Search

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV2 has raised several important health concerns, not least increased mortality and morbidity. SARS-CoV2 can infect the central nervous system

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) is identified as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and is often linked to extreme inflammatory responses by over activation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), cytokine storm, and sepsis. These are robust causes for multi-organ damage. In particular, potential routes of SARS-CoV2 entry, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), have been linked to central nervous system (CNS) involvement. CNS has been recognized as one of the most susceptible compartments to cytokine storm, which can be affected by neuropilin-1 (NRP-1). ACE2 is widely-recognized as a SARS-CoV2 entry pathway; However, NRP-1 has been recently introduced as a novel path of viral entry. Apoptosis of cells invaded by this virus involves Fas receptor–Fas ligand (FasL) signaling; moreover, Fas receptor may function as a controller of inflammation. Furthermore, NRP-1 may influence FasL and modulate cytokine profile. The neuroimmunological insult by SARS-CoV2 infection may be inhibited by therapeutic approaches targeting soluble Fas ligand (sFasL), cytokine storm elements, or related viral entry pathways. In the current review, we explain pivotal players behind the activation of cytokine storm that are associated with vast CNS injury. We also hypothesize that sFasL may affect neuroinflammatory processes and trigger the cytokine storm in COVID-19.

Coronaviruses disease (COVID-19) has caused major outbreaks. A novel variant, SARS-CoV-2, is responsible for COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical presentations and pathological mechanisms of COVID-19 are broad. The respiratory aspect of the disease has been extensively researched. Emerging studies point out the possibility of the central nervous system (CNS) involvement by COVID-19. Here, we discuss the current evidence for CNS involvement in COVID-19 and highlight that the high pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 might be due to its neuroinvasive potential.

Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.