The Playground

    Two antibiotics may have an antiviral effect against COVID-19


    Efficacy of Ceftazidime and Cefepime in the Management of COVID-19


    Efficacy of Ceftazidime and Cefepime in the Management of COVID-19 Patients: Single Center Report from Egypt
    The purpose of this study was to explore the value of using cefepime and ceftazidime in treating patients with COVID-19. A total of 370 (162 males) patients,…
    www.mdpi.com


    Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to explore the value of using cefepime and ceftazidime in treating patients with COVID-19. A total of 370 (162 males) patients, with RT-PCR-confirmed cases of COVID-19, were included in the study. Out of them, 260 patients were treated with cefepime or ceftazidime, with the addition of steroids to the treatment. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1: patients treated with cefepime (124 patients); Group 2: patients treated with ceftazidime (136 patients); Group 3 (control group): patients treated according to the WHO guidelines and the Egyptian COVID-19 management protocol (110 patients)/ Each group was classified into three age groups: 18–30, 31–60, and >60 years. The dose of either cefepime or ceftazidime was 1000 mg twice daily for five days. Eight milligrams of dexamethasone were used as the steroidal drug. Careful follow-ups for the patients were carried out. In vitro and in silico Mpro enzyme assays were performed to investigate the antiviral potential of both antibiotics. The mean recovery time for Group 1 was 12 days, for Group 2 was 13 days, and for Group 3 (control) was 19 days. No deaths were recorded, and all patients were recovered without any complications. For Group 1, the recovery time was 10, 12, and 16 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. For Group 2, the recovery time was 11, 13, and 15 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. For Group 3 (control), the recovery time was 15, 16, and 17 days for the age groups 18–30, 30–60, and >60 years, respectively. Both ceftazidime and cefepime showed very good inhibitory activity towards SARS CoV-2′s Mpro, with IC50 values of 1.81 µM and 8.53 µM, respectively. In conclusion, ceftazidime and cefepime are efficient for the management of moderate and severe cases of COVID-19 due to their potential anti-SARS CoV-2 activity and low side effects, and, hence, the currently used complex multidrug treatment protocol can be replaced by the simpler one proposed in this study.


    4. Discussion

    The third and fourth-generation cephalosporins have been successfully used as empirical antibiotics with hospital-acquired infections. Some of them, such as ceftazidime and cefepime, have shown outstanding outcomes with bacterial pneumonia [31,32].

    Herein, we investigated the efficacy of a short-duration glucocorticoid treatment in combination with ceftazidime or cefepime on COVID-19 patients with moderate or severe symptoms, proposing that both antibiotics will also act as antiviral agents besides their protective effect against co-infections and/or superinfections. Generally, the duration of steroid therapy during the treatment of COVID-19 patients ranges from 3 to 12 days [33].

    Our results demonstrated that the mean steroid therapy duration needed by the patients who used cefepime or ceftazidime was between 5 to 6 days. This indicates the satisfactory efficacy of cefepime or ceftazidime in treating COVID-19 patients and demonstrates the symptomatic improvement for moderate and severe patients on the 5th or 6th day after starting the treatment. Moreover, when ceftazidime was given in a dose of 1000 mg three times daily for five days, it was noticed that it reduced the duration of symptoms and recovery time in moderate and severe patients with minor adverse effects. Accordingly, this dose regimen can be used to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

    The previous reported mean duration of COVID-19 symptoms (recovery time) of moderate treated patients was 11.5 days. The symptoms usually vary according to age and sex [34,35].

    In this study, the patients used COVID-19 treatments for a period (recovery time) for an average of 10 to 16 days, according to age, which indicates the satisfactory efficacy of cefepime and ceftazidime in the treatment of COVID-19 cases.

    The age group (more than 60 years) had a recovery period longer than the age group (31–60 years), and the age group (31–60 years) had a recovery period longer than the age group (18–30 years). This indicates that the recovery time increases with an increasing age. The younger patients have a lower risk of developing into severe cases and recover from COVID-19 symptoms faster than older patients. This is also shown in other studies of Manash. et al. and David Gurwitz [36,37].

    The findings showed that using either ceftazidime or cefepime, in combination with steroids, for the treatment of moderate and severe COVID-19 cases resulted in recovery times equivalent to those seen with standard of care treatments (i.e., positive control). As a result, our proposed simple protocol, which consists of only two medications (dexamethasone + either ceftazidime or cefepime), will help patients more than the present complex protocol, which consists of at least seven treatments. Patients had more adverse effects from the current multi-drug therapy regimen, so the proposed simplified treatment plan with good outcomes will, of course, be more preferred, particularly for elderly patients.

    On the other hand, both antibiotics showed good inhibitory activity against SARS CoV-2′s MPro in vitro, where ceftazidime was significantly more active. Further structural and in silico analysis revealed that it could achieve more stable binding with the enzyme’s active site due to its extended isobutyric acid group. The structural and binding mode information provided in this investigation can be extended in the near future to develop more potent non-antibiotic ß-lactam-based SARS CoV-2′s MPro inhibitors. It is worth noting that ceftazidime has recently been shown to block the interaction between the SARS CoV-2′s spike protein (S-protein) and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) [32], and, hence, this interesting antibiotic can target multiple targets in SARS CoV-2, providing an excellent scaffold for the development of potent antiviral therapeutics.

    The main strengths of our present study are the following: (i) the relatively large sample that was used for the study (370 patients); (ii) the first study to demonstrate the efficacy of ceftazidime and cefepime in the management of severe and moderate COVID-19 cases; (iii) the first study to explore the potential of ceftazidime and cefepime as promising Mpro inhibitors; (iv) the outcomes of the study were equivalent to the currently used complex multidrug treatment protocol; (v) the use of in-depth in silico analysis to explore the mode of interaction of these antibiotics with Mpro.

    On the other hand, the main limitations of the present study were (i) its locality (i.e., it was a single-center study), and that (ii) it did not provide conclusive evidence of both antibiotics’ efficacy inside the patient’s body. It was difficult to monitor the viral load in the treated patients in order to come to more comprehensive conclusions on the efficacy of both antibiotics against the virus due to the work overload and exhaustion of hospital resources resulting from the timing of the study.

    5. Conclusions

    Drug repurposing may decrease the time and cost required for developing new drugs. The repurposing of ceftazidime and cefepime is highly effective for the symptomatic improvement of moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. Ceftazidime and cefepime have highly antiviral activity and are effective against various viruses, including SARS and MERS. Dual therapy by combining ceftazidime or cefepime with steroids is considered better than monotherapy with antibiotics or steroids. The recovery time increased with an increasing age. The younger patients have a lower risk of developing into severe cases and recover from COVID-19 symptoms faster than older patients.

    According to our findings that ceftazidime or cefepime can currently provide COVID-19 patients extra benefits, being good antiviral agents besides their outstanding antibacterial properties, our main recommendation is to combine these two cephalosporine antibiotics with steroids during the management of moderate and severe COVID-19 cases for better outcomes with minor side effects, instead of the currently used complex multidrug treatment protocol.

    Are you surprised?


    Covid Drugs May Work Well, but Our Health System Doesn’t


    Opinion | Covid Drugs May Work Well, but Our Health System Doesn’t
    The people who need treatments the most may be the least likely to get them.
    www.nytimes.com


    Vaccines are essential for creating widespread immunity against the coronavirus. But drugs that can treat Covid-19 are also critical to combat the pandemic. This is especially true for places where large numbers of people remain unvaccinated and unboosted. These individuals could benefit from treatment if they get sick. Others, like the immunocompromised, may need additional help to fight off the disease.


    Unfortunately, nearly every step of the pathway by which Americans might get these drugs seems designed to prevent it from happening (which makes vaccination even more crucial).


    To begin with, the therapies we have, though very helpful, are not ideal in some ways. A course of newer Covid-19 therapies requires a person to take 30 pills of Paxlovid or 40 pills of molnupiravir, a burden many could find difficult.


    While Paxlovid seems to reduce the chance of hospitalization and death from Covid by more than 85 percent, recent data show that molnupiravir doesn’t seem to work as well, perhaps reducing hospitalization and death from Covid by only 30 percent. There are also some concerns that molnupiravir, because of how it works, might lead to new variants.

    But having drugs, especially highly effective ones like Paxlovid, is critical. And for these medications to succeed they must be taken correctly. People need to start them within five days of an infection, and because of the deficiencies of our testing system and other problems in health care, beginning treatment that quickly is difficult.


    Let’s start with diagnosis. If you feel sick, you need a coronavirus test. A P.C.R. test most likely would take at least a day or two to return results, and that’s if you can find the test. An alternative would be to use an at-home antigen test. Like everything else, these tests become scarce when people need them most. The government is sending some to families free if they sign up on a website, but you can get only four per household at the moment.


    Any at-home tests beyond that cost money. The Biden administration has pledged to make insurance cover the costs (up to eight a month), but that promise often requires you to pay for them out of pocket and then get reimbursed later.


    And that’s if you have insurance. For those who don’t, the administration plans to make tests available at sites in underserved communities, but getting some requires people to know when they’re in and have the ability to pick them up. The uninsured will, very likely, have the most difficulty doing any of this.


    If you test positive, you can’t go straight to a pharmacy for the drug therapy like you did for the test. You need a prescription for the medication, which often requires a doctor’s visit. That presupposes that you have a doctor (many people don’t), and that there’s an appointment available. Before the pandemic, fewer than half of people in the United States could get a same-day or next-day appointment with their provider when they were sick.


    If you’re lucky enough to traverse this gantlet successfully, though, you now need to get your prescription filled. Most insurance will restrict where you can get your medications paid for, and it’s hit or miss whether that pharmacy will have pills in stock. If not, hopefully they’ll be in a few days later, but those are precious days.


    Too few people understand that much of the U.S. health care system is set up to make it harder for people to get care — an attempt to drive down overall health care spending. That’s why your insurance likely has higher deductibles than it used to, and more visits come with co-pays or coinsurance. But poorer people have a harder time covering these costs, so this worsens disparities and makes it harder for those who need help the most to get it.


    We see this play out with Covid-19 treatments. A recent study looked at how efficiently and effectively Medicare beneficiaries (all of whom were elderly) received monoclonal antibody therapy from 2020 to 2021 for Covid. It found that those at highest risk were the least likely to be treated, in large part because it was difficult to navigate these hurdles within the 10 days from infection that treatment requires.


    It doesn’t need to be this way. The government could continue to send everyone free antigen tests, as other countries do. Physicians could prescribe pill packs to high-risk individuals ahead of time, as is done with EpiPens, so that if they have a positive at-home test, they can start medication immediately. Pharmacists could be more empowered to talk to patients about whether the pills are safe for them and distribute pill packs without a prescription if patients qualify. Insurance companies could change their cost-sharing requirements so that sick people are incentivized to get care for serious illness, not avoid it.


    Making changes like these will not be easy. Before the pandemic, possible pregnancy was one of the few “conditions” that allowed for at-home testing and diagnosis. Such tests were heavily opposed by physicians and much of the rest of the health care system. Physician groups have also repeatedly fought empowering pharmacies to provide care. Even if we were willing to make changes, who would pay for them? Our fragmented multipayer system is ill equipped to think and act collectively.


    Some of these treatments, like the vaccines, can be lifesaving. They still might not improve things enough here in the United States. That’s not because the medications don’t work well, though. It’s because our health care system doesn’t.

    Quote from Fm1

    Vaccines have proven immensely effective against the virus, in children and teens as well as in adults. This is grounds for relief, and even celebratio

    What a nonsense in view of Omicron with more vaxx in hospital than unvaxx... Long CoV among kids is refuted since a long time. It simply does not exist at all. Why did non infected kids in average show more long CoV symptoms than infected ????

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What a nonsense in view of Omicron with more vaxx in hospital than unvaxx... Long CoV among kids is refuted since a long time. It simply does not exist at all. Why did non infected kids in average show more long CoV symptoms than infected ????

    As the pandemic winds down, western media is finally reporting what has been reported here long ago. But it is finally being reported in mainstream media to the masses. it will be interesting to see how they pass judgement when all is said and done

    Oh yes magician, the only sensible reasons is SKam.


    Here you can learn how today's data is fake by official statistics and serious medical statistics.


    DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT - NICD
    DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT (Jul-Dec 2021) NICD COVID-19 SURVEILLANCE IN SELECTED HOSPITALS (30 nov…
    www.nicd.ac.za

    This link shows CoV-19 patient under treatment and their death rate that now is below 200/week.


    But then you have the RSA state page ::: https://sacoronavirus.co.za/20…-monday-14-february-2022/



    here you get absurd high death numbers totally unrelated to cases... This also goes into worldometers. So this basically confirms that almost all deaths in most countries now are with Omicron and not from Omicron.


    Thus starting from now simply ignore official death data and try to get real treatment data. The official factor is 5x wrong in the RSA case...

    Current lateral flow tests as supplied (free) in the UK never did work well for Covid, often showing false negatives. This situation is even worse for Omicron. I know 4 people who are sure they have had Omicron but never got a clear positive using LF but in 2 cases got a positive using PCR.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What a nonsense in view of Omicron with more vaxx in hospital than unvaxx...

    That is not true in the U.S., but perhaps it is true in some other places because of the base rate fallacy. Apparently you are incapable of understanding that. It isn't complicated. To take the extreme example, in a location where 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of hospitalized cases will be vaccinated. However, the total number of hospitalized people will be far lower than a location where no one is vaccinated.

    Quote from Fm1

    As the pandemic winds down, western media is finally reporting what has been reported here long ago. But it is finally being reported in mainstream media to the masses. it will be interesting to see how they pass judgement when all is said and done

    Do you maybe have an example? I am still living on a different planet.


    Living in AT, today I received a letter from the government informing me about the compulsory vaxx. law arguing how safe the vaccines are, how important it is to get the shot to safe me and others (be solidaric!) and in the end to give me BACK my individual freedoms, if I decide to get vaxx. orherwise I will get a fine.


    Very nice thanks! I will keep this letter and then we compare the facts in one year (or less) from now!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is not true in the U.S., but perhaps it is true in some other places

    USA is the fattest country in the world. Even Omicron now a normal corona virus with no more CoV-19 symptoms causes some deaths in fat diabetes II high blood pressure folks. Same as what the classic corona virus would do.

    The negative 2xx vaccine effect is only clearly visible for age groups < 30 and 60+.


    Much more disturbing is that today > 80% of all deaths attributed to CoV-19 for 1000% did not die from CoV-19. The fake coefficient just did explode. We know that not even in big California no people with Omicron are ventilated. All for other reasons! Same here and in RSA!


    There is only one thi9ng to do:: Stop all measures and go on with a normal live. Omicron kills nobody that would not also die from the classic corona virus or from flu.


    I already said it about 6 months ago:: Do not take Pfizer booster else you will have to take them every 3-5 month for not from a simple corona virus... Pfizer is not a vaccine. Its a chemo and you will respond the same way as you do following a chemo.

    Perhaps actual facts are starting to come out...

    yet some here will shout this as damn anti-vaxxer rhetoric for sure! :/


    ....found that patients with vitamin D deficiency were 14 times more likely to have a severe or critical case of COVID-19.


    Mortality among patients with sufficient vitamin D levels was 2.3%, compared with 25.6% in the deficient group.


    This information has been posted here for two years... yet by a couple at least... has been cast as anti-vaxxer, anti-science, unfounded, death cult member misinformation.


    20% reduction!!! How many lives would have been saved the past 2 years if high dose vitamin D (and it will eventually come out ivermectin as well) had been pushed as hard as:


    1) masks ... of which 90% that were used were cloth, under the nose, etc. etc. had virtually ZERO affect and are STILL being forced on students today..... talk about unscientific misinformation.


    2) Outdoor closure of parks etc.... totally absent of scientific backing and ZERO affect.


    3) 6 foot indoor distancing at Walmarts.... if anyone here even attempts to defend this, I am sorry, they are ignorant...


    however, readily available, inexpensive, NO RISK vitamin D could reduce mortality by 14x and not a peep from official mainstream medical or media..... as also clearly shown by the resistance to vit D by at least 2 members here is ...


    simply criminal.


    Severe, critical COVID-19 cases more likely in vitamin D-deficient people: study
    People who have a vitamin D deficiency are more likely to have a severe or fatal case of COVID-19, researchers said.
    www.foxnews.com


    (while this study was done in Israel, I am sure at least one person here will simply dismiss it without reading because of the reporting source..... X/ and "just because they did not read it... does NOT make it false!" :S )

    Quote from Bob#2

    however, readily available, inexpensive, NO RISK vitamin D could reduce mortality by 14x and not a peep from official mainstream medical or media.....

    VD-3 is actively suppressed in the media since more than 10 years now. Many fake studies have been constructed and sold this purpose. VD-3 is to cheap and curbs up general health what curbs down big pharma revenue.


    Big Pharma is not here to help you. At least since 30 years you are the fruit they like to suck out. This can be best done if you are or feel really sick and beg for ... oh yes a fake vaccine....

    OK - it surprises me a bit that W is still making, with no apparent shame, elementary statistical mistakes that have been corrected.


    Guys - if you expect him to deliver anything of interest to LENR can I suggest that you take this is a big red flag. He is persistently getting basic maths wrong.


    I don't think he is doing this deliberately? Rather he has some cognitive flaw which prevents him from seeing errors in his own work, even when they are pointed out.


    Here he is using whole age range figures on deaths, and numbers vaccinated/unvaccinated, to infer how protective vaccination is.


    That is not possible.


    You have the vulnerable gets vaccinated effect. In this case an 80 year old is 1000 X (not an exact figure) more vulnerable than a 20 years old. And, 80 year old will be probably 90% vaccinated or more, 20 year old will be maybe 10% vaccinated.


    If vaccination had no effect (from these sample figures) you can see that those vaccinated would be mainly those also very vulnerable, and therefore vaccinated deaths much more common then unvaccinated.


    It beggars belief that W does not know of this effect.


    We have posted a whole set of blogs on it - Age confounding of COVID data as an example of Simpson's Paradox. It underlies 90% of the antivaxxer non-science.


    The question I'd like those who think W's contribution on any topic could be trusted is why he ignores this? Repeatedly. When it has been pointed out in detail.


    Simpson's paradox strikes again: Refuting reports vaxxed have 5x case fatality rate than unvaxxed
    I have seen a lot of people obsessing with Table 5 of the August report put out the UK Public Health England focusing on the Delta variant In Table 5 on page…
    www.covid-datascience.com



    If his reaction to this post is anything other than to agree this point and admit his error here - it proves my point! Beware.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.