assay was used to quantify CPE after infecting pre-treated Vero cells with clinical SARS-Cov-2 isolates. Furthermore, SensoLyte® 520 SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease and SensoLyte® 520 SARS-CoV-2 MPRO activity assay kits were used to evaluate the inhibitory activity of the drugs on the respective enzymes.

Results

Erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin dose-dependently inhibit SARS-CoV-2-induced CPE in Vero cells, with inhibitory concentration-50 (IC50) values of 3.27 µM, 4.23 µM, 9.29 µM, 3.19 µM, and 84.31 µM, respectively. Furthermore, erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin dose-dependently inhibited SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease with IC50 values of 0.94 µM, 0.88 µM, 1.14 µM, 1.07 µM, and 1.51 µM, respectively, and inhibited the main protease (MPRO) with IC50 values of 1.35 µM, 1.25 µM, 7.36 µM, 1.15 µM, and 2.44 µM, respectively.

Conclusion

The IC50 for all the drugs, except ivermectin, was at the clinically achievable plasma concentration in humans, which supports a possible role for the drugs in the management of COVID-19. The lack of inhibition of CPE by ivermectin at clinical concentrations could be part of the explanation for its lack of effectiveness in clinical trials.

COVID-19 off-label uses of medicines: the role of civil liability and regulation

Physicians can prescribe medicines for different indications than the tested and authorised ones. Such 'off-label' uses expand therapeutic options but also create uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered new off-label uses and, despite issues being reported in the literature, these have not resulted in substantial personal injury litigation in the EU. Against this backdrop, this article argues that civil liability plays, in fact, a limited role in off-label uses. In particular, civil liability may incentivise health actors to follow and react to the development of the evidence basis for off-label uses. However, it is ultimately unable to incentivise the conduct of additional research on off-label uses. This is problematic, as off-label research is key to protecting patients and is recommended by international medical ethics. The article concludes by critically discussing proposed mechanisms to incentivise off-label research. It argues that extending civil liability for unknown risks may have undesired effects on insurability and innovation, and most regulatory proposals seem ineffective. Building on the 2014 Italian reform of off-label uses, the article proposes the establishment of a fund financed by mandatory contributions from the industry, which should be used by pharmaceutical regulators to promote off-label research and develop guidelines for prescribers.

Off-label use of drugs in pediatrics: a scoping review

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166).    Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: • There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: • This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. • Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

Ethical review of off-label drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic

High-quality scientific research is very important in attempting to effectively control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and ensure people’s health and safety. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have received much attention. This article comprehensively investigates the ethical review of off-label CQ and HCQ research during the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to strictly abiding by review standards, improving review efficiency, ensuring the rights and interests of subjects and that ethics committees conduct independent reviews, and achieving full ethics supervision of research conducted during an emergency. Research must be both rigorous and prudent to ensure the best outcome, with the maximization of benefits as the core principle. Standardization of the application, implementation and ethical review processes are needed to prevent unnecessary risk.

Drug Prescriptions in the Outpatient Management of COVID-19: Evidence-Based Recommendations Versus Real Practice

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for outpatient management of COVID-19 were published by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to limit the use of off-label treatments. The aim of this study is to measure the use of outpatient drug treatments in a COVID-19-positive population, taking into account the Italian regulatory agency’s advices.

Methods: A descriptive observational study was conducted. All patients testing positive for COVID-19 residing in Lazio region, Italy, with diagnosis date between March 2020 and May 2021 were selected, and outpatient medicine prescription patterns were identified.

Results: Independent of AIFA recommendations, the use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient COVID-19 cases was frequent (about one-third of the cases). The most used drug therapy was antibiotics, specifically azithromycin, despite the negative recommendation of AIFA, while the use of corticosteroids increased after the positive recommendation of regulatory agency for the use in subjects with severe COVID-19 disease. The use of hydroxychloroquine was limited to the early pandemic period where evidence on its potential benefit was controversial. Antithrombotics were widely used in outpatient settings, even if their use was recommended for hospitalized patients.

Conclusion: In this study, we show a frequent use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient cases of COVID-19, mainly attributable to antibiotics use. Our research highlights the discrepancy between recommendations for care and clinical practice and the need for strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making.

Low Brachial Artery Flow-Mediated Dilation Predicts Worse Prognosis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Background: Endothelial injury can be induced by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seems to exert a crucial pathogenic role in its most severe clinical manifestations. We aimed to investigate the association between brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (bFMD), a potential clinical and non-invasive measure of endothelial function, and in-hospital prognosis of COVID-19 patients. Methods: Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation was assessed in hospitalized COVID-19 patients within 48 h of hospital admission. The association between bFMD and either intensive care unit (ICU) admission or in-hospital death was explored using univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: Four hundred and eight patients were enrolled. Significantly lower bFMD values emerged in COVID-19 patients with either radiographic signs of pneumonia, respiratory distress, or the need for non-invasive ventilation compared with patients without these signs (p < 0.001, p = 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Forty-two (10%) patients were admitted to the ICU, 76 (19%) patients died, and 118 (29%) patients met the composite endpoint of ICU admission/in-hospital death. At unadjusted Cox regression analysis showed that low bFMD (<4.4%, the median value) was associated with a higher risk for the composite endpoint of ICU admission/in-hospital death compared with high bFMD (≥4.4%, the median value) (HR 1.675, 95% CI 1.155–2.428, p = 0.007). Multi-adjusted Cox regression analyses showed that low bFMD was independently associated with a 1.519- to 1.658-fold increased risk for the composite endpoint of ICU admission/in-hospital death. Conclusions: Low bFMD predicts an unfavorable in-hospital prognosis in COVID-19 patients. The measurement of bFMD may be clinically useful in the prognostic stratification of COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission.

Medication of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir and Convalescent Plasma during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany-An Ethical Analysis

This paper aims to analyze the ethical challenges in experimental drug use during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Germany as a case study. In Germany uniform ethical guidelines were available early on nationwide, which was considered as desirable by other states to reduce uncertainties and convey a message of unity. The purpose of this ethical analysis is to assist the preparation of future guidelines on the use of medicines during public health emergencies. The use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical settings was analyzed from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy. We observed that drug safety and drug distribution during the pandemic affects all four ethical principles. We therefore recommend to establish ethical guidelines (i) to discuss experimental treatment options with patients from all population groups who are in urgent need, (ii) to facilitate the recording of patient reactions to drugs in off-label use, (iii) to expand inclusion criteria for clinical studies to avoid missing potentially negative effects on excluded groups, and (iv) to maintain sufficient access to repurposed drugs for patients with prior conditions.

The FDA and the COVID-19: A political economy perspective

This article utilizes a political economy framework to examine how FDA regulations impacted the U.S. healthcare sector's ability to address COVID-19. I specifically examine the developing COVID-19 testing, the approval of the medication remdesivir, and COVID-19 vaccines. By examining periods before and after the FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), my analysis finds that the FDA's regulations enacted before the COVID-19 pandemic began strongly restricted clinician and patient access to COVID-19 testing, remdesivir treatment, and approving vaccines. After the FDA issued EUAs, the healthcare sector quickly adopted COVID-19 testing and remdesivir with little evidence of negative consequences. These findings contribute to the economics literature examining the FDA and contemporary COVID-19 policy research.

Vancomycin presoaking of hamstring autografts to prevent infection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a narrative review

Hamstring autograft use has been linked to an increased risk of infection after anterior cruciate (ACL) reconstruction compared to other grafts. The absolute reason for this remains unclear, with contamination after harvesting and preparation of the graft being the most accepted hypothesis.

Using the rationale that a contaminated graft could be the main factor in postoperative septic arthritis and in an effort to maximize the antibiotic efficacy of the graft, the Vancomycin presoaking technique was developed. It has shown success in decreasing the infection rate in ACL reconstruction. In recent years, an important number of research articles using this protocol have appeared, but the technique is still not widely implemented.

Recent literature shows that Vancomycin presoaking of the graft has shown a successful decrease in the infection rate after hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction. It has also shown efficacy decreasing the infection rate in other types of grafts (patellar tendon, quadriceps tendon, allograft) and also in patients with concomitant ligament procedures or open surgeries.

Despite the positive effects of Vancomycin presoaking reducing the infection rate after ACL reconstruction, the lack of prospective randomized control trials and the heterogeneity of the different studies mean it is not feasible to recommend Vancomycin presoaking of the graft universally for every ACL reconstruction patient.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:211-216. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200059

COVID-19 and the "Stay at home" recommendation: An ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Facing a devastating infectious outbreak like COVID-19, the command of "stay at home" was recommended by some officials as a self-voluntary quarantine strategy for controlling the outbreak, but the people perceived and act differently. In this study, we aimed at ethnographic evaluation of public response to this command.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research used ethnography for observing the public response to the recommendation of "stay at home" in the COVID-19 outbreak. Data were collected via observing public behavior and documentation; then, the data were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Our findings showed 10 different ignored dimensions in this moral statement including lack of legal and administrative support, diverse perception and contradictory reactions of the people to the epidemiological forecasting and recommendations, different response to moral statements, various perceptions of the people about health and wellbeing, feeling exhausted of staying at home, not including justice and fairness in the moral statement, not clarifying the meaning of necessary matters, not considering the COVID-19 infected patients and their requirements, assigning the responsibility of government to the public, and halting other scientific activities and investigations in charge of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, the officials should take an active role in implementing this moral statement by strict regulations, public education about the disease, its control, and the importance of quarantine, considering justice and fairness in implementation.

Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection

Approximately 9 months of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavius-2 (SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19]) spreading across the globe has led to widespread COVID-19 acute hospitalizations and death. The rapidity and highly communicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has hampered the design and execution of definitive randomized, controlled trials of therapy outside of the clinic or hospital. In the absence of clinical trial results, physicians must use what has been learned about the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in determining early outpatient treatment of the illness with the aim of preventing hospitalization or death. This article outlines key pathophysiological principles that relate to the patient with early infection treated at home. Therapeutic approaches based on these principles include 1) reduction of reinoculation, 2) combination antiviral therapy, 3) immunomodulation, 4) antiplatelet/antithrombotic therapy, and 5) administration of oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine. Future randomized trials testing the principles and agents discussed will undoubtedly refine and clarify their individual roles; however, we emphasize the immediate need for management guidance in the setting of widespread hospital resource consumption, morbidity, and mortality.

Obstacles and Considerations Related to Clinical Trial Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic from the research and science community has been vigorous, with information being released faster than that of any other event in human history. Articles related to the virus were being rapidly published by January 2020. A small fraction of these publications comprised reports of prospective clinical trials (0.25%), and many of these trials have imparted conflicting conclusions, leading to confusion among the public and the scientific community. Additionally, the pandemic has raised many serious scientific and ethical concerns related to clinical research. In this review, we divided the conduct of clinical research trials into three steps and critically reviewed each step, along with the challenges and obstacles arising amid the ongoing crisis. The clinical research steps we reviewed include (1) clinical trial design factors such as social and scientific value, feasibility, single vs. multicenter trials, randomization, control groups, endpoints, off-label and compassionate use of medications, data analysis, and verifying the integrity of data; (2) ethical issues such as committee approvals, efficiency, virtual visits and remote monitoring, informed consent, shipping investigational products, and external monitoring and audits; and (3) publication and sharing of preprints, press releases, social media, and misinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely affecting existing clinical trials for other ailments and diseases, including cancer, with most trials being delayed or deferred. Although urgency is needed to communicate effective treatment and prevention strategies for COVID-19, research efforts should maintain the same high-quality core ethical principles that governed human subject research before the pandemic. Despite the catastrophic devastation caused by the pandemic, the adoption of more flexible, cost-effective methods of conducting clinical trials (without compromising ethical conduct, safety, or data integrity, while maintaining research efficiency) represents a potential silver lining. Streamlining clinical research will help to congruently address other important health issues, despite the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

Is there any potential management against COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A recent survey has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has culminated in dramatical and critical treatment particularly in acute infected patients. In fact, this systematic review-meta-analysis was directly pertained to estimation at the efficient value of some clinical managements to confront the COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Scholar databases were searched from inception to July 1, 2020, to identify studies reporting the current treatment process and medications (e.g. hydroxychloroquine, antiviral therapy, convalescent plasma, and immunomodulatory agents) for COVID-19. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of this study were the frequency of negative conversion cases, clinical improvements, mechanical ventilation demand, intensive care unit (ICU) entry, and mortality. The standard treatment refers to the published guidelines and specialist experience which varies in different articles, and the proposed treatment refers to the kind of interest suggested in the included studies.

RESULTS

A number of 45 articles met the eligibility criteria (out of 6793 articles). Among them, 26 articles involving 3263 patients were included in quantitative analysis. Anti-COVID-19 interventions could significantly increase clinical improvement (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27; I2 = 49.8%) and reduce the mortality rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; I2 = 74.8%). Although in terms of negative conversion, ICU entry, and mechanical ventilation demand, clinical intervention had no beneficial effect. The clinical effect of immunomodulatory agents (especially tocilizumab and anakinra) was noticeable compared to other medications with RR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.09-0.53; I2 = 40.9%) for mortality and 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.46; I2 = 45.4%) for clinical improvement. Moreover, Antivirals (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26; I2 = 47.0%) and convalescent plasma therapy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.98; I2 = 66.6%) had significant beneficial effects on clinical improvement.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, all the included interventions significantly declined the mortality and enhanced clinical improvements with no effect on negative conversion and mechanical ventilation demand. Especially, immunomodulators and plasma therapy showed favorable outcomes. An evaluation on the efficacy of proposed treatment against COVID-19.

The clinical value of two combination regimens in the Management of Patients Suffering from Covid-19 pneumonia: a single centered, retrospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

There is no identified pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 patients, where potential therapeutic strategies are underway to determine effective therapy under such unprecedented pandemic. Therefore, combination therapies may have the potential of alleviating the patient's outcome. This study aimed at comparing the efficacy of two different combination regimens in improving outcomes of patients infected by novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

METHODS

This is a single centered, retrospective, observational study of 60 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive inpatients (≥18 years old) at two wards of the Baqiyatallah Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Patient's data including clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded. According to the drug regimen, the patients were divided into two groups; group I who received regimen I consisting azithromycin, prednisolone, naproxen, and lopinavir/ritonavir and group II who received regimen II including meropenem, levofloxacin, vancomycin, hydroxychloroquine, and oseltamivir.

RESULTS

The oxygen saturation (SpO2) and temperature were positively changed in patients receiving regimen I compared to regimen II (P = 0.013 and P = 0.012, respectively). The serum level of C-reactive protein (CRP) changed positively in group I (P < 0.001). Although there was a significant difference in platelets between both groups (75.44 vs 51.62, P < 0.001), their change did not clinically differ between two groups. The findings indicated a significant difference of the average length of stay in hospitals (ALOS) between two groups, where the patients under regimen I showed a shorter ALOS (6.97 vs 9.93, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the beneficial effect of the short-term use of low-dose prednisolone in combination with azithromycin, naproxen and lopinavir/ritonavir (regimen I), in decreasing ALOS compared to regimen II. Since there is still lack of evidence for safety of this regimen, further investigation in our ongoing follow-up to deal with COVID-19 pneumonia is underway. Graphical abstract.

Short and long term impacts of COVID-19 on the pharmaceutical sector

BACKGROUND

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was characterized as a global pandemic by the WHO on March 11th, 2020. This pandemic had major effects on the health market, the pharmaceutical sector, and was associated with considerable impacts; which may appear in short and long-term time-horizon and need identification and appropriate planning to reduce their socio-economic burden.

OBJECTIVES

Current short communication study assessed pharmaceutical market crisis during the COVID-19 era; discussing short- and long-term impacts of the pandemic on the pharmaceutical sector.

RESULTS

Short-term impacts of COVID-19 pandemic includes demand changes, regulation revisions, research and development process changes and the shift towards tele-communication and tele-medicine. In addition, industry growth slow-down, approval delays, moving towards self-sufficiency in pharm-production supply chain and trend changes in consumption of health-market products along with ethical dilemma could be anticipated as long-term impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on pharmaceutical sector in both global and local levels.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic of COVID-19 poses considerable crisis on the health markets, including the pharmaceutical sector; and identification of these effects, may guide policy-makers towards more evidence-informed planning to overcome accompanying challenges. Graphical abstract .

Beneficial Effects of Anti-Oxidative Herbal Medicines in Diabetic Patients Infected with COVID-19: A Hypothesis

During the pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is critical to introduce potential medical treatments. Anti-oxidative herbal medicines with evidence-based beneficial impacts in the treatment of diabetes mellitus can be suggested as an adjuvant therapy to its conventional treatments in patients infected with COVID-19.

Comprehensive analysis of drugs to treat SARS‑CoV‑2 infection: Mechanistic insights into current COVID‑19 therapies (Review)

The major impact produced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) focused many researchers attention to find treatments that can suppress transmission or ameliorate the disease. Despite the very fast and large flow of scientific data on possible treatment solutions, none have yet demonstrated unequivocal clinical utility against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19). This work represents an exhaustive and critical review of all available data on potential treatments for COVID‑19, highlighting their mechanistic characteristics and the strategy development rationale. Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, and target based methods are the most used strategies to advance therapeutic solutions into clinical practice. Current in silico, in vitro and in vivo evidence regarding proposed treatments are summarized providing strong support for future research efforts.