The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and safety of N‐acetylcysteine (NAC) inhalation spray in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This randomized controlled clinical trial study was conducted on patients with COVID‐19. Eligible patients (n = 250) were randomly allocated into the intervention group (routine treatment + NAC inhaler spray one puff per 12 h, for 7 days) or the control group who received routine treatment alone. Clinical features, hemodynamic, hematological, biochemical parameters and patient outcomes were assessed and compared before and after treatment. The mortality rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (39.2% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001). Significant differences were found between the two groups (intervention and control, respectively) for white blood cell count (6.2 vs. 7.8, p < 0.001), hemoglobin (12.3 vs. 13.3, p = 0.002), C‐reactive protein (CRP: 6 vs. 11.5, p < 0.0001) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST: 32 vs. 25.5, p < 0.0001). No differences were seen for hospital length of stay (11.98 ± 3.61 vs. 11.81 ± 3.52, p = 0.814) or the requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.2% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.274). NAC was beneficial in reducing the mortality rate in patients with COVID‐19 and inflammatory parameters, and a reduction in the development of severe respiratory failure; however, it did not affect the length of hospital stay or the need for ICU admission. Data on the effectiveness of NAC for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus‐2 is limited and further research is required.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to plague the world. While COVID-19 is asymptomatic in most individuals, it can cause symptoms like pneumonia, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), and death in others. Although humans are currently being vaccinated with several COVID-19 candidate vaccines in many countries, however, the world still is relying on hygiene measures, social distancing, and approved drugs. Result There are many potential therapeutic agents to pharmacologically fight COVID-19: antiviral molecules, recombinant soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, corticosteroids, interferon therapies, and herbal agents. By an understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 structure and its infection mechanisms, several vaccine candidates are under development and some are currently in various phases of clinical trials. Conclusion This review describes potential therapeutic agents, including antiviral agents, biologic agents, anti-inflammatory agents, and herbal agents in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In addition to reviewing the vaccine candidates that entered phases 4, 3, and 2/3 clinical trials, this review also discusses the various platforms that are used to develop the vaccine COVID-19.

No abstract

We performed a review study according to recent COVID-19 vaccines’ real-world data to provide comparisons between COVID-19 vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. Although most vaccine platforms showed comparable effectiveness and efficacy, we highlight critical points and recent developments generated in studies that might affect vaccine efficacy including population-dependent effects of the vaccine (transplantation, adiposity, and specific comorbidities, as well as older age, male sex, ethnicity, and prior infection), vaccine type, variants of concern (VOC), and an extended vaccine schedule. Owing to these factors, community-based trials can be of great importance in determining vaccine effectiveness in a systematic manner; thus, uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy. Long immune protection of vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has been demonstrated to be up to 61 months and 5–12 months after the previous infection, and boosting infection-acquired immunity for both the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines was correlated with high and durable protection. However, large cohort and longitudinal studies are required for the evaluation of immunity dynamics and longevity in unvaccinated, vaccinated, and infected individuals, as well as vaccinated convalescent individuals in real-world settings. Regarding the likelihood of vaccine escape variants evolving, an ongoing examination of the protection conferred against an evolving virus (new variant) by an extended schedule can be crucial.

Various severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines with different platforms have been administered worldwide; however, their effectiveness in critical cases of COVID‐19 has remained a concern. In this national cohort study, 24 016 intensive care unit (ICU) coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) admissions were included from January to April 2022. The mortality and length of ICU stay were compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. A total of 9428 (39.25%) patients were unvaccinated, and 14 588 (60.75%) patients had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Compared with the unvaccinated, the first, second, and third doses of vaccine resulted in 8%, 20%, and 33% lower risk of ICU mortality in the adjusted model, with risk ratio (RR): 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84–1.001, RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77–0.83, and RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.64–0.71, respectively. The mean survival time was significantly shorter in the unvaccinated versus the fully vaccinated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80–0.88); p < 0.001). All vaccine platforms successfully decreased the hazard of ICU death compared with the unvaccinated group. The duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the fully vaccinated than in unvaccinated group (MD, −0.62, 95% CI: −0.82 to −0.42; p < 0.001). Since COVID‐19 vaccination in all doses and platforms has been able to reduce the risk of mortality and length of ICU‐stay, universal vaccination is recommended based on vaccine availability.