Next Article in Journal
An Overview of Phytophthora Species on Woody Plants in Sweden and Other Nordic Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Favipiravir Suppresses Zika Virus (ZIKV) through Activity as a Mutagen
Previous Article in Journal
Organic Farming Allows Balanced Fungal and Oomycetes Communities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Favipiravir Inhibits Zika Virus (ZIKV) Replication in HeLa Cells by Altering Viral Infectivity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/microorganisms11051308
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology

by
Matthew T. J. Halma
1,
Christof Plothe
2,
Paul Marik
3 and
Theresa A. Lawrie
1,*
1
EbMCsquared CIC, 11 Laura Place, Bath BA2 4BL, UK
2
Center for Biophysical Osteopathy, Am Wegweiser 27, 55232 Alzey, Germany
3
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), 2001 L St. NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(5), 1308; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051308
Submission received: 16 March 2023 / Revised: 4 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 May 2023 / Published: 17 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Antivirals for Emerging Viruses 2.0)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, a need has arisen to prevent and treat two related conditions, COVID-19 vaccine injury and long COVID-19, both of which can trace at least part of their aetiology to the spike protein, which can cause harm through several mechanisms. One significant mechanism of harm is vascular, and it is mediated by the spike protein, a common element of the COVID-19 illness, and it is related to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Given the significant number of people experiencing these two related conditions, it is imperative to develop treatment protocols, as well as to consider the diversity of people experiencing long COVID-19 and vaccine injury. This review summarizes the known treatment options for long COVID-19 and vaccine injury, their mechanisms, and their evidentiary basis.

1. Introduction

According to available data, by 30 September 2022, 68% of the world’s population had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and 12.74 billion doses had been administered [1]. The vaccines most commonly administered were Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech), Covishield (Astrazeneca), CoronaVac (Sinovac), Spikevax (Moderna), and Jcovden (Johnson & Johnson) [2]. Of these, approximately 30% of the doses produced by 22 January 2022 were in the form of a novel vaccine with a synthetic N1-methyl-pseudoiridinylated mRNA encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) [3].
LNPs are a new technology that was not used in vaccine delivery until the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines [4]. This was also unprecedented in the approval process, being the fastest for any vaccine [5], leaving many concerns with regard to long-term safety [6], which was difficult to evaluate due to the unblinding of the initial clinical trials [7].
Whilst the delivery technology of LNPs have previously been used to deliver small molecules, it has only recently been used to deliver RNA. LNPs are advantageous for targeting brain tissue, as they can cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB) [8,9]. The first drug used and LNP to deliver RNA was a small interfering RNA (siRNA)-based drug, known as Onpattro (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), first approved in 2018 for the treatment of polyneuropathies [10].
Given both the novelty of the technology and the paucity of data on which approval was based (which was also subject to data integrity issues [11]), long-term effects cannot be definitively ruled out, especially because many of the foundational claims on which approval was based have been contested by recent experiments [12,13,14]. For example, in contrast to claims that the injection stayed at the injection site [15], and that spike protein would only be expressed for a short period of time (based on the lability of non-pseudouridylated RNA [16]), the contents and products of the COVID-19 vaccines have been found in the blood stream of most vaccinees studied within hours to days [12].
The first claim was based on Intramuscular administration [15], and the second claim was based on the lability of RNA [17], with a typical RNA half-life of minutes [18]; however, biodistribution studies have found significant expression of spikes in other tissues and organs [12], and researchers have found both vaccine mRNA and spike protein (which is encoded by the vaccine sequence) two months post-administration [14], and even up to four months post-vaccination [13]. One preprint study of people with SARS-CoV-2 negative post-vaccination Long COVID-19-like symptoms showed spike protein persistence, on average, 105 days post vaccination [19]. Long COVID-19 patients (post SARS-CoV-2 infection) show spike protein persistence up to 15 months [20]. Another study showed spike protein persistence in the gut of long COVID-19 patients, but not in the bloodstream.
Spike proteins can be packaged in exosomes [13], possibly resulting in inflammation and immune activation [21,22] in organs and tissues distant from the injection site [13]. Extracellular vesicles are capable of crossing the blood–brain barrier [23], and LNPs, as well as exosomes, will exchange more readily in small diameter vessels with low flow rates (i.e., capillaries and small vessels) [24]. Importantly, the spike protein seems to additionally impact blood–brain barrier permeability [25,26]. These results challenge the initial mechanistic foundation on which the presumption of safety is contingent.
Compared with other vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines have a much higher adverse event rate [27]. Histopathological findings and autopsies of those dying post-vaccination support the causative role of the vaccine in deaths [28], most commonly from vascular-related events. Pharmacovigilance programs in several countries have observed a safety signal for myocarditis in the COVID-19 vaccinated population [29,30,31]. A US survey found that 19% of myocarditis cases had not recovered at 90 days after onset [32]. In addition, screening of BNT162b2 vaccine recipients among boys aged 13–18 in a Thai study revealed that 2.3% of the boys had at least one elevated cardiac biomarker or positive lab assessment, and 29% had at least one cardiac manifestation, such as tachycardia, palpitation, or myopericarditis [33]. Given this information, and given the ubiquitous use of COVID-19 vaccines, it is possible that widespread subclinical damage exists in the COVID-19 vaccinated population. Structurally, the spike protein, particularly the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the S1 subunit, has attracted much attention, as it is the most prominent aspect of the viral capsid [34] (It consists of spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N)) glycoproteins. Cell entry is mediated by the binding of Spike RBD to the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme II (ACE2) [35]. Therefore, by preventing this binding through allosteric inhibition, it is possible to prevent the entry of SARS-CoV-2 virions into the cell and subsequent infection [36].
A strategy to inhibit S1 RBD binding to ACE2 has been employed in the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [37]. mRNA vaccines exclusively encode spike proteins, and mono-antigenic targeting can create opportunities for immune escape by variants [38], given that the mRNA vaccines do not halt transmission [39]. Positive selection pressure is observed on residues of the spike protein because of widespread vaccination, although these cannot be definitively related causally [40,41].
This article sets out to first describe the mechanisms of spike protein related pathology and the factors which affect them (e.g., patient characteristics) and their relevant biomarkers and diagnostics. The objective, then, is to introduce therapeutics with some promise, based on either mechanistic or clinical evidence, and to summarize the evidence base for each intervention, so that practitioners and scientists may be guided concerning therapeutic development. Other articles cover the pathophysiology of long COVID-19, as well as provide a list of therapeutics under investigation [42], and a recent review describes the similarities between long COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine injury [43]. This review is unique in that it provides an integrated discussion of disease mechanism for both post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome and long COVID-19, which are difficult to distinguish in many cases, and summarizes the treatment modalities available to those experiencing symptoms.

2. Methods

This review begins by summarizing the mechanisms of harm from spike protein, either from COVID-19 illness or form COVID-19 vaccination. We also cover the clinical aspects, which can affect the course of the disease. The review then moves to therapeutic mechanisms, which can address the spike protein via different pathways.
For therapeutic interventions for these conditions (long COVID-19 and vaccine injury) with a plausible mechanism of action against spike protein, these are shown in the results section. Relevant clinical trials are added, and any direct evidence or proxy evidence for efficacy (such as efficacy against original COVID-19 illness) is included in the rightmost column.
Additionally, we include clinical trials on long COVID-19 and vaccine injury in Table S1. A search for clinical trials for the condition “Long COVID OR Long COVID-19” in ClinicalTrials.gov revealed 317 studies. A search for clinical trials on vaccine adverse events revealed that one study used rutin and glycoside-rich mulberry juice to reduce adverse events to C19 injection [44]. Other studies, while not specifically treating the immune response, administer therapy alongside vaccination to observe changes in response. These include spermidine [45], probiotics [46], a yeast-based supplement rich in selenium and zinc [47], plant stanol esters [48], mushrooms [49], deltoid muscle exercises (for site pain) [50], osteopathic manipulative treatment [51,52], metformin [53], iron [54], ergoferon [55], ketogenic diet [56], and immunosuppressants [57,58].
It is a difficult task to assess the evidentiary basis for each type of intervention, as few meta-analyses have been carried out. For example, a search in the Cochrane Collaboration Library for “Post Acute COVID-19” yields one relevant review on remedying olfactory dysfunction, finding limited evidence for the usefulness of proposed therapies [59]. Furthermore, 46 relevant completed studies for the search term “Long COVID” exist on ClinicalTrials.gov (8 January 2023). As few systematic reviews exist, we aim to summarize the evidentiary basis of the known interventions currently in clinical trials for the treatment of long COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine injury are shown in Table S1. There is a single review on treating COVID-19 vaccine injury that could be found, which is included in Table S1.

3. Pathophysiology

3.1. Mechanisms of Harm

As mentioned previously, while it was expected that the LNP-encapsulated synthetic mRNAs would remain at the injection site and rapidly degrade, there is substantial evidence that they enter the bloodstream [60], deposit in other tissues [61], and even in the breast milk of lactating mothers [62]. The S1 subunit of the spike protein can damage the endothelial lining of blood vessels [63,64,65]. Vaccine particles in the bloodstream can cause a significant inflammatory response in blood vessels [66].
Several hypotheses for the mechanisms of long COVID-19 exist, including immune dysregulation, auto-immunity, endothelial dysfunction, activation of coagulation, and latent viral persistence [67,68], though this review focuses on the elements common to both COVID-19 infection and vaccine injury. Cardiovascular complications, particularly microthrombus formation, feature both in the etiologies of long COVID-19 [69,70] as well as COVID-19 vaccine injury [71].
The SARS-CoV-2 (infection or vaccine produced) spike protein can bind to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, leading to their activation [72], and it can cause fibrinogen-resistant blood clots [73]. Spike protein fragments can also be amyloidogenic on their own [74]. Several reports demonstrate elevated troponin levels in cardiac symptoms following the COVID-19 vaccine [75].
Ontologically, both infection and vaccination express the spike protein, though some subtle differences exist between the vaccine-generated and the infection-generated spike protein. Importantly, the spike protein encoded by vaccines is static and does not undergo evolution, whereas the spike protein produced by infection evolves as the virus evolves [76,77]. There is one exception to this, and that is when the vaccine is updated, as it is in the bivalent boosters of Pfizer and Moderna, which express the spike protein of both the B.1.1.529 (omicron) BA.5 sublineage and the ancestral WA1/2020 strain [78]. The other important distinction between vaccine spike and infection spike is the stabilized pre-fusion state in the vaccine spike, which results in an increased ACE2 binding affinity compared to spike proteins generated via SARS-CoV-2 infection [79]. The difference in the circulating (in the population) SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the spike protein (either vaccine or infection generated) of one’s initial immune imprinting has important implications for immune escape [77,80] and immune-mediated damage [81]. Immune escape is demonstrated in population studies showing waning vaccine efficacy [82].
In 2021, a comprehensive investigation revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines, including alterations of immune cell gene expression [83].

3.2. Clinical Observations

Although no official definition exists for ‘post-COVID-19-Vaccine Syndrome,’ a temporal correlation between receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and the beginning or worsening of a patient’s clinical manifestations is sufficient to make the diagnosis of a COVID-19 vaccine-induced injury when the symptoms are unexplained by other concurrent causes. It should, however, be recognized that there is a significant overlap between the symptoms and features of the long COVID-19 syndrome [84] and the post-COVID-19-Vaccine Syndrome [85]. However, a number of clinical features appear to be distinctive of the post-COVID-19 vaccine syndrome; most notably, severe neurological symptoms (particularly small fiber neuropathy) appears to be more common following vaccination [86,87,88]. To complicate matters further, patients with long COVID-19 are often vaccinated [89], making the issue of definition more difficult.
Unfortunately, only post mortem examination to date can prove causal relationship when tissues damaged demonstrate the presence of spike protein and absence of nucleocapsid protein (SARS-CoV-2 only) [90].
The true magnitude of post-COVID-19-Vaccine Syndrome is unknown, as data are limited to short duration clinical trials. From a survey of vaccinated individuals, approximately 1% required medical attention immediately following vaccination [91]. A nationwide cohort study of U.S. veterans reported adverse reactions in 8.5% of recipients of the Pfizer vaccine and 7.9% of those receiving the Moderna vaccine [92].
A number of factors are associated with an increased risk of adverse events; these include:
  • Genetics: first-degree relatives of people who have suffered a vaccine injury appear to be at a very high risk of vaccine injury. People with a methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene mutation [93] and those with Ehlers-Danlos type syndromes, may be at an increased risk of injury. Increased homocysteine levels have been linked to worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 [94,95]. Increased homocysteine levels may potentiate the microvascular injury and thrombotic complications associated with spike protein-related vaccine injury [96,97].
  • mRNA load and quantity of spike protein produced: this may be linked to specific vaccine lots that contain a higher concentration of mRNA due to variances in manufacturing quality, as well as heterogeneity within the vial [98].
  • Type and batch of vaccine: variances in the levels of adverse reactions were observed, depending on the manufacturer of the vaccine [91].
  • Number of vaccines given: the risk of antibody enhancement (ADE) increases with each exposure to the virus or a vaccine. A negative inverse correlation of dosages given, as well as effectiveness, was also observed [99].
  • Sex: the majority of vaccine-injured people are female [100], and vaccines historically have sex-specific effects [101].
  • Underlying nutritional status and comorbidities: certain preexisting conditions may likely have primed the immune system to be more reactive after vaccination [102]. This includes those with preexisting autoimmune disorders [103].

4. Therapeutic Interventions

There are several non-specific means of counteracting the effects of long-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 vaccine injury. These include nutritional support for general immune regulation and for overall health [104], as well as more specific, spike protein-specific therapeutics.
Non-specific therapeutic moieties include nutritional optimization, as diet-related pathologies, including obesity [105] and type 2 diabetes [106], were associated with worse outcomes from COVID-19 infection. Additionally, high blood glucose facilitates several steps of the viral lifecycle and infection progression [107], motivating the reduction in sugar and refined carbohydrate intake, which are associated with increases in blood sugar. Furthermore, adoption of a whole-food, plant-based diet is associated with decreased oxidative stress and inflammation [108] and better cardiovascular conditions. These positive impacts are attributed to their nutrient profiles, consisting of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemical-containing phenolic compounds, which can exert antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and other beneficial effects [109,110].
The microbiota plays a fundamental role in the induction, training, and function of the host’s immune system and thus shape the responses to its challenges [111]. Gut microbiome composition was significantly altered in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 individuals, irrespective of whether patients had received medication [112]. The researchers said patients with severe illness exhibit high blood plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines and inflammatory markers. Additionally, given altered gut microbiota composition in SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, there is substantial involvement of the GI tract during infection. These results suggest that gut microbiota composition is associated with the magnitude of immune response to COVID-19 and subsequent tissue damage and thus could play a role in regulating disease severity. The scientists also found that, because a small subset of patients showed gut microbiota dysbiosis, or imbalance, even 30 days after recovery, this could be a potential explanation for why some symptoms persist in long COVID-19 [113].
Given the intricate influence of gut microbiota (GM) on host immune effectors and subsequent inflammatory profile, GM composition and function might contribute to explaining the individual resilience/fragility with respect to COVID-19 and/or the response to therapeutics (vaccines), which deserve further research [114]. Microbial diversity can be improved by consuming many prebiotics and probiotics, such as sauerkraut and kimchi.
The design and discovery of spike protein inhibitors have followed a typical drug repurposing process. Given the structural similarity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to other coronaviruses [115,116], compounds that work for these could potentially be repurposed for SARS-CoV-2 spike inhibition.
Typically, once a prospective compound for repurposing has been identified, it is tested using a ligand-binding assay (LBA) [117]. These assays can provide information on binding affinity and kinetics, as well as binding stoichiometries and even cooperative effects [117].
The next level of verification may be an in vitro assay for viral inhibition in cell culture, where cells are infected with a virus, and viral levels or titre (concentration) are measured by counting viral plaques [118] or measuring viral nucleic acid (NA) levels [119]. Control cells are compared with treated cells. Though the approach has limitations, in not considering the whole-body dynamics of a virus [120], it can serve as a useful starting point.
In vivo studies are a further level of verification, which show the impact of the intervention in an animal model. Beyond in vivo studies, there are clinical studies, which are typically of two design types: observational and randomized control trials (RCTs) [121].
To date, little to no guidance has been provided by health authorities on how to manage spike protein related disease, leaving it up to independent scientists and doctors to develop. Regarding the COVID-19 Vaccine induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), a 2021 review made suggestions on management, including intravenous immunoglobulin, anticoagulants, and plasma exchange in severe cases [122]. These compounds are nutritional supplements and natural products, with some repurposed pharmaceuticals (Table 1 and Table 2).
This list points to the available evidence on each therapy and advances them for further investigation. The following therapeutics work through different mechanisms, but we largely focus on those proteins that bind directly with the spike protein for improved clearance. Here, we summarize studies with different levels of evidence for their respective efficacies, from in silico predictions, which can be based on binding predictions or systems biological associations, to those showing activity in an in vitro or cell-free assay, in vivo studies, and any clinical or epidemiological evidence.
Given the many uncertainties around the duration of spike protein production and the variables determining production, adopting a preventive approach seems sensible, provided the proposed interventions are safe. It remains unknown whether full recovery from COVID-19 Vaccine Injury is possible. However, we suggest targeting several different processes to reduce symptoms associated with both vaccine injury and long COVID-19. These include:
(1)
Establishing a healthy microbiome
(2)
Inhibiting spike protein cleavage and binding (stopping ongoing damage)
(3)
Clearing the spike protein from the body (clearing the damaging agents)
(4)
Healing the damage caused by the spike protein (restoring homeostasis and boosting the immune system)
These categories are not clearly separate, as compounds binding to the spike can both inactivate it by preventing its binding to ACE2, as well as aid in its clearance. There are many biological pathways through which a given effect can occur. To inhibit the harmful effects of the spike protein, it is possible to target the furin cleavage, either by directly binding to the furin cleavage site itself [123,124,125] or by interfering with the serine protease reaction [126,127,128] to block the interaction by binding to ACE2 [129], downregulating ACE2 expression [130], inhibiting the transition to the active conformation of S protein [131], or binding the RBD of spike protein and allosterically inhibiting interaction with ACE2 [132] (Figure 1). Clearing of spike proteins can also be accomplished by increasing autophagy, which clears proteins and recycles their amino acids [133].

4.1. Establishing a Healthy Microbiome

The state of the microbiome is an essential criterion for the progression of acute COVID-19 infection, long COVID-19, and post vaccine syndrome [134,135,136,137,138]. Patients with post-vaccine syndrome classically have a severe dysbiosis with loss of Bifidobacterium [139,140,141]. A whole-food, plant-based diet may improve outcomes in COVID-19 [142,143,144], and people following plant-based diets, on average, experienced less severe COVID-19 symptoms [145]. Dietary sources of probiotics include fermented dairy [146], chia seeds [147], glucomannan [148,149], and supplements [150].
Microbiome diversity and richness can be improved through a diet rich in prebiotic fiber and probiotics, particularly fermented foods, which can subsequently lower inflammation [151].

4.2. Preventing Spike Protein Damage

Inhibiting Spike Protein Cleavage

The furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested as a reason for its increased infectivity relative to SARS-CoV [152], which had a higher fatality rate, which was much less infectious [153]. Cleavage of the full-length spike protein into S1 and S2 subunits is essential for SARS-CoV-2 entry into human lung cells [126,154,155,156]. The full-length spike is present in both SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as vaccination, and it is the only protein common to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination (it is the only protein present in vaccination) [157].
Vaccine-produced spike has an important difference as compared to the SARS-CoV-2 spike—the inclusion of two proline mutations to stabilize the pre-fusion state of the spike protein. These are related to Pfizer’s BNT162b2 [158], Moderna’s mRNA-1273 [159], Johnson & Johnson’s Ad26.COV2.S [160], and NovaVax’s NVAX-CoV2373 [161]. This was first discovered in the context of MERS [162]. Other vaccines apparently encode the full-length, wild-type spike protein, including AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1 [163] and SinoVac’s CoronaVac [164].
These dual proline mutations featured in the mRNA vaccines stabilize the pre-fusion state, though some cleavage still occurs [162,165,166], and, interestingly, the mutations produce an unknown cleavage product of 40 kDa, where typical cleavage products for the wild-type spike protein are 80 kDa [166]. As such, targeting the cleavage of spike protein is likely to make a difference in long COVID, as well as vaccine injury from the vaccines encoding the full-length wild-type spike protein (AstraZeneca, SinoVac and others), though this may have less of an impact in vaccines encoding the pre-fusion-stabilized spike protein (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, NovaVax and others).
Notably, targeting cleavage has also been identified as a therapeutic modality in the context of acute COVID-19 [167,168], which can take place via at least three distinct pathways: cleavage by furin, trypsin, or trans-membrane serine protease [167,168,169].

4.3. Inhibiting Spike Protein Binding

One of the most direct therapeutic mechanisms is to seek compounds which disrupt the ACE2/Spike interface, either through binding ACE2 or spike in isolation, or disrupting the interface itself. This problem is a steric and conformational problem, for which computational prediction using structural models is highly amenable. A great many computational studies of the spike protein and ACE2 binding compounds have been performed, and some of these hits have further been developed through LBAs, in vitro studies, in vivo studies in animal models, and, lastly, clinical trials with human subjects. Few of the compounds reach the final stage, though several with this mechanism of action have been investigated. Most promising were ivermectin and quercetin, as computational prediction showed these bind to the spike. If the spike is bound in the receptor binding domain (RBD), the interaction with ACE2 receptors, by which spike protein exerts its inflammatory effect, is also inhibited.
Similarly, compounds which bind to the ACE2 receptor can also antagonistically compete with the spike protein for a limited number of receptor sites. For example, the diabetes medication metformin has been identified as a potential long COVID-19 therapeutic agent due to this mechanism of action. Decreasing the level of spike actively binding to ACE2 has therapeutic implications.

4.4. Clearing Spike Protein

So far, we have discussed ways to inhibit the impacts of the spike protein on the host’s system. Importantly, to progress beyond this, it is necessary to clear out the spike protein. This can be accomplished through upregulation of the protein degradative pathways in the body through upregulation of autophagy. Autophagy can be upregulated by fasting [170] and calorie restriction [171], especially if protein is reduced [172]. Autophagy in many instances does not require the complete cessation of food intake (protocols are available at https://COVID19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/, accessed on 15 April 2023). Sharply decreasing protein intake can upregulate autophagy pathways [173], and this can be accomplished while still eating, which makes this more approachable as a protocol. Regular fasting was also associated with better outcomes from acute COVID-19 [174].
Spermidine, a polyanion compound found in high concentrations in wheat germ [175], can potently stimulate autophagy [176]. Other factors which influence autophagy are acute heat exposure, as one would experience in a sauna [177,178], flavonoid consumption [179], phenolic compounds [180,181], and coffee [182]. Resveratrol can also induce fasting, as it acts as a protein restriction mimetic [183], and metformin, a diabetes medication, can influence autophagy signaling [184]. Surprisingly, cold exposure, in addition to heat exposure, also increases autophagy [185,186]. Hyperbaric oxygen [187] and ozone therapy [188] may also stimulate autophagy.

4.5. Healing the Damage

After the damage process has been attenuated, it is necessary to heal the damage that has occurred. The healing stage requires normalizing the immune response, reducing lingering inflammation (such as by targeting interleukin 6 [189]), and addressing any acute damage in affected tissues, particularly cardiovascular damage [69,70,71]. Damage reduction may also mean reducing the level of blood clotting if clotting is present and repairing any organ damage, if relevant. The stage of healing requires normalizing the immune response, reducing lingering inflammation (such as by targeting interleukin 6 [189]), and addressing any acute damage in whatever affected tissues, which, for our purposes, includes blood. Micro-clots are a possible etiological factor in long COVID-19 [190,191,192], as well as COVID-19 vaccine injury [193]. Damage reduction may also mean reducing the level of blood clotting if clotting is present, and repairing any organ damage, if relevant. Sufferers of long COVID-19 have been found to have a higher inflammatory response to the initial COVID-19 infection than those who recover completely from COVID-19 [194], so anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory medications have been identified as potential long COVID-19 therapeutics.
Anti-coagulant medication, such as aspirin, can be useful in alleviating the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 [195,196], as they have a long history of use in improving blood flow and reducing coagulopathies [197,198,199].
Another useful compound for breaking up blood clots is nattokinase, which is a fibrinolytic found in fermented soybeans (bacterial species Bacillus subtilis var. natto) [200,201]. Experiments have demonstrated that it potently degrades spike protein [202,203], which is an added benefit in addition to its fibrinolytic and anti-coagulant properties [204].

4.6. Potential Therapeutics

In Table 1, we grouped the therapeutics by mechanism and stage (as per our above definitions) and included information on their origins. Our categorization for sources is based on the classification of natural products (NP) or pharmaceutical drugs (PD). For natural products, we included the most common source organism(s) based on its scientific name for consistency.
The pharmaceutical compounds with plausible applicability for the treatment of long COVID-19 and post-vaccine syndrome are listed in Table 1.
Table
Table 1. Pharmaceutical compounds with plausible mechanisms of action against spike protein- related pathologies.
Table 1. Pharmaceutical compounds with plausible mechanisms of action against spike protein- related pathologies.
CompoundMechanismReferenceClinical TrialsResults
IvermectinMultiple
Binding of spike protein		[205,206,207,208,209]
CorticosteroidsReducing inflammatory response[210,211]NCT05350774Proxy: significant decrease in breathlessness [212]
AntihistaminesReduced inflammation[213,214,215]
AspirinAnti-coagulant[216]
Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN)Immunomodulatory[217,218]NCT05430152
NCT04604704		Significant improvement [218]
ColchicineReduces inflammation[219,220,221] Reduced myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death (non-COVID-19 or vaccine related) [222]
MetforminSeveral[223]NCT04510194An amount of 42% relative decrease in long-COVID incidence after treatment of initial C19 infection [224]
Likewise, natural compounds and supplements with plausible applicability for the treatment of long COVID-19 and post-vaccine syndrome are listed in Table 2.
Table
Table 2. Natural compounds and supplements with plausible mechanisms of action against spike protein-related pathologies.
Table 2. Natural compounds and supplements with plausible mechanisms of action against spike protein-related pathologies.
CompoundMechanismReferenceClinical TrialsEvidence Summary
Vitamin DImmunomodulatory[225]NCT05356936Proxy (C19 severity) [226]
Vitamin CImmune support, antioxidant[227]NCT05150782Reduction in fatigue (not long-COVID-19 related) [227]
improved oxygenation, decrease in inflammatory markers, and a faster recovery were observed in initial COVID-19 infection (proxy measure for long-COVID-19) [228]
Improvement in general fatigue symptoms when combined with l-arginine [229]
Significant improvement [230]
Vitamin K2Immunomodulatory[231]NCT05356936Proxy evidence (severity of COVID-19 infection) [231]
N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC)Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, cellular metabolism,
blocks S-ACE2 interface (IS [232])		[233,234,235,236]NCT05371288
NCT05152849		Proxy evidence (severity of COVID-19 infection) [234]
GlutathioneAntioxidant, anti-inflammatory, cellular metabolism[237,238,239]NCT05371288Proxy (severity of COVID-19 infection) [239,240]
MelatoninAntioxidant, anti-inflammatory, cellular metabolism[241] Proxy (higher rate of recovery, lower risk of intensive care unit admission) [242]
QuercetinAnti-inflammatory
spike-ACE2 interaction [243,244]		[243,245,246,247] Proxy (faster time to negative PCR test when combined with Vitamin D and curcumin) [248]
EmodinBlocks spike-ACE2 interaction [249][249]
Black cumin seed extract
(nigella sativa)		Anti-inflammatory[250,251,252]
ResveratrolAnti-inflammaotry, anti-thrombotic[253,254,255] Proxy (lower rates of hospitalization) [256]
CurcuminInhibits spike–ACE2 interaction,
inhibits virus encapsulation [257], binds SC2 proteins (IS) [258]		[259,260,261]NCT05150782Proxy (lowers inflammatory cytokines) [261,262]
MagnesiumMultifactorial, nutritional support[263,264] Proxy (low magnesium–calcium ratio associated with higher C19 mortality [265], low magnesium associated with higher risk of infection [266])
ZincNutritional support[267,268,269]NCT04798677 *Proxy (possibe better acute C19 outcomes [270], other meta-analysis did not confirm efficacy [271])
NattokinaseAnti-coagulant,
degrades spike (IVT) [203]		[202,203] Proxy: degrades spike protein in vitro [203]
Fish OilAnti-coagulant[272,273,274]NCT05121766Proxy (lowered hospital admission and mortality [272])
LuteolinDecreases inflammation [275][275,276,277]NCT05311852Faster recovery of olfactory dysfunction when combined with ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide and olfactory training [278]
St. John’s WortDecrease inflammation [279][279,280]
FisetinSenolytic [281]
Binds SARS-CoV-2 main protease (IS) [282]
Binds spike protein (IS) [283]		[281,283,284]
FrankincenseBinds to Furin[285]NCT05150782Positive impact [286]
ApigeninBinds SARS-CoV-2 spike (IS [244]), antioxidant [287][288,289]
NutmegAnti-coagulant[290]
SageInhibits replication (IVT) [291][291,292]
RutinBinds spike [293][294]NCT05387252 †
LimoneneAnti-inflammatory[295] Antiviral in in vitro assays as whole bark product [296]
AlgaeImmunomodulatory [297][298,299,300]NCT05524532
NCT04777981
Dandelion leaf extractBlocks S1–ACE2 interaction (IS + IVT [301][301] Proxy (reduction in sore throat in combination with other extracts [302]
CinnamonImmunomodulatory [303,304][305,306]
Milk thistle extract (Silymarin)Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory [307]
Endothelial protective (IVO [308])
Blocks spike [308]		[308] Evidence for mechanism, but not treatment, as of October 2022 [307]
AndrographisBinds ACE2 (IVT), reduction in viral load (IVT) [309][310,311] Proxy (no decrease in C19 severity [312]
prunella vulgarisBlocks spike [313][313]
LicoriceImmunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory [314][315,316,317,318] Proxy (inhibits virus in vitro [319])
CardamomAnti-inflammatory (IVO [320][320] Proxy (lowers inflammatory markers) [320]
ClovesAntithrombotic, anti-inflammatory [321],
Blocks S1–ACE2 interaction (IS, CFA) [322], stimulates autophagy [323]		[321] Prevents post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment [324]
GingerUnknown Proxy. Reduced the hospitalization period in SC2 infection [325]
GarlicImmunomodulatory [326][326,327,328] Proxy (faster recovery from C19) [329]
ThymeAntioxidant, nutrient rich, anti-inflammatory [330][331] Positive impact on energy levels [289]
PropolisACE2 signalling pathways (IS [332], IVT, IVO) [333,334]
Immunomodulation [335]		[333,336,337] Meta-analysis reveals propolis and honey could probably improve clinical COVID-19 symptoms and decrease viral clearance time [332]
Clinical trials were conducted for a long period, unless otherwise stated. Clinical trials are for long COVID-19, unless otherwise stated. * Vaccine immune response. † Adverse reactions to vaccination adverse reaction. Under mechanism. IS: in silico. IVT: in vitro. IVO: in vivo.

5. Discussion

The amelioration of symptoms and recovery of large numbers of people worldwide from both long COVID and post-vaccine syndrome and injury requires the use of non-invasive, integrative therapies that can be scaled and administered in a decentralized fashion. It is important to disseminate this knowledge to the lay public so that they can mitigate their individual risks and those of their loved ones. While it is difficult to enumerate the true scale of post-vaccination or post-COVID clotting disorders, there has been an appreciable rise in cardiac incidents [29], strokes (inter-cerebral hemorrhages [338]), and non-COVID excess mortality [339,340]. A significant increase in total mortality due to a vaccine is not unprecedented, as the DTP vaccine administered in Guineau-Bissau in the 1980s increased child mortality by four times compared to unvaccinated mortality [341].
While the magnitude of the impact of both long COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome or injury is unclear, it is important to prepare for the potential consequences by having information ready for dissemination, as well as to perform research on promising therapeutics to relieve the damage caused by spike protein and other potential mechanisms of harm, such as DNA integration [342]. One limitation of this study is that it focuses on spike-protein related pathology and can leave out other possibilities, such as allergies to vaccine components, or other disease etiologies. Long COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 vaccine syndrome are multifaceted disorders, with highly varied manifestations; as such, the development of objective diagnostics is important in treating patients. The therapies discussed in this review have a varying evidentiary basis and may serve as starting points for the development of therapies to relieve spike protein-related pathologies in the coming years.
Further research requires validating the treatments outlined in this review by randomized control trial (RCT), observational studies, and laboratory studies of biological mechanism. Furthermore, integration of the current research on spike-protein related disorders is helpful. One possibility is the application of systems biology tools to describe the perturbations to different biological pathways influenced by the spike protein. When such a model exists, it is possible to treat the acute manifestations of the disease while still clearing spike protein form the body.
Governments and national health services are beginning to come to terms with the sheer magnitude of the task in front of them. This review outlines some of the most promising therapies form an evidentiary and biological mechanistic perspective. We hope that this article be used in the construction of treatment protocols to treat these highly related conditions in their many disease manifestations, prioritizing not only safety and efficacy, but cost and availability to large numbers of people.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11051308/s1, Table S1: Overview of Clinical Trials for Long-COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injury.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.J.H.; methodology, M.T.J.H.; investigation, M.T.J.H., C.P., P.M., and T.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.J.H.; writing—review and editing, M.T.J.H., C.P., P.M., and T.A.L.; supervision and project administration, M.T.J.H.; funding acquisition, T.A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article was crowd-funded by public donations to the World Council for Health initiative.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. Data on clinical trials can be found at clinicaltrials.gov.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Francesca Havens, Dana F. Flavin, and A.J. In addition, the authors acknowledge the seminal contributions of the FLCCC Alliance and the publication of protocols for the management of the vaccine injured (https://COVIDCOVID19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/i-prevent-vaccine-injury/, accessed on 15 April 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

M.T.J.H., C.P., and T.A.L. are on the Health and Science Committee of the World Council for Health, a people-centered initiative of the not-for-profit Community Interest Company (CIC) EbMCsquared, for advancing holistic health.

References

  1. Ritchie, H.; Mathieu, E.; Rodés-Guirao, L.; Appel, C.; Giattino, C.; Ortiz-Ospina, E.; Hasell, J.; Macdonald, B.; Beltekian, D.; Roser, M. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data 2020. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  2. Staff, G. COVID-19 Vaccine Production to January 31st 2022. Available online: https://globalcommissionforpostpandemicpolicy.org/covid-19-vaccine-production-to-january-31st-2022/ (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  3. Halma, M.T.J.; Rose, J.; Lawrie, T. The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review. J 2023, 6, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ARCHIVE: Conditions of Authorisation for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech (Regulation 174). Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  5. Ball, P. The Lightning-Fast Quest for COVID Vaccines—and What It Means for Other Diseases. Nature 2020, 589, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Anand, P.; Stahel, V.P. Review the Safety of COVID-19 MRNA Vaccines: A Review. Patient Saf. Surg. 2021, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Doshi, P. COVID-19 Vaccines: In the Rush for Regulatory Approval, Do We Need More Data? BMJ 2021, 373, n1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bondì, M.L.; Di Gesù, R.; Craparo, E.F. Chapter Twelve—Lipid Nanoparticles for Drug Targeting to the Brain. In Methods in Enzymology; Düzgüneş, N., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 508, pp. 229–251. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pottoo, F.H.; Sharma, S.; Javed, M.N.; Barkat, M.A.; Harshita; Alam, M.S.; Naim, M.J.; Alam, O.; Ansari, M.A.; Barreto, G.E.; et al. Lipid-Based Nanoformulations in the Treatment of Neurological Disorders. Drug. Metab. Rev. 2020, 52, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Akinc, A.; Maier, M.A.; Manoharan, M.; Fitzgerald, K.; Jayaraman, M.; Barros, S.; Ansell, S.; Du, X.; Hope, M.J.; Madden, T.D.; et al. The Onpattro Story and the Clinical Translation of Nanomedicines Containing Nucleic Acid-Based Drugs. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 1084–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Thacker, P.D. COVID-19: Researcher Blows the Whistle on Data Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial. BMJ 2021, 375, n2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ogata, A.F.; Cheng, C.-A.; Desjardins, M.; Senussi, Y.; Sherman, A.C.; Powell, M.; Novack, L.; Von, S.; Li, X.; Baden, L.R.; et al. Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of MRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 74, 715–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bansal, S.; Perincheri, S.; Fleming, T.; Poulson, C.; Tiffany, B.; Bremner, R.M.; Mohanakumar, T. Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) Vaccination Prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by MRNA Vaccines. J. Immunol. 2021, 207, 2405–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Röltgen, K.; Nielsen, S.C.A.; Silva, O.; Younes, S.F.; Zaslavsky, M.; Costales, C.; Yang, F.; Wirz, O.F.; Solis, D.; Hoh, R.A.; et al. Immune Imprinting, Breadth of Variant Recognition, and Germinal Center Response in Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccination. Cell 2022, 185, 1025–1040.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Spike Protein Behavior. Available online: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/spike-protein-behavior (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  16. Schlake, T.; Thess, A.; Fotin-Mleczek, M.; Kallen, K.-J. Developing MRNA-Vaccine Technologies. RNA Biol. 2012, 9, 1319–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shyu, A.-B.; Wilkinson, M.F.; van Hoof, A. Messenger RNA Regulation: To Translate or to Degrade. EMBO J. 2008, 27, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Baudrimont, A.; Voegeli, S.; Viloria, E.C.; Stritt, F.; Lenon, M.; Wada, T.; Jaquet, V.; Becskei, A. Multiplexed Gene Control Reveals Rapid MRNA Turnover. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Patterson, B.; Francisco, E.; Yogendra, R.; Long, E.; Pise, A.; Beaty, C.; Osgood, E.; Bream, J.; Kreimer, M.; Heide, R.V.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 S1 Protein Persistence in SARS-CoV-2 Negative Post-Vaccination Individuals with Long COVID/PASC-Like Symptoms. Res. Sq. 2022, Preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patterson, B.K.; Francisco, E.B.; Yogendra, R.; Long, E.; Pise, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Hall, E.; Herrera, M.; Parikh, P.; Guevara-Coto, J.; et al. Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes in Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) up to 15 Months Post-Infection. Front. Immunol. 2022, 12, 5526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Khan, S.; Shafiei, M.S.; Longoria, C.; Schoggins, J.W.; Savani, R.C.; Zaki, H. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Inflammation via TLR2-Dependent Activation of the NF-ΚB Pathway. Elife 2021, 10, e68563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Robles, J.P.; Zamora, M.; Adan-Castro, E.; Siqueiros-Marquez, L.; Martinez de la Escalera, G.; Clapp, C. The Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Induces Endothelial Inflammation through Integrin A5β1 and NF-ΚB Signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2022, 298, 101695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Banks, W.A.; Sharma, P.; Bullock, K.M.; Hansen, K.M.; Ludwig, N.; Whiteside, T.L. Transport of Extracellular Vesicles across the Blood-Brain Barrier: Brain Pharmacokinetics and Effects of Inflammation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 4407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, Y.Y.; Syed, A.M.; MacMillan, P.; Rocheleau, J.V.; Chan, W.C.W. Flow Rate Affects Nanoparticle Uptake into Endothelial Cells. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, e1906274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buzhdygan, T.P.; DeOre, B.J.; Baldwin-Leclair, A.; Bullock, T.A.; McGary, H.M.; Khan, J.A.; Razmpour, R.; Hale, J.F.; Galie, P.A.; Potula, R.; et al. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier. Neurobiol. Dis. 2020, 146, 105131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Asandei, A.; Mereuta, L.; Schiopu, I.; Park, J.; Seo, C.H.; Park, Y.; Luchian, T. Non-Receptor-Mediated Lipid Membrane Permeabilization by the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Subunit. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 55649–55658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Malhotra, A. Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on COVID-19 MRNA Vaccines through Real Evidence-Based Medicine—Part 1. J. Insul. Resist. 2022, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gill, J.R.; Tashjian, R.; Duncanson, E. Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in 2 Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2022, 146, 925–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Diaz, G.A.; Parsons, G.T.; Gering, S.K.; Meier, A.R.; Hutchinson, I.V.; Robicsek, A. Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19. JAMA 2021, 326, 1210–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Karlstad, Ø.; Hovi, P.; Husby, A.; Härkänen, T.; Selmer, R.M.; Pihlström, N.; Hansen, J.V.; Nohynek, H.; Gunnes, N.; Sundström, A.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents. JAMA Cardiol. 2022, 7, 600–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Patone, M.; Mei, X.W.; Handunnetthi, L.; Dixon, S.; Zaccardi, F.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Watkinson, P.; Khunti, K.; Harnden, A.; Coupland, C.A.C.; et al. Risks of Myocarditis, Pericarditis, and Cardiac Arrhythmias Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kracalik, I.; Oster, M.E.; Broder, K.R.; Cortese, M.M.; Glover, M.; Shields, K.; Creech, C.B.; Romanson, B.; Novosad, S.; Soslow, J.; et al. Outcomes at Least 90 Days since Onset of Myocarditis after MRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults in the USA: A Follow-up Surveillance Study. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2022, 6, 788–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mansanguan, S.; Charunwatthana, P.; Piyaphanee, W.; Dechkhajorn, W.; Poolcharoen, A.; Mansanguan, C. Cardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tai, W.; He, L.; Zhang, X.; Pu, J.; Voronin, D.; Jiang, S.; Zhou, Y.; Du, L. Characterization of the Receptor-Binding Domain (RBD) of 2019 Novel Coronavirus: Implication for Development of RBD Protein as a Viral Attachment Inhibitor and Vaccine. Cell Mol. Immunol. 2020, 17, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jackson, C.B.; Farzan, M.; Chen, B.; Choe, H. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 Entry into Cells. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2022, 23, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shin, Y.-H.; Jeong, K.; Lee, J.; Lee, H.J.; Yim, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Park, S.B. Inhibition of ACE2-Spike Interaction by an ACE2 Binder Suppresses SARS-CoV-2 Entry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2022, 61, e202115695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Martínez-Flores, D.; Zepeda-Cervantes, J.; Cruz-Reséndiz, A.; Aguirre-Sampieri, S.; Sampieri, A.; Vaca, L. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Based on the Spike Glycoprotein and Implications of New Viral Variants. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 701501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Read, A.F.; Baigent, S.J.; Powers, C.; Kgosana, L.B.; Blackwell, L.; Smith, L.P.; Kennedy, D.A.; Walkden-Brown, S.W.; Nair, V.K. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. PLoS Biol. 2015, 13, e1002198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lyngse, F.P.; Kirkeby, C.T.; Denwood, M.; Christiansen, L.E.; Mølbak, K.; Møller, C.H.; Skov, R.L.; Krause, T.G.; Rasmussen, M.; Sieber, R.N.; et al. Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant of Concern Subvariants BA.1 and BA.2 in Denmark. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. López-Cortés, G.I.; Palacios-Pérez, M.; Zamudio, G.S.; Veledíaz, H.F.; Ortega, E.; José, M.V. Neutral Evolution Test of the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Implications in the Binding to ACE2. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gupta, D.; Sharma, P.; Singh, M.; Kumar, M.; Ethayathulla, A.S.; Kaur, P. Structural and Functional Insights into the Spike Protein Mutations of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2021, 78, 7967–7989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Davis, H.E.; McCorkell, L.; Vogel, J.M.; Topol, E.J. Long COVID: Major Findings, Mechanisms and Recommendations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mumtaz, A.; Sheikh, A.A.E.; Khan, A.M.; Khalid, S.N.; Khan, J.; Nasrullah, A.; Sagheer, S.; Sheikh, A.B. COVID-19 Vaccine and Long COVID: A Scoping Review. Life 2022, 12, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Loh, E.-W. Dose-Response Study a Glucoside- and Rutinoside-Rich Crude Material in Relieving Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387252 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  45. University of Oxford. Characterisation of the Effects of Spermidine, a Nutrition Supplement, on the Immune Memory Response to Coronavirus Vaccine in Older People. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05421546 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  46. Université de Sherbrooke. Modulation of Immune Responses to COVID-19 Vaccination by an Intervention on the Gut Microbiota: A Randomized Controlled Trial. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05195151 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  47. AB Biotek. Efficacy and Tolerability of a Nutritional Supplementation With ABBC-1, a Symbiotic Combination of Beta-Glucans and Selenium and Zinc Enriched Probiotics, in Volunteers Receiving the Influenza or the COVID-19 Vaccines. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04798677 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  48. Maastricht University Medical Center. The Effect of Plant Stanol Ester Consumption on the Vaccination Response to a COVID-19 Vaccine. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04844346 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  49. Saxe, G. Multicenter Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCT of Fomitopsis Officinalis/Trametes Versicolor for COVID-19. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04951336 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  50. Engındenız, Z. Evaluation of Deltoid Muscle Exercises on Injection Site and Arm Pain After Pfizer—BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 Vaccination, A Randomized Controlled Study. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05157230 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  51. Sanchez, J. Augmentation of Immune Response to COVID-19 MRNA Vaccination through Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Including Lymphatic Pumps. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04928456 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  52. Rowan University. Lymphatic Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine to Enhance COVID-19 Vaccination Efficacy. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05069636 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  53. Bartley, J. Vaccination Efficacy With Metformin in Older Adults: A Pilot Study. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03996538 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  54. Karanja, P.S. Iron and Vaccine-Preventable Viral Disease. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04912661 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  55. Materia Medica Holding. Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ergoferon as Non-Specific COVID-19 Prevention During Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05069649 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  56. Gnessi, L. COVID-19 Vaccination in Subjects With Obesity: Impact of Metabolic Health and the Role of a Ketogenic Diet. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05163743 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  57. Wang, A.X. Impact of Immunosuppression Adjustment on the Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 MRNA Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients (ADIVKT). 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05060991 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  58. University Hospital Inselspital, Berne. Registry Study for COVID19 Vaccination Efficacy in Patients With a Treatment History of Rituximab. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04877496 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  59. Webster, K.E.; O’Byrne, L.; MacKeith, S.; Philpott, C.; Hopkins, C.; Burton, M.J. Interventions for the Prevention of Persistent Post-COVID-19 Olfactory Dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 2021, CD013877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fertig, T.E.; Chitoiu, L.; Marta, D.S.; Ionescu, V.-S.; Cismasiu, V.B.; Radu, E.; Angheluta, G.; Dobre, M.; Serbanescu, A.; Hinescu, M.E.; et al. Vaccine MRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bahl, K.; Senn, J.J.; Yuzhakov, O.; Bulychev, A.; Brito, L.A.; Hassett, K.J.; Laska, M.E.; Smith, M.; Almarsson, Ö.; Thompson, J.; et al. Preclinical and Clinical Demonstration of Immunogenicity by MRNA Vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 Influenza Viruses. Mol. Ther. 2017, 25, 1316–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hanna, N.; Heffes-Doon, A.; Lin, X.; Manzano De Mejia, C.; Botros, B.; Gurzenda, E.; Nayak, A. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. 2022, 176, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nuovo, G.J.; Magro, C.; Shaffer, T.; Awad, H.; Suster, D.; Mikhail, S.; He, B.; Michaille, J.-J.; Liechty, B.; Tili, E. Endothelial Cell Damage Is the Central Part of COVID-19 and a Mouse Model Induced by Injection of the S1 Subunit of the Spike Protein. Ann. Diagn. Pathol. 2021, 51, 151682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Raghavan, S.; Kenchappa, D.B.; Leo, M.D. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Degradation of Junctional Proteins That Maintain Endothelial Barrier Integrity. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 687783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lei, Y.; Zhang, J.; Schiavon, C.R.; He, M.; Chen, L.; Shen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yin, Q.; Cho, Y.; Andrade, L.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circ. Res. 2021, 128, 1323–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Serviente, C.; Matias, A.; Erol, M.E.; Calderone, M.; Layec, G. The Influence of COVID-19-Based MRNA Vaccines on Measures of Conduit Artery and Microvascular Endothelial Function. FASEB J. 2022, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Castanares-Zapatero, D.; Chalon, P.; Kohn, L.; Dauvrin, M.; Detollenaere, J.; Maertens de Noordhout, C.; Primus-de Jong, C.; Cleemput, I.; Van den Heede, K. Pathophysiology and Mechanism of Long COVID: A Comprehensive Review. Ann. Med. 2022, 54, 1473–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Crook, H.; Raza, S.; Nowell, J.; Young, M.; Edison, P. Long Covid-Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Management. BMJ 2021, 374, n1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xie, Y.; Xu, E.; Bowe, B.; Al-Aly, Z. Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes of COVID-19. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Raman, B.; Bluemke, D.A.; Lüscher, T.F.; Neubauer, S. Long COVID: Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 with a Cardiovascular Focus. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 1157–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yonker, L.M.; Swank, Z.; Bartsch, Y.C.; Burns, M.D.; Kane, A.; Boribong, B.P.; Davis, J.P.; Loiselle, M.; Novak, T.; Senussi, Y.; et al. Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post–COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine Myocarditis. Circulation 2023, 147, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhao, X.; Xie, Y.; Yang, Y.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Binds Platelet ACE2 to Enhance Thrombosis in COVID-19. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020, 13, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Grobbelaar, L.M.; Venter, C.; Vlok, M.; Ngoepe, M.; Laubscher, G.J.; Lourens, P.J.; Steenkamp, J.; Kell, D.B.; Pretorius, E. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Induces Fibrin(Ogen) Resistant to Fibrinolysis: Implications for Microclot Formation in COVID-19. Biosci. Rep. 2021, 41, BSR20210611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Nyström, S.; Hammarström, P. Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 8945–8950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Montgomery, J.; Ryan, M.; Engler, R.; Hoffman, D.; McClenathan, B.; Collins, L.; Loran, D.; Hrncir, D.; Herring, K.; Platzer, M.; et al. Myocarditis Following Immunization With MRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military. JAMA Cardiol. 2021, 6, 1202–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chakraborty, C.; Bhattacharya, M.; Sharma, A.R. Present Variants of Concern and Variants of Interest of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: Their Significant Mutations in S-Glycoprotein, Infectivity, Re-Infectivity, Immune Escape and Vaccines Activity. Rev. Med. Virol. 2022, 32, e2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Harvey, W.T.; Carabelli, A.M.; Jackson, B.; Gupta, R.K.; Thomson, E.C.; Harrison, E.M.; Ludden, C.; Reeve, R.; Rambaut, A.; Peacock, S.J.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Variants, Spike Mutations and Immune Escape. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Collier, A.Y.; Miller, J.; Hachmann, N.P.; McMahan, K.; Liu, J.; Bondzie, E.A.; Gallup, L.; Rowe, M.; Schonberg, E.; Thai, S.; et al. Immunogenicity of BA.5 Bivalent MRNA Vaccine Boosters. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 565–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Tian, J.-H.; Patel, N.; Haupt, R.; Zhou, H.; Weston, S.; Hammond, H.; Logue, J.; Portnoff, A.D.; Norton, J.; Guebre-Xabier, M.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein Vaccine Candidate NVX-CoV2373 Immunogenicity in Baboons and Protection in Mice. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chakraborty, C.; Sharma, A.R.; Bhattacharya, M.; Lee, S.-S. A Detailed Overview of Immune Escape, Antibody Escape, Partial Vaccine Escape of SARS-CoV-2 and Their Emerging Variants With Escape Mutations. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 801522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wan, Y.; Shang, J.; Sun, S.; Tai, W.; Chen, J.; Geng, Q.; He, L.; Chen, Y.; Wu, J.; Shi, Z.; et al. Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry. J. Virol. 2020, 94, e02015-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Regev-Yochay, G.; Gonen, T.; Gilboa, M.; Mandelboim, M.; Indenbaum, V.; Amit, S.; Meltzer, L.; Asraf, K.; Cohen, C.; Fluss, R.; et al. Efficacy of a Fourth Dose of COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine against Omicron. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 1377–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Xu, J.; Xia, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Chen, W.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Q.; Zhu, R.; et al. Comprehensive Investigations Revealed Consistent Pathophysiological Alterations after Vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccines. Cell Discov. 2021, 7, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dennis, A.; Cuthbertson, D.J.; Wootton, D.; Crooks, M.; Gabbay, M.; Eichert, N.; Mouchti, S.; Pansini, M.; Roca-Fernandez, A.; Thomaides-Brears, H.; et al. Multi-Organ Impairment and Long COVID: A 1-Year Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study. J. R. Soc. Med. 2023, 116, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mustafa Alhussein, M.; Rabbani, M.; Sarak, B.; Dykstra, S.; Labib, D.; Flewitt, J.; Lydell, C.P.; Howarth, A.G.; Filipchuck, N.; Kealey, A.; et al. Natural History of Myocardial Injury After COVID-19 Vaccine–Associated Myocarditis. Can. J. Cardiol. 2022, 38, 1676–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Abbott, M.G.; Allawi, Z.; Hofer, M.; Ansorge, O.; Brady, S.; Fadic, R.; Torres, G.; Knight, R.; Calvo, M.; Bennett, D.L.H.; et al. Acute Small Fiber Neuropathy after Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S Vaccination: A Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature. J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. 2022, 27, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Khokhar, F.; Khan, A.; Hussain, Z.; Yu, J. Small Fiber Neuropathy Associated With the Moderna SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. Cureus 2022, 14, e25969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Frontera, J.A.; Tamborska, A.A.; Doheim, M.F.; Garcia-Azorin, D.; Gezegen, H.; Guekht, A.; Yusof Khan, A.H.K.; Santacatterina, M.; Sejvar, J.; Thakur, K.T.; et al. Neurological Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analysis of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Ann. Neurol. 2022, 91, 756–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ayoubkhani, D.; Bermingham, C.; Pouwels, K.B.; Glickman, M.; Nafilyan, V.; Zaccardi, F.; Khunti, K.; Alwan, N.A.; Walker, A.S. Trajectory of Long Covid Symptoms after COVID-19 Vaccination: Community Based Cohort Study. BMJ 2022, 377, e069676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Schwab, C.; Domke, L.M.; Hartmann, L.; Stenzinger, A.; Longerich, T.; Schirmacher, P. Autopsy-Based Histopathological Characterization of Myocarditis after Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Vaccination. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2023, 112, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rosenblum, H.G.; Gee, J.; Liu, R.; Marquez, P.L.; Zhang, B.; Strid, P.; Abara, W.E.; McNeil, M.M.; Myers, T.R.; Hause, A.M.; et al. Safety of MRNA Vaccines Administered during the Initial 6 Months of the US COVID-19 Vaccination Programme: An Observational Study of Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-Safe. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 802–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dickerman, B.A.; Madenci, A.L.; Gerlovin, H.; Kurgansky, K.E.; Wise, J.K.; Figueroa Muñiz, M.J.; Ferolito, B.R.; Gagnon, D.R.; Gaziano, J.M.; Cho, K.; et al. Comparative Safety of BNT162b2 and MRNA-1273 Vaccines in a Nationwide Cohort of US Veterans. JAMA Intern. Med. 2022, 182, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ponti, G.; Pastorino, L.; Manfredini, M.; Ozben, T.; Oliva, G.; Kaleci, S.; Iannella, R.; Tomasi, A. COVID-19 Spreading across World Correlates with C677T Allele of the Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (MTHFR) Gene Prevalence. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2021, 35, e23798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Carpenè, G.; Negrini, D.; Henry, B.M.; Montagnana, M.; Lippi, G. Homocysteine in Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Systematic Literature Review. Diagnosis 2022, 9, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ponti, G.; Roli, L.; Oliva, G.; Manfredini, M.; Trenti, T.; Kaleci, S.; Iannella, R.; Balzano, B.; Coppola, A.; Fiorentino, G.; et al. Homocysteine (Hcy) Assessment to Predict Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Study on 313 COVID-19 Patients. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2021, 59, e354–e357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Abu-Farha, M.; Al-Sabah, S.; Hammad, M.M.; Hebbar, P.; Channanath, A.M.; John, S.E.; Taher, I.; Almaeen, A.; Ghazy, A.; Mohammad, A.; et al. Prognostic Genetic Markers for Thrombosis in COVID-19 Patients: A Focused Analysis on D-Dimer, Homocysteine and Thromboembolism. Front Pharm. 2020, 11, 587451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Karst, M.; Hollenhorst, J.; Achenbach, J. Life-Threatening Course in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Is There a Link to Methylenetetrahydrofolic Acid Reductase (MTHFR) Polymorphism and Hyperhomocysteinemia? Med. Hypotheses 2020, 144, 110234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bruce Yu, Y.; Taraban, M.B.; Briggs, K.T. All Vials Are Not the Same: Potential Role of Vaccine Quality in Vaccine Adverse Reactions. Vaccine 2021, 39, 6565–6569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shrestha, N.K.; Burke, P.C.; Nowacki, A.S.; Simon, J.F.; Hagen, A.; Gordon, S.M. Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine. medRxiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hoffmann, M.A.; Wieler, H.J.; Enders, P.; Buchholz, H.-G.; Plachter, B. Age- and Sex-Graded Data Evaluation of Vaccination Reactions after Initial Injection of the BNT162b2 MRNA Vaccine in a Local Vaccination Center in Germany. Vaccines 2021, 9, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Aaby, P.; Benn, C.S.; Flanagan, K.L.; Klein, S.L.; Kollmann, T.R.; Lynn, D.J.; Shann, F. The Non-Specific and Sex-Differential Effects of Vaccines. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 20, 464–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Desai, A.P.; Desai, A.P.; Loomis, G.J. Relationship between Pre-Existing Allergies and Anaphylactic Reactions Post MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Administration. Vaccine 2021, 39, 4407–4409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lee, E.-J.; Beltrami-Moreira, M.; Al-Samkari, H.; Cuker, A.; DiRaimo, J.; Gernsheimer, T.; Kruse, A.; Kessler, C.; Kruse, C.; Leavitt, A.D.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and ITP in Patients with de Novo or Preexisting ITP. Blood 2022, 139, 1564–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Iddir, M.; Brito, A.; Dingeo, G.; Fernandez Del Campo, S.S.; Samouda, H.; La Frano, M.R.; Bohn, T. Strengthening the Immune System and Reducing Inflammation and Oxidative Stress through Diet and Nutrition: Considerations during the COVID-19 Crisis. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nakeshbandi, M.; Maini, R.; Daniel, P.; Rosengarten, S.; Parmar, P.; Wilson, C.; Kim, J.M.; Oommen, A.; Mecklenburg, M.; Salvani, J.; et al. The Impact of Obesity on COVID-19 Complications: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Obes. 2020, 44, 1832–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Apicella, M.; Campopiano, M.C.; Mantuano, M.; Mazoni, L.; Coppelli, A.; Del Prato, S. COVID-19 in People with Diabetes: Understanding the Reasons for Worse Outcomes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020, 8, 782–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Logette, E.; Lorin, C.; Favreau, C.; Oshurko, E.; Coggan, J.S.; Casalegno, F.; Sy, M.F.; Monney, C.; Bertschy, M.; Delattre, E.; et al. A Machine-Generated View of the Role of Blood Glucose Levels in the Severity of COVID-19. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 695139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Holt, E.M.; Steffen, L.M.; Moran, A.; Basu, S.; Steinberger, J.; Ross, J.A.; Hong, C.-P.; Sinaiko, A.R. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Its Relation to Markers of Inflammation and Oxidative Stress in Adolescents. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009, 109, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Cheng, Y.-C.; Sheen, J.-M.; Hu, W.L.; Hung, Y.-C. Polyphenols and Oxidative Stress in Atherosclerosis-Related Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2017, 2017, 8526438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Serino, A.; Salazar, G. Protective Role of Polyphenols against Vascular Inflammation, Aging and Cardiovascular Disease. Nutrients 2018, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Belkaid, Y.; Hand, T.W. Role of the Microbiota in Immunity and Inflammation. Cell 2014, 157, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Yeoh, Y.K.; Zuo, T.; Lui, G.C.-Y.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Q.; Li, A.Y.; Chung, A.C.; Cheung, C.P.; Tso, E.Y.; Fung, K.S.; et al. Gut Microbiota Composition Reflects Disease Severity and Dysfunctional Immune Responses in Patients with COVID-19. Gut 2021, 70, 698–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zuo, T.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, F.; Lui, G.; Tso, E.; Yeoh, Y.K.; Chen, Z.; Boon, S.; Chan, F.K.L.; Chan, P.; et al. Depicting SARS-CoV-2 Faecal Viral Activity in Association with Gut Microbiota Composition in Patients with COVID-19. Gut 2021, 70, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ferreira, C.; Viana, S.D.; Reis, F. Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis–Immune Hyperresponse–Inflammation Triad in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact of Pharmacological and Nutraceutical Approaches. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wang, C.; van Haperen, R.; Gutiérrez-Álvarez, J.; Li, W.; Okba, N.M.A.; Albulescu, I.; Widjaja, I.; van Dieren, B.; Fernandez-Delgado, R.; Sola, I.; et al. A Conserved Immunogenic and Vulnerable Site on the Coronavirus Spike Protein Delineated by Cross-Reactive Monoclonal Antibodies. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Li, F. Structure, Function, and Evolution of Coronavirus Spike Proteins. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2016, 3, 237–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Pollard, T.D. A Guide to Simple and Informative Binding Assays. Mol. Biol. Cell 2010, 21, 4061–4067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Baer, A.; Kehn-Hall, K. Viral Concentration Determination Through Plaque Assays: Using Traditional and Novel Overlay Systems. J. Vis. Exp. 2014, 52065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Puren, A.; Gerlach, J.L.; Weigl, B.H.; Kelso, D.M.; Domingo, G.J. Laboratory Operations, Specimen Processing, and Handling for Viral Load Testing and Surveillance. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 201 (Suppl. 1), S27–S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gillette, J.R. Problems in Correlating InVitro and InVivo Studies of Drug Metabolism. In Pharmacokinetics: A Modern View; Benet, L.Z., Levy, G., Ferraiolo, B.L., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; pp. 235–252. ISBN 978-1-4613-2799-8. [Google Scholar]
  121. Faraoni, D.; Schaefer, S.T. Randomized Controlled Trials vs. Observational Studies: Why Not Just Live Together? BMC Anesth. 2016, 16, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Islam, A.; Bashir, M.S.; Joyce, K.; Rashid, H.; Laher, I.; Elshazly, S. An Update on COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Syndrome and Some Management Recommendations. Molecules 2021, 26, 5004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Thomas, G.; Couture, F.; Kwiatkowska, A. The Path to Therapeutic Furin Inhibitors: From Yeast Pheromones to SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Cheng, Y.-W.; Chao, T.-L.; Li, C.-L.; Chiu, M.-F.; Kao, H.-C.; Wang, S.-H.; Pang, Y.-H.; Lin, C.-H.; Tsai, Y.-M.; Lee, W.-H.; et al. Furin Inhibitors Block SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Cleavage to Suppress Virus Production and Cytopathic Effects. Cell Rep. 2020, 33, 108254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wu, C.; Zheng, M.; Yang, Y.; Gu, X.; Yang, K.; Li, M.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Y.; et al. Furin: A Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19. iScience 2020, 23, 101642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Mykytyn, A.Z.; Breugem, T.I.; Riesebosch, S.; Schipper, D.; van den Doel, P.B.; Rottier, R.J.; Lamers, M.M.; Haagmans, B.L. SARS-CoV-2 Entry into Human Airway Organoids Is Serine Protease-Mediated and Facilitated by the Multibasic Cleavage Site. eLife 2021, 10, e64508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Rosendal, E.; Mihai, I.S.; Becker, M.; Das, D.; Frängsmyr, L.; Persson, B.D.; Rankin, G.D.; Gröning, R.; Trygg, J.; Forsell, M.; et al. Serine Protease Inhibitors Restrict Host Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infections. mBio 2022, 13, e0089222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Shulla, A.; Heald-Sargent, T.; Subramanya, G.; Zhao, J.; Perlman, S.; Gallagher, T. A Transmembrane Serine Protease Is Linked to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Receptor and Activates Virus Entry. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 873–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Lu, J.; Hou, Y.; Ge, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Hu, T.; Lv, Y.; He, H.; Wang, C. Screened Antipsychotic Drugs Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Binding with ACE2 in Vitro. Life Sci. 2021, 266, 118889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Su, S.; Chen, J.; Wang, Y.; Wong, L.M.; Zhu, Z.; Jiang, G.; Liu, P. Lenalidomide Downregulates ACE2 Protein Abundance to Alleviate Infection by SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Conditioned Pseudoviruses. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2021, 6, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ramadan, A.A.; Mayilsamy, K.; McGill, A.R.; Ghosh, A.; Giulianotti, M.A.; Donow, H.M.; Mohapatra, S.S.; Mohapatra, S.; Chandran, B.; Deschenes, R.J.; et al. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Palmitoylation Reduces Virus Infectivity. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rajpoot, S.; Ohishi, T.; Kumar, A.; Pan, Q.; Banerjee, S.; Zhang, K.Y.J.; Baig, M.S. A Novel Therapeutic Peptide Blocks SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Binding with Host Cell ACE2 Receptor. Drugs R&D 2021, 21, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kruse, K.B.; Brodsky, J.L.; McCracken, A.A. Autophagy: An ER Protein Quality Control Process. Autophagy 2006, 2, 135–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. De, R.; Dutta, S. Role of the Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of COVID-19. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 736397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Ramakrishnan, R.K.; Kashour, T.; Hamid, Q.; Halwani, R.; Tleyjeh, I.M. Unraveling the Mystery Surrounding Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 686029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Haran, J.P.; Bradley, E.; Zeamer, A.L.; Cincotta, L.; Salive, M.-C.; Dutta, P.; Mutaawe, S.; Anya, O.; Meza-Segura, M.; Moormann, A.M.; et al. Inflammation-Type Dysbiosis of the Oral Microbiome Associates with the Duration of COVID-19 Symptoms and Long COVID. JCI Insight 2021, 6, e152346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Proal, A.D.; VanElzakker, M.B. Long COVID or Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 698169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hazan, S.; Stollman, N.; Bozkurt, H.S.; Dave, S.; Papoutsis, A.J.; Daniels, J.; Barrows, B.D.; Quigley, E.M.; Borody, T.J. Lost Microbes of COVID-19: Bifidobacterium, Faecalibacterium Depletion and Decreased Microbiome Diversity Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Severity. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022, 9, e000871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Gutiérrez-Castrellón, P.; Gandara-Martí, T.; Abreu Y Abreu, A.T.; Nieto-Rufino, C.D.; López-Orduña, E.; Jiménez-Escobar, I.; Jiménez-Gutiérrez, C.; López-Velazquez, G.; Espadaler-Mazo, J. Probiotic Improves Symptomatic and Viral Clearance in Covid19 Outpatients: A Randomized, Quadruple-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Gut Microbes 2022, 14, 2018899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chen, Y.; Gu, S.; Chen, Y.; Lu, H.; Shi, D.; Guo, J.; Wu, W.-R.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, K.-J.; et al. Six-Month Follow-up of Gut Microbiota Richness in Patients with COVID-19. Gut 2022, 71, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zuo, T.; Wu, X.; Wen, W.; Lan, P. Gut Microbiome Alterations in COVID-19. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2021, 19, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hibino, S.; Hayashida, K. Modifiable Host Factors for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: Diet and Lifestyle/Diet and Lifestyle Factors in the Prevention of COVID-19. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Losso, J.N.; Losso, M.N.; Toc, M.; Inungu, J.N.; Finley, J.W. The Young Age and Plant-Based Diet Hypothesis for Low SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Pandemic in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2021, 76, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Brown, R.B. Low Dietary Sodium Potentially Mediates COVID-19 Prevention Associated with Whole-Food Plant-Based Diets. Br. J. Nutr. 2022, 129, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kim, H.; Rebholz, C.M.; Hegde, S.; LaFiura, C.; Raghavan, M.; Lloyd, J.F.; Cheng, S.; Seidelmann, S.B. Plant-Based Diets, Pescatarian Diets and COVID-19 Severity: A Population-Based Case–Control Study in Six Countries. BMJ Nutr. Prev. Health 2021, 4, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Benton, D.; Williams, C.; Brown, A. Impact of Consuming a Milk Drink Containing a Probiotic on Mood and Cognition. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. de Falco, B.; Amato, M.; Lanzotti, V. Chia Seeds Products: An Overview. Phytochem. Rev. 2017, 16, 745–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mao, Y.-H.; Xu, Y.; Song, F.; Wang, Z.-M.; Li, Y.-H.; Zhao, M.; He, F.; Tian, Z.; Yang, Y. Protective Effects of Konjac Glucomannan on Gut Microbiome with Antibiotic Perturbation in Mice. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022, 290, 119476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, W.; Song, G.; Zhong, P.; Ren, Y.; Zhong, G. Structural Complexity of Konjac Glucomannan and Its Derivatives Governs the Diversity and Outputs of Gut Microbiota. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022, 292, 119639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Thomas, R.; Aldous, J.; Forsyth, R.; Chater, A.; Williams, M. The Influence of a Blend of Probiotic Lactobacillus and Prebiotic Inulin on the Duration and Severity of Symptoms among Individuals with COVID-19. Infect. Dis. Diagn. Treat. 2021, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  151. Wastyk, H.C.; Fragiadakis, G.K.; Perelman, D.; Dahan, D.; Merrill, B.D.; Yu, F.B.; Topf, M.; Gonzalez, C.G.; Treuren, W.V.; Han, S.; et al. Gut-Microbiota-Targeted Diets Modulate Human Immune Status. Cell 2021, 184, 4137–4153.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Rossi, G.A.; Sacco, O.; Mancino, E.; Cristiani, L.; Midulla, F. Differences and Similarities between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: Spike Receptor-Binding Domain Recognition and Host Cell Infection with Support of Cellular Serine Proteases. Infection 2020, 48, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Petersen, E.; Koopmans, M.; Go, U.; Hamer, D.H.; Petrosillo, N.; Castelli, F.; Storgaard, M.; Khalili, S.A.; Simonsen, L. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV and Influenza Pandemics. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, e238–e244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hoffmann, M.; Kleine-Weber, H.; Pöhlmann, S. A Multibasic Cleavage Site in the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Is Essential for Infection of Human Lung Cells. Mol. Cell 2020, 78, 779–784.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Coutard, B.; Valle, C.; de Lamballerie, X.; Canard, B.; Seidah, N.G.; Decroly, E. The Spike Glycoprotein of the New Coronavirus 2019-NCoV Contains a Furin-like Cleavage Site Absent in CoV of the Same Clade. Antivir. Res. 2020, 176, 104742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Hoffmann, M.; Kleine-Weber, H.; Schroeder, S.; Krüger, N.; Herrler, T.; Erichsen, S.; Schiergens, T.S.; Herrler, G.; Wu, N.-H.; Nitsche, A.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell 2020, 181, 271–280.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Hansen, T.; Titze, U.; Kulamadayil-Heidenreich, N.S.A.; Glombitza, S.; Tebbe, J.J.; Röcken, C.; Schulz, B.; Weise, M.; Wilkens, L. First Case of Postmortem Study in a Patient Vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 107, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Polack, F.P.; Thomas, S.J.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S.; Perez, J.L.; Pérez Marc, G.; Moreira, E.D.; Zerbini, C.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 2603–2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Corbett, K.S.; Flynn, B.; Foulds, K.E.; Francica, J.R.; Boyoglu-Barnum, S.; Werner, A.P.; Flach, B.; O’Connell, S.; Bock, K.W.; Minai, M.; et al. Evaluation of the MRNA-1273 Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Nonhuman Primates. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1544–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Bos, R.; Rutten, L.; van der Lubbe, J.E.M.; Bakkers, M.J.G.; Hardenberg, G.; Wegmann, F.; Zuijdgeest, D.; de Wilde, A.H.; Koornneef, A.; Verwilligen, A.; et al. Ad26 Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Encoding a Prefusion-Stabilized SARS-CoV-2 Spike Immunogen Induces Potent Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses. Npj Vaccines 2020, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bangaru, S.; Ozorowski, G.; Turner, H.L.; Antanasijevic, A.; Huang, D.; Wang, X.; Torres, J.L.; Diedrich, J.K.; Tian, J.-H.; Portnoff, A.D.; et al. Structural Analysis of Full-Length SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein from an Advanced Vaccine Candidate. Science 2020, 370, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Pallesen, J.; Wang, N.; Corbett, K.S.; Wrapp, D.; Kirchdoerfer, R.N.; Turner, H.L.; Cottrell, C.A.; Becker, M.M.; Wang, L.; Shi, W.; et al. Immunogenicity and Structures of a Rationally Designed Prefusion MERS-CoV Spike Antigen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E7348–E7357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Watanabe, Y.; Mendonça, L.; Allen, E.R.; Howe, A.; Lee, M.; Allen, J.D.; Chawla, H.; Pulido, D.; Donnellan, F.; Davies, H.; et al. Native-like SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein Expressed by ChAdOx1 NCoV-19/AZD1222 Vaccine. ACS Cent. Sci. 2021, 7, 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Gao, Q.; Bao, L.; Mao, H.; Wang, L.; Xu, K.; Yang, M.; Li, Y.; Zhu, L.; Wang, N.; Lv, Z.; et al. Development of an Inactivated Vaccine Candidate for SARS-CoV-2. Science 2020, 369, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Lu, M.; Chamblee, M.; Zhang, Y.; Ye, C.; Dravid, P.; Park, J.-G.; Mahesh, K.; Trivedi, S.; Murthy, S.; Sharma, H.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Prefusion Spike Protein Stabilized by Six Rather than Two Prolines Is More Potent for Inducing Antibodies That Neutralize Viral Variants of Concern. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2110105119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Amanat, F.; Strohmeier, S.; Rathnasinghe, R.; Schotsaert, M.; Coughlan, L.; García-Sastre, A.; Krammer, F. Introduction of Two Prolines and Removal of the Polybasic Cleavage Site Lead to Higher Efficacy of a Recombinant Spike-Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in the Mouse Model. mBio 2021, 12, e02648-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Murza, A.; Dion, S.P.; Boudreault, P.-L.; Désilets, A.; Leduc, R.; Marsault, É. Inhibitors of Type II Transmembrane Serine Proteases in the Treatment of Diseases of the Respiratory Tract—A Review of Patent Literature. Expert. Opin. Pat. 2020, 30, 807–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rahman, N.; Basharat, Z.; Yousuf, M.; Castaldo, G.; Rastrelli, L.; Khan, H. Virtual Screening of Natural Products against Type II Transmembrane Serine Protease (TMPRSS2), the Priming Agent of Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Molecules 2020, 25, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Azouz, N.P.; Klingler, A.M.; Callahan, V.; Akhrymuk, I.V.; Elez, K.; Raich, L.; Henry, B.M.; Benoit, J.L.; Benoit, S.W.; Noé, F.; et al. Alpha 1 Antitrypsin Is an Inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2-Priming Protease TMPRSS2. Pathog. Immun. 2021, 6, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Longo, V.D.; Mattson, M.P. Fasting: Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Cell Metab. 2014, 19, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Bagherniya, M.; Butler, A.E.; Barreto, G.E.; Sahebkar, A. The Effect of Fasting or Calorie Restriction on Autophagy Induction: A Review of the Literature. Ageing Res. Rev. 2018, 47, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Brandhorst, S.; Longo, V.D. Protein Quantity and Source, Fasting-Mimicking Diets, and Longevity. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, S340–S350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Shuvayeva, G.; Bobak, Y.; Igumentseva, N.; Titone, R.; Morani, F.; Stasyk, O.; Isidoro, C. Single Amino Acid Arginine Deprivation Triggers Prosurvival Autophagic Response in Ovarian Carcinoma SKOV3. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 505041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Horne, B.D.; May, H.T.; Muhlestein, J.B.; Le, V.T.; Bair, T.L.; Knowlton, K.U.; Anderson, J.L. Association of Periodic Fasting with Lower Severity of COVID-19 Outcomes in the SARS-CoV-2 Prevaccine Era: An Observational Cohort from the INSPIRE Registry. BMJ Nutr. Prev. Health 2022, 5, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Nishimura, K.; Shiina, R.; Kashiwagi, K.; Igarashi, K. Decrease in Polyamines with Aging and Their Ingestion from Food and Drink. J. Biochem. 2006, 139, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Eisenberg, T.; Knauer, H.; Schauer, A.; Büttner, S.; Ruckenstuhl, C.; Carmona-Gutierrez, D.; Ring, J.; Schroeder, S.; Magnes, C.; Antonacci, L.; et al. Induction of Autophagy by Spermidine Promotes Longevity. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Summers, C.M.; Valentine, R.J. Acute Heat Exposure Alters Autophagy Signaling in C2C12 Myotubes. Front. Physiol. 2020, 10, 1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. McCormick, J.J.; Dokladny, K.; Moseley, P.L.; Kenny, G.P. Autophagy and Heat: A Potential Role for Heat Therapy to Improve Autophagic Function in Health and Disease. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 130, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. D’Arcy, M.S. A Review of Biologically Active Flavonoids as Inducers of Autophagy and Apoptosis in Neoplastic Cells and as Cytoprotective Agents in Non-Neoplastic Cells. Cell Biol. Int. 2022, 46, 1179–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Hasima, N.; Ozpolat, B. Regulation of Autophagy by Polyphenolic Compounds as a Potential Therapeutic Strategy for Cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2014, 5, e1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Lin, S.-R.; Fu, Y.-S.; Tsai, M.-J.; Cheng, H.; Weng, C.-F. Natural Compounds from Herbs That Can Potentially Execute as Autophagy Inducers for Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Pietrocola, F.; Malik, S.A.; Mariño, G.; Vacchelli, E.; Senovilla, L.; Chaba, K.; Niso-Santano, M.; Maiuri, M.C.; Madeo, F.; Kroemer, G. Coffee Induces Autophagy in Vivo. Cell Cycle 2014, 13, 1987–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Ferraresi, A.; Titone, R.; Follo, C.; Castiglioni, A.; Chiorino, G.; Dhanasekaran, D.N.; Isidoro, C. The Protein Restriction Mimetic Resveratrol Is an Autophagy Inducer Stronger than Amino Acid Starvation in Ovarian Cancer Cells. Mol. Carcinog. 2017, 56, 2681–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Lu, G.; Wu, Z.; Shang, J.; Xie, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhang, C. The Effects of Metformin on Autophagy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 137, 111286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Guo, J.; Nie, J.; Chen, Z.; Wang, X.; Hu, H.; Xu, J.; Lu, J.; Ma, L.; Ji, H.; Yuan, J.; et al. Cold Exposure-Induced Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Regulates Autophagy through the SIRT2/FoxO1 Signaling Pathway. J. Cell. Physiol. 2022, 237, 3960–3970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Yau, W.W.; Wong, K.A.; Zhou, J.; Thimmukonda, N.K.; Wu, Y.; Bay, B.-H.; Singh, B.K.; Yen, P.M. Chronic Cold Exposure Induces Autophagy to Promote Fatty Acid Oxidation, Mitochondrial Turnover, and Thermogenesis in Brown Adipose Tissue. iScience 2021, 24, 102434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Wang, Y.-C.; Zhang, S.; Du, T.-Y.; Wang, B.; Sun, X.-Q. Hyperbaric Oxygen Preconditioning Reduces Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury by Stimulating Autophagy in Neurocyte. Brain Res. 2010, 1323, 149–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Sun, P.; Xu, W.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, C.; Lin, X.; Gong, M.; Fu, Z. Ozone Induces Autophagy by Activating PPARγ/MTOR in Rat Chondrocytes Treated with IL-1β. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2022, 17, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Mojtabavi, H.; Saghazadeh, A.; Rezaei, N. Interleukin-6 and Severe COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Cytokine Netw. 2020, 31, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Kell, D.B.; Laubscher, G.J.; Pretorius, E. A Central Role for Amyloid Fibrin Microclots in Long COVID/PASC: Origins and Therapeutic Implications. Biochem. J. 2022, 479, 537–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Pretorius, E.; Vlok, M.; Venter, C.; Bezuidenhout, J.A.; Laubscher, G.J.; Steenkamp, J.; Kell, D.B. Persistent Clotting Protein Pathology in Long COVID/Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) Is Accompanied by Increased Levels of Antiplasmin. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2021, 20, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Pretorius, E.; Venter, C.; Laubscher, G.J.; Kotze, M.J.; Oladejo, S.O.; Watson, L.R.; Rajaratnam, K.; Watson, B.W.; Kell, D.B. Prevalence of Symptoms, Comorbidities, Fibrin Amyloid Microclots and Platelet Pathology in Individuals with Long COVID/Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2022, 21, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Chang, J.C.; Hawley, H.B. Vaccine-Associated Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis: Venous Endotheliopathy Leading to Venous Combined Micro-Macrothrombosis. Medicina 2021, 57, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Mainous, A.G.; Rooks, B.J.; Orlando, F.A. The Impact of Initial COVID-19 Episode Inflammation Among Adults on Mortality Within 12 Months Post-Hospital Discharge. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 891375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Aydınyılmaz, F.; Aksakal, E.; Pamukcu, H.E.; Aydemir, S.; Doğan, R.; Saraç, İ.; Aydın, S.Ş.; Kalkan, K.; Gülcü, O.; Tanboğa, İ.H. Significance of MPV, RDW and PDW with the Severity and Mortality of COVID-19 and Effects of Acetylsalicylic Acid Use. Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost. 2021, 27, 10760296211048808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Bianconi, V.; Violi, F.; Fallarino, F.; Pignatelli, P.; Sahebkar, A.; Pirro, M. Is Acetylsalicylic Acid a Safe and Potentially Useful Choice for Adult Patients with COVID-19 ? Drugs 2020, 80, 1383–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Clissold, S.P. Aspirin and Related Derivatives of Salicylic Acid. Drugs 1986, 32, 8–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Storstein, O.; Nitter-Hauge, S.; Enge, I. Thromboembolic Complications in Coronary Angiography: Prevention with Acetyl-Salicylic Acid. Acta Radiol. Diagn. 1977, 18, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Østerud, B.; Brox, J.H. The Clotting Time of Whole Blood in Plastic Tubes: The Influence of Exercise, Prostacyclin and Acetylsalicylic Acid. Thromb. Res. 1983, 29, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Fujita, M.; Nomura, K.; Hong, K.; Ito, Y.; Asada, A.; Nishimuro, S. Purification and Characterization of a Strong Fibrinolytic Enzyme (Nattokinase) in the Vegetable Cheese Natto, a Popular Soybean Fermented Food in Japan. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1993, 197, 1340–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Hsu, R.-L.; Lee, K.-T.; Wang, J.-H.; Lee, L.Y.-L.; Chen, R.P.-Y. Amyloid-Degrading Ability of Nattokinase from Bacillus Subtilis Natto. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Oba, M.; Rongduo, W.; Saito, A.; Okabayashi, T.; Yokota, T.; Yasuoka, J.; Sato, Y.; Nishifuji, K.; Wake, H.; Nibu, Y.; et al. Natto Extract, a Japanese Fermented Soybean Food, Directly Inhibits Viral Infections Including SARS-CoV-2 in Vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021, 570, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Tanikawa, T.; Kiba, Y.; Yu, J.; Hsu, K.; Chen, S.; Ishii, A.; Yokogawa, T.; Suzuki, R.; Inoue, Y.; Kitamura, M. Degradative Effect of Nattokinase on Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2. Molecules 2022, 27, 5405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Kurosawa, Y.; Nirengi, S.; Homma, T.; Esaki, K.; Ohta, M.; Clark, J.F.; Hamaoka, T. A Single-Dose of Oral Nattokinase Potentiates Thrombolysis and Anti-Coagulation Profiles. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Behera, P.; Patro, B.K.; Singh, A.K.; Chandanshive, P.D.; Ravikumar, S.R.; Pradhan, S.K.; Pentapati, S.S.K.; Batmanabane, G.; Mohapatra, P.R.; Padhy, B.M.; et al. Role of Ivermectin in the Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Healthcare Workers in India: A Matched Case-Control Study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Zaidi, A.K.; Dehgani-Mobaraki, P. The Mechanisms of Action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—An Extensive Review. J. Antibiot. 2022, 75, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Caly, L.; Druce, J.D.; Catton, M.G.; Jans, D.A.; Wagstaff, K.M. The FDA-Approved Drug Ivermectin Inhibits the Replication of SARS-CoV-2 in Vitro. Antivir. Res. 2020, 178, 104787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Bryant, A.; Lawrie, T.A.; Dowswell, T.; Fordham, E.J.; Mitchell, S.; Hill, S.R.; Tham, T.C. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. Am. J. Ther. 2021, 28, e434–e460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Kory, P.; Meduri, G.U.; Varon, J.; Iglesias, J.; Marik, P.E. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am. J. Ther. 2021, 28, e299–e318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Griesel, M.; Wagner, C.; Mikolajewska, A.; Stegemann, M.; Fichtner, F.; Metzendorf, M.-I.; Nair, A.A.; Daniel, J.; Fischer, A.-L.; Skoetz, N. Inhaled Corticosteroids for the Treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 3, CD015125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. van Paassen, J.; Vos, J.S.; Hoekstra, E.M.; Neumann, K.M.I.; Boot, P.C.; Arbous, S.M. Corticosteroid Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Clinical Outcomes. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Goel, N.; Goyal, N.; Nagaraja, R.; Kumar, R. Systemic Corticosteroids for Management of ‘Long-COVID’: An Evaluation after 3 Months of Treatment. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 2022, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Morán Blanco, J.I.; Alvarenga Bonilla, J.A.; Homma, S.; Suzuki, K.; Fremont-Smith, P.; Villar Gómez de las Heras, K. Antihistamines and Azithromycin as a Treatment for COVID-19 on Primary Health Care—A Retrospective Observational Study in Elderly Patients. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 67, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Pinto, M.D.; Lambert, N.; Downs, C.A.; Abrahim, H.; Hughes, T.D.; Rahmani, A.M.; Burton, C.W.; Chakraborty, R. Antihistamines for Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. J. Nurse Pract. 2022, 18, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Reznikov, L.R.; Norris, M.H.; Vashisht, R.; Bluhm, A.P.; Li, D.; Liao, Y.-S.J.; Brown, A.; Butte, A.J.; Ostrov, D.A. Identification of Antiviral Antihistamines for COVID-19 Repurposing. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021, 538, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Tantry, U.S.; Bliden, K.P.; Gurbel, P.A. Further Evidence for the Use of Aspirin in COVID-19. Int. J. Cardiol. 2022, 346, 107–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Choubey, A.; Dehury, B.; Kumar, S.; Medhi, B.; Mondal, P. Naltrexone a Potential Therapeutic Candidate for COVID-19. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 40, 963–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. O’Kelly, B.; Vidal, L.; McHugh, T.; Woo, J.; Avramovic, G.; Lambert, J.S. Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Naltrexone in a Long Covid Cohort; an Interventional Pre-Post Study. Brain. Behav. Immun. Health 2022, 24, 100485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Karatza, E.; Ismailos, G.; Karalis, V. Colchicine for the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients: Efficacy, Safety, and Model Informed Dosage Regimens. Xenobiotica 2021, 51, 643–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Chiu, L.; Lo, C.-H.; Shen, M.; Chiu, N.; Aggarwal, R.; Lee, J.; Choi, Y.-G.; Lam, H.; Prsic, E.H.; Chow, R.; et al. Colchicine Use in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Rabbani, A.B.; Parikh, R.V.; Rafique, A.M. Colchicine for the Treatment of Myocardial Injury in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)—An Old Drug With New Life? JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e2013556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Fiolet, A.T.L.; Opstal, T.S.J.; Mosterd, A.; Eikelboom, J.W.; Jolly, S.S.; Keech, A.C.; Kelly, P.; Tong, D.C.; Layland, J.; Nidorf, S.M.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Colchicine in Patients with Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 2765–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Ibrahim, S.; Lowe, J.R.; Bramante, C.T.; Shah, S.; Klatt, N.R.; Sherwood, N.; Aronne, L.; Puskarich, M.; Tamariz, L.; Palacio, A.; et al. Metformin and Covid-19: Focused Review of Mechanisms and Current Literature Suggesting Benefit. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 587801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Bramante, C.T.; Buse, J.B.; Liebovitz, D.M.; Nicklas, J.L.; Puskarich, M.A.; Cohen, K.; Belani, H.; Anderson, B.; Huling, J.D.; Tignanelli, C.J.; et al. Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 with Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine and the Development of Long Covid over 10-Month Follow-Up. medRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Barrea, L.; Verde, L.; Grant, W.B.; Frias-Toral, E.; Sarno, G.; Vetrani, C.; Ceriani, F.; Garcia-Velasquez, E.; Contreras-Briceño, J.; Savastano, S.; et al. Vitamin D: A Role Also in Long COVID-19? Nutrients 2022, 14, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Gönen, M.S.; Alaylıoğlu, M.; Durcan, E.; Özdemir, Y.; Şahin, S.; Konukoğlu, D.; Nohut, O.K.; Ürkmez, S.; Küçükece, B.; Balkan, İ.İ.; et al. Rapid and Effective Vitamin D Supplementation May Present Better Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Patients by Altering Serum INOS1, IL1B, IFNg, Cathelicidin-LL37, and ICAM1. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Vollbracht, C.; Kraft, K. Feasibility of Vitamin C in the Treatment of Post Viral Fatigue with Focus on Long COVID, Based on a Systematic Review of IV Vitamin C on Fatigue. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Vollbracht, C.; Kraft, K. Oxidative Stress and Hyper-Inflammation as Major Drivers of Severe COVID-19 and Long COVID: Implications for the Benefit of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C. Front. Pharm. 2022, 13, 899198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Tosato, M.; Calvani, R.; Picca, A.; Ciciarello, F.; Galluzzo, V.; Coelho-Júnior, H.J.; Di Giorgio, A.; Di Mario, C.; Gervasoni, J.; Gremese, E.; et al. Effects of L-Arginine Plus Vitamin C Supplementation on Physical Performance, Endothelial Function, and Persistent Fatigue in Adults with Long COVID: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Izzo, R.; Trimarco, V.; Mone, P.; Aloè, T.; Capra Marzani, M.; Diana, A.; Fazio, G.; Mallardo, M.; Maniscalco, M.; Marazzi, G.; et al. Combining L-Arginine with Vitamin C Improves Long-COVID Symptoms: The LINCOLN Survey. Pharm. Res. 2022, 183, 106360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Mangge, H.; Prueller, F.; Dawczynski, C.; Curcic, P.; Sloup, Z.; Holter, M.; Herrmann, M.; Meinitzer, A. Dramatic Decrease of Vitamin K2 Subtype Menaquinone-7 in COVID-19 Patients. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Debnath, U.; Dewaker, V.; Prabhakar, Y.S.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Mandal, A. Conformational Perturbation of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Using N-Acetyl Cysteine, a Molecular Scissor: A Probable Strategy to Combat COVID-19. ChemRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Shi, Z.; Puyo, C.A. N-Acetylcysteine to Combat COVID-19: An Evidence Review. Clin. Risk Manag. 2020, 16, 1047–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Wong, K.K.; Lee, S.W.H.; Kua, K.P. N-Acetylcysteine as Adjuvant Therapy for COVID-19—A Perspective on the Current State of the Evidence. J. Inflamm. Res. 2021, 14, 2993–3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Sengupta, P.; Dutta, S. N-Acetyl Cysteine as a Potential Regulator of SARS-CoV-2-Induced Male Reproductive Disruptions. Middle East Fertil. Soc. J. 2022, 27, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. Debnath, U.; Mitra, A.; Dewaker, V.; Prabhakar, Y.S.; Tadala, R.; Krishnan, K.; Wagh, P.; Velusamy, U.; Subramani, C.; Agarwal, S.; et al. N-Acetyl Cysteine: A Tool to Perturb SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Conformation. ChemRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Amin, A.N. The Role of Glutathione Deficiency and MSIDS Variables in Long COVID-19. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05371288 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  238. Guloyan, V.; Oganesian, B.; Baghdasaryan, N.; Yeh, C.; Singh, M.; Guilford, F.; Ting, Y.-S.; Venketaraman, V. Glutathione Supplementation as an Adjunctive Therapy in COVID-19. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Polonikov, A. Endogenous Deficiency of Glutathione as the Most Likely Cause of Serious Manifestations and Death in COVID-19 Patients. ACS Infect. Dis. 2020, 6, 1558–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Silvagno, F.; Vernone, A.; Pescarmona, G.P. The Role of Glutathione in Protecting against the Severe Inflammatory Response Triggered by COVID-19. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Cardinali, D.P.; Brown, G.M.; Pandi-Perumal, S.R. Possible Application of Melatonin in Long COVID. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Lan, S.-H.; Lee, H.-Z.; Chao, C.-M.; Chang, S.-P.; Lu, L.-C.; Lai, C.-C. Efficacy of Melatonin in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 2102–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Derosa, G.; Maffioli, P.; D’Angelo, A.; Di Pierro, F. A Role for Quercetin in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Phytother. Res. 2021, 35, 1230–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Tuli, H.; Sood, S.; Pundir, A.; Choudhary, D.; Dhama, K.; Kaur, G.; Seth, P.; Vashishth, A.; Kumar, P. Molecular Docking Studies of Apigenin, Kaempferol, and Quercetin as Potential Target against Spike Receptor Protein of SARS COV. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2022, 10, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Önal, H.; Arslan, B.; Üçüncü Ergun, N.; Topuz, Ş.; Yilmaz Semerci, S.; Kurnaz, M.E.; Molu, Y.M.; Bozkurt, M.A.; Süner, N.; Kocataş, A. Treatment of COVID-19 Patients with Quercetin: A Prospective, Single Center, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Turk. J. Biol. 2021, 45, 518–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. Pan, B.; Fang, S.; Zhang, J.; Pan, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, M.; Liu, L. Chinese Herbal Compounds against SARS-CoV-2: Puerarin and Quercetin Impair the Binding of Viral S-Protein to ACE2 Receptor. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 3518–3527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Manjunath, S.H.; Thimmulappa, R.K. Antiviral, Immunomodulatory, and Anticoagulant Effects of Quercetin and Its Derivatives: Potential Role in Prevention and Management of COVID-19. J. Pharm. Anal. 2022, 12, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Khan, A.; Iqtadar, S.; Mumtaz, S.U.; Heinrich, M.; Pascual-Figal, D.A.; Livingstone, S.; Abaidullah, S. Oral Co-Supplementation of Curcumin, Quercetin, and Vitamin D3 as an Adjuvant Therapy for Mild to Moderate Symptoms of COVID-19—Results From a Pilot Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Pharm. 2022, 13, 898062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. Ho, T.-Y.; Wu, S.-L.; Chen, J.-C.; Li, C.-C.; Hsiang, C.-Y. Emodin Blocks the SARS Coronavirus Spike Protein and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 Interaction. Antivir. Res. 2007, 74, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Maideen, N.M.P. Prophetic Medicine-Nigella Sativa (Black Cumin Seeds)—Potential Herb for COVID-19? J. Pharmacopunct. 2020, 23, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Rahman, M.T. Potential Benefits of Combination of Nigella Sativa and Zn Supplements to Treat COVID-19. J. Herb. Med. 2020, 23, 100382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Banerjee, A.; Kanwar, M.; Das Mohapatra, P.K.; Saso, L.; Nicoletti, M.; Maiti, S. Nigellidine (Nigella Sativa, Black-Cumin Seed) Docking to SARS CoV-2 Nsp3 and Host Inflammatory Proteins May Inhibit Viral Replication/Transcription and FAS-TNF Death Signal via TNFR ½ Blocking. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 36, 5817–5822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Giordo, R.; Zinellu, A.; Eid, A.H.; Pintus, G. Therapeutic Potential of Resveratrol in COVID-19-Associated Hemostatic Disorders. Molecules 2021, 26, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Pasquereau, S.; Nehme, Z.; Haidar Ahmad, S.; Daouad, F.; Van Assche, J.; Wallet, C.; Schwartz, C.; Rohr, O.; Morot-Bizot, S.; Herbein, G. Resveratrol Inhibits HcoV-229E and SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Replication In Vitro. Viruses 2021, 13, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  255. Ramdani, L.H.; Bachari, K. Potential Therapeutic Effects of Resveratrol against SARS-CoV-2. Acta Virol. 2020, 64, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. McCreary, M.R.; Schnell, P.M.; Rhoda, D.A. Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Proof-of-Concept Trial of Resveratrol for Outpatient Treatment of Mild Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 10978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Zahedipour, F.; Hosseini, S.A.; Sathyapalan, T.; Majeed, M.; Jamialahmadi, T.; Al-Rasadi, K.; Banach, M.; Sahebkar, A. Potential Effects of Curcumin in the Treatment of COVID-19 Infection. Phytother. Res. 2020, 34, 2911–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Suravajhala, R.; Parashar, A.; Malik, B.; Nagaraj, A.V.; Padmanaban, G.; Kishor, P.K.; Polavarapu, R.; Suravajhala, P. Comparative Docking Studies on Curcumin with COVID-19 Proteins. Preprints 2020, 2020050439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Jena, A.B.; Kanungo, N.; Nayak, V.; Chainy, G.B.N.; Dandapat, J. Catechin and Curcumin Interact with S Protein of SARS-CoV2 and ACE2 of Human Cell Membrane: Insights from Computational Studies. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Rattis, B.A.C.; Ramos, S.G.; Celes, M.R.N. Curcumin as a Potential Treatment for COVID-19. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Vahedian-Azimi, A.; Abbasifard, M.; Rahimi-Bashar, F.; Guest, P.C.; Majeed, M.; Mohammadi, A.; Banach, M.; Jamialahmadi, T.; Sahebkar, A. Effectiveness of Curcumin on Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Nutrients 2022, 14, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Abdelazeem, B.; Awad, A.K.; Elbadawy, M.A.; Manasrah, N.; Malik, B.; Yousaf, A.; Alqasem, S.; Banour, S.; Abdelmohsen, S.M. The Effects of Curcumin as Dietary Supplement for Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Drug Discov. Ther. 2022, 16, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Iotti, S.; Wolf, F.; Mazur, A.; Maier, J.A. The COVID-19 Pandemic: Is There a Role for Magnesium? Hypotheses and Perspectives. Magnes. Res. 2020, 33, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Tang, C.-F.; Ding, H.; Jiao, R.-Q.; Wu, X.-X.; Kong, L.-D. Possibility of Magnesium Supplementation for Supportive Treatment in Patients with COVID-19. Eur. J. Pharm. 2020, 886, 173546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Guerrero-Romero, F.; Mercado, M.; Rodriguez-Moran, M.; Ramírez-Renteria, C.; Martínez-Aguilar, G.; Marrero-Rodríguez, D.; Ferreira-Hermosillo, A.; Simental-Mendía, L.E.; Remba-Shapiro, I.; Gamboa-Gómez, C.I.; et al. Magnesium-to-Calcium Ratio and Mortality from COVID-19. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Tian, J.; Tang, L.; Liu, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Huang, W.; Liu, M. Populations in Low-Magnesium Areas Were Associated with Higher Risk of Infection in COVID-19′s Early Transmission: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in the United States. Nutrients 2022, 14, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Tabatabaeizadeh, S.-A. Zinc Supplementation and COVID-19 Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2022, 27, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Pal, A.; Squitti, R.; Picozza, M.; Pawar, A.; Rongioletti, M.; Dutta, A.K.; Sahoo, S.; Goswami, K.; Sharma, P.; Prasad, R. Zinc and COVID-19: Basis of Current Clinical Trials. Biol. Trace. Elem. Res. 2021, 199, 2882–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  269. Prasad, A.S.; Malysa, A.; Bepler, G.; Fribley, A.; Bao, B. The Mechanisms of Zinc Action as a Potent Anti-Viral Agent: The Clinical Therapeutic Implication in COVID-19. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Pedrosa, L.F.C.; Barros, A.N.A.B.; Leite-Lais, L. Nutritional Risk of Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc, and Selenium Deficiency on Risk and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19: A Narrative Review. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2022, 47, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Balboni, E.; Zagnoli, F.; Filippini, T.; Fairweather-Tait, S.J.; Vinceti, M. Zinc and Selenium Supplementation in COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment: A Systematic Review of the Experimental Studies. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2022, 71, 126956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Ma, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zeng, R.; Luo, D.; Jiang, R.; Wu, H.; Zhuo, Z.; Yang, Q.; Li, J.; Leung, F.W.; et al. Associations of Habitual Fish Oil Use with Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19-Related Outcomes in UK: National Population Based Cohort Study. medRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Merritt, R.J.; Bhardwaj, V.; Jami, M.M. Fish Oil and COVID-19 Thromboses. J. Vasc. Surg. Venous Lymphat. Disord. 2020, 8, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Torrinhas, R.S.; Calder, P.C.; Lemos, G.O.; Waitzberg, D.L. Parenteral Fish Oil: An Adjuvant Pharmacotherapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019? Nutrition 2021, 81, 110900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Theoharides, T.C.; Cholevas, C.; Polyzoidis, K.; Politis, A. Long-COVID Syndrome-associated Brain Fog and Chemofog: Luteolin to the Rescue. Biofactors 2021, 47, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Shadrack, D.M.; Deogratias, G.; Kiruri, L.W.; Onoka, I.; Vianney, J.-M.; Swai, H.; Nyandoro, S.S. Luteolin: A Blocker of SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Based on Relaxed Complex Scheme, Molecular Dynamics Simulation, and Metadynamics. J. Mol. Model 2021, 27, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. Theoharides, T.C. COVID-19, Pulmonary Mast Cells, Cytokine Storms, and Beneficial Actions of Luteolin. Biofactors 2020, 46, 306–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Di Stadio, A.; D’Ascanio, L.; Vaira, L.A.; Cantone, E.; De Luca, P.; Cingolani, C.; Motta, G.; De Riu, G.; Vitelli, F.; Spriano, G.; et al. Ultramicronized Palmitoylethanolamide and Luteolin Supplement Combined with Olfactory Training to Treat Post-COVID-19 Olfactory Impairment: A Multi-Center Double-Blinded Randomized Placebo- Controlled Clinical Trial. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2022, 20, 2001–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Masiello, P.; Novelli, M.; Beffy, P.; Menegazzi, M. Can Hypericum Perforatum (SJW) Prevent Cytokine Storm in COVID-19 Patients? Phytother. Res. 2020, 34, 1471–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  280. Mohamed, F.F.; Anhlan, D.; Schöfbänker, M.; Schreiber, A.; Classen, N.; Hensel, A.; Hempel, G.; Scholz, W.; Kühn, J.; Hrincius, E.R.; et al. Hypericum Perforatum and Its Ingredients Hypericin and Pseudohypericin Demonstrate an Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Verdoorn, B.P.; Evans, T.K.; Hanson, G.J.; Zhu, Y.; Langhi Prata, L.G.P.; Pignolo, R.J.; Atkinson, E.J.; Wissler-Gerdes, E.O.; Kuchel, G.A.; Mannick, J.B.; et al. Fisetin for COVID-19 in Skilled Nursing Facilities: Senolytic Trials in the COVID Era. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2021, 69, 3023–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Oladele, J.O.; Oyeleke, O.M.; Oladele, O.T.; Olowookere, B.D.; Oso, B.J.; Oladiji, A.T. Kolaviron (Kolaflavanone), Apigenin, Fisetin as Potential Coronavirus Inhibitors: In Silico Investigatio. Res. Sq. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Pandey, P.; Rane, J.S.; Chatterjee, A.; Kumar, A.; Khan, R.; Prakash, A.; Ray, S. Targeting SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein of COVID-19 with Naturally Occurring Phytochemicals: An in Silico Study for Drug Development. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2021, 39, 6306–6316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  284. Willyard, C. How Anti-Ageing Drugs Could Boost COVID Vaccines in Older People. Nature 2020, 586, 352–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Dey, D.; Dey, N.; Ghosh, S.; Chandrasekaran, N.; Mukherjee, A.; Thomas, J. Potential Combination Therapy Using Twenty Phytochemicals from Twenty Plants to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An in Silico Approach. Virusdisease 2021, 32, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Hawkins, J.; Hires, C.; Keenan, L.; Dunne, E. Aromatherapy Blend of Thyme, Orange, Clove Bud, and Frankincense Boosts Energy Levels in Post-COVID-19 Female Patients: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo Controlled Clinical Trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 2022, 67, 102823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Fajri, M. The Potential of Moringa Oleifera as Immune Booster against COVID 19. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 807, 022008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Bachar, S.C.; Mazumder, K.; Bachar, R.; Aktar, A.; Al Mahtab, M. A Review of Medicinal Plants with Antiviral Activity Available in Bangladesh and Mechanistic Insight Into Their Bioactive Metabolites on SARS-CoV-2, HIV and HBV. Front. Pharm. 2021, 12, 732891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Chaves, O.A.; Lima, C.R.; Fintelman-Rodrigues, N.; Sacramento, C.Q.; de Freitas, C.S.; Vazquez, L.; Temerozo, J.R.; Rocha, M.E.N.; Dias, S.S.G.; Carels, N.; et al. Agathisflavone, a Natural Biflavonoid That Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication by Targeting Its Proteases. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 222, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Janssens, J.; Laekeman, G.M.; Pieters, L.A.; Totte, J.; Herman, A.G.; Vlietinck, A.J. Nutmeg Oil: Identification and Quantitation of Its Most Active Constituents as Inhibitors of Platelet Aggregation. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1990, 29, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Le-Trilling, V.T.K.; Mennerich, D.; Schuler, C.; Sakson, R.; Lill, J.K.; Kasarla, S.S.; Kopczynski, D.; Loroch, S.; Flores-Martinez, Y.; Katschinski, B.; et al. Identification of Herbal Teas and Their Compounds Eliciting Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2 in Vitro. BMC Biol. 2022, 20, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Le-Trilling, V.T.K.; Mennerich, D.; Schuler, C.; Sakson, R.; Lill, J.K.; Kopczynski, D.; Loroch, S.; Flores-Martinez, Y.; Katschinski, B.; Wohlgemuth, K.; et al. Universally Available Herbal Teas Based on Sage and Perilla Elicit Potent Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern by HMOX-1 Upregulation in Human Cells. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Omoboyowa, D.A.; Balogun, T.A.; Chukwudozie, O.; Nweze, V.; Saibu, O.; Abdulahi, A. SARS-COV-2 Spike Glycoprotein as Inhibitory Target for Insilico Screening of Natural Compound. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021, 11, 14974–14985. [Google Scholar]
  294. Kumari, A.; Rajput, V.S.; Nagpal, P.; Kukrety, H.; Grover, S.; Grover, A. Dual Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Main Protease through a Repurposed Drug, Rutin. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 40, 4987–4999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Nagoor Meeran, M.F.; Seenipandi, A.; Javed, H.; Sharma, C.; Hashiesh, H.M.; Goyal, S.N.; Jha, N.K.; Ojha, S. Can Limonene Be a Possible Candidate for Evaluation as an Agent or Adjuvant against Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation in COVID-19? Heliyon 2021, 7, e05703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  296. Mohamed, M.E.; Tawfeek, N.; Elbaramawi, S.S.; Fikry, E. Agathis Robusta Bark Essential Oil Effectiveness against COVID-19: Chemical Composition, In Silico and In Vitro Approaches. Plants 2022, 11, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Ziyaei, K.; Ataie, Z.; Mokhtari, M.; Adrah, K.; Daneshmehr, M.A. An Insight to the Therapeutic Potential of Algae-Derived Sulfated Polysaccharides and Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: Focusing on the COVID-19. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 209, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  298. Sami, N.; Ahmad, R.; Fatma, T. Exploring Algae and Cyanobacteria as a Promising Natural Source of Antiviral Drug against SARS-CoV-2. Biomed. J. 2021, 44, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Tzachor, A.; Rozen, O.; Khatib, S.; Jensen, S.; Avni, D. Photosynthetically Controlled Spirulina, but Not Solar Spirulina, Inhibits TNF-α Secretion: Potential Implications for COVID-19-Related Cytokine Storm Therapy. Mar. Biotechnol. 2021, 23, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Kumar, A.; Singh, R.P.; Kumar, I.; Yadav, P.; Singh, S.K.; Kaushalendra; Singh, P.K.; Gupta, R.K.; Singh, S.M.; Kesawat, M.S.; et al. Algal Metabolites Can Be an Immune Booster against COVID-19 Pandemic. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  301. Tran, H.T.T.; Gigl, M.; Le, N.P.K.; Dawid, C.; Lamy, E. In Vitro Effect of Taraxacum Officinale Leaf Aqueous Extract on the Interaction between ACE2 Cell Surface Receptor and SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein D614 and Four Mutants. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Vavilova, V.P.; Vavilov, A.M.; Tsarkova, S.A.; Nesterova, O.L.; Kulyabina, A.A.; Yakhno, N.B.; Anisimova, A.V.; Vavilov, V.A.; Elkina, E.N.; Dobryak, T.A. One of the possibilities of optimizing the therapy of a new coronavirus infection in children with the inclusion of an extract from marshmallow root, chamomile flowers, horsetail grass, walnut leaves, yarrow grass, oak bark and dandelion grass: Prospective open comparative cohort study. Pediatr. Cons. Med. 2022, 4, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Lucas, K.; Ackermann, M.; Leifke, A.L.; Li, W.W.; Pöschl, U.; Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J. Ceylon Cinnamon and Its Major Compound Cinnamaldehyde Can Limit Overshooting Inflammatory Signaling and Angiogenesis in Vitro: Implications for COVID-19 Treatment. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Lucas, K.; Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J.; Oppitz, N.; Ackermann, M. Cinnamon and Hop Extracts as Potential Immunomodulators for Severe COVID-19 Cases. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 589783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  305. Zareie, A.; Soleimani, D.; Askari, G.; Jamialahmadi, T.; Guest, P.C.; Bagherniya, M.; Sahebkar, A. Cinnamon: A Promising Natural Product Against COVID-19. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021, 1327, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Yakhchali, M.; Taghipour, Z.; Mirabzadeh Ardakani, M.; Alizadeh Vaghasloo, M.; Vazirian, M.; Sadrai, S. Cinnamon and Its Possible Impact on COVID-19: The Viewpoint of Traditional and Conventional Medicine. Biomed. Pharm. 2021, 143, 112221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Musazadeh, V.; Karimi, A.; Bagheri, N.; Jafarzadeh, J.; Sanaie, S.; Vajdi, M.; Karimi, M.; Niazkar, H.R. The Favorable Impacts of Silibinin Polyphenols as Adjunctive Therapy in Reducing the Complications of COVID-19: A Review of Research Evidence and Underlying Mechanisms. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 154, 113593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  308. Speciale, A.; Muscarà, C.; Molonia, M.S.; Cimino, F.; Saija, A.; Giofrè, S.V. Silibinin as Potential Tool against SARS-Cov-2: In Silico Spike Receptor-Binding Domain and Main Protease Molecular Docking Analysis, and in Vitro Endothelial Protective Effects. Phytother. Res. 2021, 35, 4616–4625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Intharuksa, A.; Arunotayanun, W.; Yooin, W.; Sirisa-ard, P. A Comprehensive Review of Andrographis Paniculata (Burm. F.) Nees and Its Constituents as Potential Lead Compounds for COVID-19 Drug Discovery. Molecules 2022, 27, 4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Sa-Ngiamsuntorn, K.; Suksatu, A.; Pewkliang, Y.; Thongsri, P.; Kanjanasirirat, P.; Manopwisedjaroen, S.; Charoensutthivarakul, S.; Wongtrakoongate, P.; Pitiporn, S.; Chaopreecha, J.; et al. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activity of Andrographis Paniculata Extract and Its Major Component Andrographolide in Human Lung Epithelial Cells and Cytotoxicity Evaluation in Major Organ Cell Representatives. J. Nat. Prod. 2021, 84, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Murugan, N.A.; Pandian, C.J.; Jeyakanthan, J. Computational Investigation on Andrographis Paniculata Phytochemicals to Evaluate Their Potency against SARS-CoV-2 in Comparison to Known Antiviral Compounds in Drug Trials. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2021, 39, 4415–4426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Tanwettiyanont, J.; Piriyachananusorn, N.; Sangsoi, L.; Boonsong, B.; Sunpapoa, C.; Tanamatayarat, P.; Na-Ek, N.; Kanchanasurakit, S. Use of Andrographis Paniculata (Burm.f.) Wall. Ex Nees and Risk of Pneumonia in Hospitalised Patients with Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 947373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Ao, Z.; Chan, M.; Ouyang, M.J.; Olukitibi, T.A.; Mahmoudi, M.; Kobasa, D.; Yao, X. Identification and Evaluation of the Inhibitory Effect of Prunella Vulgaris Extract on SARS-Coronavirus 2 Virus Entry. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  314. Gomaa, A.A.; Abdel-Wadood, Y.A. The Potential of Glycyrrhizin and Licorice Extract in Combating COVID-19 and Associated Conditions. Phytomed. Plus 2021, 1, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. van de Sand, L.; Bormann, M.; Alt, M.; Schipper, L.; Heilingloh, C.S.; Steinmann, E.; Todt, D.; Dittmer, U.; Elsner, C.; Witzke, O.; et al. Glycyrrhizin Effectively Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication by Inhibiting the Viral Main Protease. Viruses 2021, 13, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  316. Diomede, L.; Beeg, M.; Gamba, A.; Fumagalli, O.; Gobbi, M.; Salmona, M. Can Antiviral Activity of Licorice Help Fight COVID-19 Infection? Biomolecules 2021, 11, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Gomaa, A. Evaluation of The Potential Therapeutic Effects of Licorice and Boswellia Serrata Gum in Egyptian Patients With COVID-19 as a Complementary Medicine. 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04487964 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  318. Ng, S.L.; Khaw, K.-Y.; Ong, Y.S.; Goh, H.P.; Kifli, N.; Teh, S.P.; Ming, L.C.; Kotra, V.; Goh, B.H. Licorice: A Potential Herb in Overcoming SARS-CoV-2 Infections. J. Evid. Based. Integr. Med. 2021, 26, 2515690X21996662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Yi, Y.; Li, J.; Lai, X.; Zhang, M.; Kuang, Y.; Bao, Y.-O.; Yu, R.; Hong, W.; Muturi, E.; Xue, H.; et al. Natural Triterpenoids from Licorice Potently Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Infection. J. Adv. Res. 2021, 36, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  320. Shakeeb, N.; Varkey, P.; Hynse, A.; Mandlecha, A. Anti-Inflammatory Response of Cardamom Extract and Prediction of Therapeutic Window in COVID-19 Patients by Assessing Inflammatory Markers Using RT-PCR. Inflammopharmacology 2022, 30, 883–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Vicidomini, C.; Roviello, V.; Roviello, G.N. Molecular Basis of the Therapeutical Potential of Clove (Syzygium Aromaticum L.) and Clues to Its Anti-COVID-19 Utility. Molecules 2021, 26, 1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Paidi, R.K.; Jana, M.; Raha, S.; McKay, M.; Sheinin, M.; Mishra, R.K.; Pahan, K. Eugenol, a Component of Holy Basil (Tulsi) and Common Spice Clove, Inhibits the Interaction Between SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1 and ACE2 to Induce Therapeutic Responses. J. Neuroimmune Pharm. 2021, 16, 743–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Truzzi, F.; Whittaker, A.; D’Amen, E.; Tibaldi, C.; Abate, A.; Valerii, M.C.; Spisni, E.; Dinelli, G. Wheat Germ Spermidine and Clove Eugenol in Combination Stimulate Autophagy In Vitro Showing Potential in Supporting the Immune System against Viral Infections. Molecules 2022, 27, 3425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Gomaa, A.A.; Abdel-Wadood, Y.A.; Gomaa, M.A. Glycyrrhizin and Boswellic Acids, the Golden Nutraceuticals: Multitargeting for Treatment of Mild–Moderate COVID-19 and Prevention of Post-COVID Cognitive Impairment. Inflammopharmacology 2022, 30, 1977–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  325. Li, Y.; Yang, D.; Gao, X.; Ju, M.; Fang, H.; Yan, Z.; Qu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, L.; Weng, H.; et al. Ginger Supplement Significantly Reduced Length of Hospital Stay in Individuals with COVID-19. Nutr. Metab. 2022, 19, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  326. Khubber, S.; Hashemifesharaki, R.; Mohammadi, M.; Gharibzahedi, S.M.T. Garlic (Allium Sativum L.): A Potential Unique Therapeutic Food Rich in Organosulfur and Flavonoid Compounds to Fight with COVID-19. Nutr. J. 2020, 19, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  327. Donma, M.M.; Donma, O. The Effects of Allium Sativum on Immunity within the Scope of COVID-19 Infection. Med. Hypotheses 2020, 144, 109934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Thuy, B.T.P.; My, T.T.A.; Hai, N.T.T.; Hieu, L.T.; Hoa, T.T.; Thi Phuong Loan, H.; Triet, N.T.; Anh, T.T.V.; Quy, P.T.; Tat, P.V.; et al. Investigation into SARS-CoV-2 Resistance of Compounds in Garlic Essential Oil. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 8312–8320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Fu, P.; Zhou, H.; Guo, X.; Zhu, C.; Tu, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, H.; Chen, Z. Effect of Garlic Essential Oil in 97 Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Multi-Center Experience. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 35, 1077–1082. [Google Scholar]
  330. Hammoudi Halat, D.; Krayem, M.; Khaled, S.; Younes, S. A Focused Insight into Thyme: Biological, Chemical, and Therapeutic Properties of an Indigenous Mediterranean Herb. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  331. Kulkarni, S.A.; Nagarajan, S.K.; Ramesh, V.; Palaniyandi, V.; Selvam, S.P.; Madhavan, T. Computational Evaluation of Major Components from Plant Essential Oils as Potent Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. J. Mol. Struct. 2020, 1221, 128823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Dilokthornsakul, W.; Kosiyaporn, R.; Wuttipongwaragon, R.; Dilokthornsakul, P. Potential Effects of Propolis and Honey in COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment: A Systematic Review of in Silico and Clinical Studies. J. Integr. Med. 2022, 20, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Berretta, A.A.; Silveira, M.A.D.; Cóndor Capcha, J.M.; De Jong, D. Propolis and Its Potential against SARS-CoV-2 Infection Mechanisms and COVID-19 Disease: Running Title: Propolis against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19. Biomed. Pharm. 2020, 131, 110622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Ali, A.M.; Kunugi, H. Propolis, Bee Honey, and Their Components Protect against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review of In Silico, In Vitro, and Clinical Studies. Molecules 2021, 26, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  335. Ripari, N.; Sartori, A.A.; da Silva Honorio, M.; Conte, F.L.; Tasca, K.I.; Santiago, K.B.; Sforcin, J.M. Propolis Antiviral and Immunomodulatory Activity: A Review and Perspectives for COVID-19 Treatment. J. Pharm. Pharm. 2021, 73, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Fiorini, A.C.; Scorza, C.A.; de Almeida, A.-C.G.; Fonseca, M.C.M.; Finsterer, J.; Fonseca, F.L.A.; Scorza, F.A. Antiviral Activity of Brazilian Green Propolis Extract against SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—Coronavirus 2) Infection: Case Report and Review. Clin. Sao Paulo 2021, 76, e2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Bachevski, D.; Damevska, K.; Simeonovski, V.; Dimova, M. Back to the Basics: Propolis and COVID-19. Derm. Ther. 2020, 33, e13780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Bako, A.T.; Pan, A.; Potter, T.; Tannous, J.; Johnson, C.; Baig, E.; Meeks, J.; Woo, D.; Vahidy, F.S. Contemporary Trends in the Nationwide Incidence of Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Stroke 2022, 53, e70–e74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. König, S.; Hohenstein, S.; Leiner, J.; Hindricks, G.; Meier-Hellmann, A.; Kuhlen, R.; Bollmann, A. National Mortality Data for Germany before and throughout the Pandemic: There Is an Excess Mortality Exceeding COVID-19-Attributed Fatalities. J. Infect. 2022, 84, 834–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  340. Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. Provisional Deaths and Excess Mortality in Canada Dashboard. Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2021028-eng.htm (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  341. Aaby, P.; Jensen, H.; Gomes, J.; Fernandes, M.; Lisse, I.M. The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine and Child Mortality in Rural Guinea-Bissau: An Observational Study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 33, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  342. Aldén, M.; Olofsson Falla, F.; Yang, D.; Barghouth, M.; Luan, C.; Rasmussen, M.; De Marinis, Y. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 11 01308 g001 550
Figure 1. The process of spike protein cleavage into S1 and S2 subunits and subsequent binding of the S1 receptor binding domain (RBD) to the angiotension converting enzyme2 (ACE2) receptor on host cells. Each of the different subprocesses present opportunities for interference in spike binding to ACE2, as well as a potential means of treating spike protein related pathology.
Figure 1. The process of spike protein cleavage into S1 and S2 subunits and subsequent binding of the S1 receptor binding domain (RBD) to the angiotension converting enzyme2 (ACE2) receptor on host cells. Each of the different subprocesses present opportunities for interference in spike binding to ACE2, as well as a potential means of treating spike protein related pathology.
Microorganisms 11 01308 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Halma, M.T.J.; Plothe, C.; Marik, P.; Lawrie, T.A. Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051308

AMA Style

Halma MTJ, Plothe C, Marik P, Lawrie TA. Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(5):1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051308

Chicago/Turabian Style

Halma, Matthew T. J., Christof Plothe, Paul Marik, and Theresa A. Lawrie. 2023. "Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology" Microorganisms 11, no. 5: 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051308

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop