Scoping review on the role and interactions of hydroxytyrosol and alpha-cyclodextrin in lipid-raft-mediated endocytosis of SARS-CoV-2 and bioinformatic molecular docking studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to show the effect that two naturally occurring compounds, a cyclodextrin and hydroxytyrosol, can have on the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into human cells.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed database was searched to retrieve studies published from 2000 to 2020, satisfying the inclusion criteria. The search keywords were: SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, lipid raft, endocytosis, hydroxytyrosol, cyclodextrin. Modeling of alpha-cyclodextrin and hydroxytyrosol were done using UCSF Chimera 1.14.

RESULTS

The search results indicated that cyclodextrins can reduce the efficiency of viral endocytosis and that hydroxytyrosol has antiviral properties. Bioinformatic docking studies showed that alpha-cyclodextrin and hydroxytyrosol, alone or in combination, interact with the viral spike protein and its host cell receptor ACE2, thereby potentially influencing the endocytosis process.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydroxytyrosol and alpha-cyclodextrin can be useful against the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

[Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60-80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2-6hours only (p=0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0-24hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p=0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron-dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p=0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p=0.026).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.

Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60–80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

Methods

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

Results

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2–6 hours only (p = 0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0–24 hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p = 0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron–dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient’s satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p = 0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.