METHODS: First, the starting point was ACE2 inhibitors and their structure-activity relationship (SAR). Next, chemical similarity (or diversity) and PubMed searches made it possible to repurpose and assess approved or experimental drugs for COVID-19. Parallel, at all stages, the authors performed bioactivity scoring to assess potential repurposed inhibitors at ACE2. Finally, investigators performed molecular docking and modeling of the identified drug candidate to host ACE2 with nCoV spike protein.
RESULTS: Carnosine emerged as the best-known drug candidate to match ACE2 inhibitor structure. Preliminary docking was more optimal to ACE2 than the known typical angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 (ACE1) inhibitor (enalapril) and quite comparable to known or presumed ACE2 inhibitors. Viral spike protein elements binding to ACE2 were retained in the best carnosine pose in SwissDock at 1.75 Angstroms. Out of the three main areas of attachment expected to the protein-protein structure, carnosine bound with higher affinity to two compared to the known ACE2 active site. LibDock score was 92.40 for site 3, 90.88 for site 1, and inside the active site 85.49.
CONCLUSION: Carnosine has promising inhibitory interactions with host ACE2 and nCoV spike protein and hence could offer a potential mitigating effect against the current COVID-19 pandemic.
METHOD: This is a non-interventional, retrospective analysis of documented CPI in a 100-bed, acute-care private hospital in Amman, Jordan. Study consisted of 542 patients, 574 admissions, and 1694 CPI. Team collected demographic and clinical data using a standardized tool. Input consisted of 54 variables with some taking merely repetitive values for each CPI in each patient whereas others varying with every CPI. Therefore, CPI was consolidated to one rejected and/or one accepted per patient per admission. Groups of accepted and rejected CPI were compared in terms of matched and unmatched variables. ANN were, subsequently, trained and internally as well as cross validated for outcomes of interest. Outcomes were length of hospital and intensive care stay after the index CPI (LOSTA & LOSICUA, respectively), readmissions, mortality, and cost of hospitalization. Best models were finally used to compare the two scenarios of approving 80% versus 100% of CPI. Variable impacts (VI) automatically generated by the ANN were compared to evaluate the effect of rejecting CPI. Main outcome measure was Lengths of hospital stay after the index CPI (LOSTA).
RESULTS: ANN configurations converged within 18 s and 300 trials. All models showed a significant reduction in LOSTA with 100% versus 80% accepted CPI of about 0.4 days (2.6 ± 3.4, median (range) of 2 (0-28) versus 3.0 ± 3.8, 2 (0-30), P-value = 0.022). Average savings with acceptance of those rejected CPI was 55 JD (~ 78 US dollars) and could help hire about 1.3 extra clinical pharmacist full-time equivalents.
CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing acceptance of CPI reduced the length of hospital stay in this model. Practicing Clinical Pharmacists may qualify for further privileges including promotion to a fully independent prescriber status.