Recent Updates in Experimental Research and Clinical Evaluation on Drugs for COVID-19 Treatment

Since the outbreak of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan (China) in December 2019, the epidemic has rapidly spread to many countries around the world, posing a huge threat to global public health. In response to the pandemic, a number of clinical studies have been initiated to evaluate the effect of various treatments against COVID-19, combining medical strategies and clinical trial data from around the globe. Herein, we summarize the clinical evaluation about the drugs mentioned in this review for COVID-19 treatment. This review discusses the recent data regarding the efficacy of various treatments in COVID-19 patients, to control and prevent the outbreak.


INTRODUCTION
The outbreak of corona virus disease 2019 , from Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019, has now become the first global pandemic caused by the spread of coronavirus. On February 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) gave a name for the novel coronavirus as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the coronavirus disease of 2019  caused by SARS-CoV-2 (Bevova et al., 2020). Most recently, several predominate SARS-CoV-2 variants, including, but not limited to, B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant, B.1.351 (beta) variant, P.1 (gamma), and B.1.617.2 (delta) variant, were first detected in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Brazil, and India, and became a novel global concern (Ong et al., 2021;Sanches et al., 2021). The SARS-CoV-2 variants have greater ability of virus infectivity and immune escape, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 variants may result in poor treatment efficacy and prognosis for COVID-19 patients. In the past few months, many research teams from around the world have been conducting in vitro and in vivo studies of the virus, seeking effective prevention and control measures to prevent its spread. China is relatively fast and effective in the control of epidemic. We are, therefore, able to comprehensively analyze common domestic treatment methods and combined domestic and foreign research to jointly explore effective treatment programs for COVID-19, to provide guidance for the second wave of the epidemic.
Herein, we summarize the clinical evaluation for COVID-19 treatment about the drugs mentioned in this review. Figure 1 depicts the overview of the organization of this review. Furthermore, we discuss recent representative progresses and considerations in the treatment for COVID-19, especially antimicrobials (antivirals and antibiotics/antibacterial), immunotherapy, and TCMs.

ANTIMICROBIALS Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine
As a widely used antimalarial and immunomodulatory drug, chloroquine (CQ) shows a broad-spectrum antiviral activity. Table 1 summarizes the clinical trials of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Some researchers indicated that CQ is effective against SARS-CoV-2 virus in early clinical studies (Huang et al., 2020c). Of note, chloroquine phosphate is undergoing some clinical trials regarding prophylactic use in health personnel (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04443270) and against infection by SARS-CoV-2 (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04344951). Evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study indicated that patients in CQ treatment group have shorter median time to achieve an undetectable viral RNA and shorter duration of fever; also, more importantly, no severe side effects were found during CQ treatment (Huang et al., 2020b). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an analog of CQ by replacing an ethyl group in CQ with a hydroxyethyl group (Zhou et al., 1878). Nowadays, ChiCTR conducts many clinical trials in China to examine the effectiveness and safety of CQ or HCQ against COVID-19 (Gao et al., 2020). A team from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University investigated the effects of HCQ among 62 patients suffering from COVID-19 (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2000029559). As a result, Chen et al. found that HCQ could significantly shorten time to clinical recovery (TTCR) and improve pneumonia.
However, the high-quality clinical data showing a clear and reliable benefit of CQ or HCQ remains limited. Also, the CQ or HCQ treatment could induce severe cardiac side effects, imped innate and adaptive antiviral immune responses, and cause some uncertain effects (Meyerowitz et al., 2020). Commonly, QT prolongation and torsade de Pointes (TdP) occur on patients who are administered with CQ or HCQ (Blignaut et al., 2019). Hence, before CQ and HCQ treatment, an initial cardiac evaluation is necessary for COVID-19 patients (Zhou W. et al., 2020). Also, several follow-up evaluations, such as regular ophthalmological examination and cardiac monitor, are suggested for patients with short-or long-term treatment (Knox and Owens, 1966). Thus, using CQ or HCQ as a  COVID-19 treatment was controversial, which results from their ocular, cardiac, and neuro toxicities (Oren et al., 2020;Zou et al., 2020). Additionally, the certainty of evidence is low.
Together, we would like to recommend monitoring the accumulative effect of long-term and/or high-dose CQ or HCQ in clinical settings. Also, researchers are not supposed

Lopinavir/ritonavir
Lopinavir/ritonavir tablets (brand name: Kaletra) are two structurally related protease inhibitors and works as antiretroviral agents (Cvetkovic and Goa, 2003). Table 2 summarizes the clinical trials of lopinavir/ritonavir on COVID-19 treatment. The mechanism of action of protease inhibitors is block cleavage in Gag and Gag-Pol, and result in producing immature and noninfectious virus particles (Adamson, 2012). Similar to CQ, lopinavir/ritonavir could act as potential antiviral agents against SARS in vitro and in patients with SARS infection (Chu et al., 2004). Also, lopinavir/ritonavir has favorable clinical outcome with the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) after MERS reported in 2012 (Mo and Fisher, 2016;Arabi et al., 2018). Evidence from randomized trials indicated that lopinavir/ritonavir might improve outcomes in severe and critical COVID-19 patients, but it may induce mortality (Verdugo-Paiva et al., 2020). Moreover, it is reported that lopinavir/ritonavir could only improve a minority of throat-swab nucleic acid results in hospitals . Also, Cao et al. revealed that no beneficial response or clinical improvement was observed after treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir in a randomized, controlled, open-label trial with 199 in hospital patients suffering from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, even though improvement was found for some secondary endpoints (Cao et al., 2020;Stower, 2020). Together, the response of COVID-19 patients with lopinavir/ ritonavir is not ideal and unfavorable. As the previous study showed, CQ had more potent effects to patients with COVID-19 than the use of lopinavir/ritonavir; hence, an ongoing clinical trial in China would like to access the effectiveness and safety of CQ and lopinavir/ritonavir for patients suffering from mild or general SARS-CoV-2 infection (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2000029741). Overall, available data on the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of lopinavir/ritonavir are still limited and investigational, thereby the clinical application of lopinavir/ ritonavir should be considered and monitored carefully.

Remdesivir
Remdesivir (GS-5734, brand name: Veklury), as a nucleotide analog prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug that acts on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and results in premature termination (Tchesnokov et al., 2019;Lamb, 2020). Table 3 shows the summary of clinical trials of remdesivir on COVID-19 treatment. As previously mentioned, Wang et al. showed that the EC 50 value of remdesivir is 1.76 μM in Vero E6 cells, which suggests that remdesivir has high effectiveness in the control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro . More importantly, the intravenous remdesivir was administrated to the patient who was the first case diagnosed as SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States (Holshue et al., 2020). No adverse effects were observed in association with the infusion; also, clinical benefits were found in patients. Another case demonstrated that remdesivir could accelerate recovery time by 4 days, which is a meaningful and optimistic progress for patients and medical systems (Jorgensen et al., 2020). Notably, remdesivir is FDA approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19. However, as more and more clinical cases were reported, the outcome of remdesivir treatment sometimes cannot achieve the expected effects on COVID-19 patients. Many researchers  carried out a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial; as a result, Wang et al. found that remdesivir is not associated with statistically significant clinical improvement, even though some patients in the remdesivir treatment group had numerically faster time to improve than those in the placebo group. More importantly, remdesivir treatment was discontinued early due to the adverse events, including, but not limited to, nausea, constipation, and respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress. Overall, the certainty of evidence remains less. Since   Nov. 2020, the WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.

Interferons
The interferons (IFNs) as glycoproteins have broad-spectrum antiviral effects (Lin and Young, 2014). The IFNs can be divided into three types based on the differences in the structures of their respective receptors. In detail, the IFNs are classified into type I IFNs (IFN-α/β), type II IFNs (IFN-γ), and type III IFNs (IFN-λ). Table 4 shows the summary of clinical trials of IFNs on COVID-19 treatment. Mantlo et al. (2020) demonstrated that IFN-α (EC 50 1.35 IU/ml) and IFN-β (EC 50 0.76 IU/ml) at clinically achievable concentrations could suppress the replication of SARC-CoV-2 in Vero cells. These findings provide a valuable fundamental for the potential use of IFN-α/β to against COVID-19. Zhou et al. accessed the efficacy of IFN-α2b and arbidol involving 77 hospitalized patients; as a result, researchers revealed that IFN-α2b with or without arbidol could significantly reduce the duration for detectable virus as well as the inflammatory markers (Zhou Q. et al., 2020). Usually, the IFNs are used in combination with other  antiviral therapies (Mantlo et al., 2020). Of note, a group from China examined the effectiveness and safety profile of a triple antiviral therapy including IFN-β1b, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin with 86 patients suffering from mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection (Hung et al., 2020). Their results showed that the triple combination treatment is superior to lopinavir/ritonavir treatment alone with shorter viral shedding duration and hospital stay period. However, some reports indicated that the application of IFN-λ have more advantages in COVID-19 treatment. The most outstanding profile of IFN-λ over IFN-α/β is the absence of proinflammatory effects (Prokunina-Olsson et al., 2020). This is because the response to IFN-λ administration localizes to epithelial cells, which could reduce side effects and inflammatory effects related to the systemic action from IFN-α/β treatment. Also, researchers showed that IFN-λ reduces the presence of virus in the lungs and prevents the induction of cytokine storm; hence, the application of IFN-λ could avoid pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (Andreakos and Tsiodras, 2020). Overall, IFN-λ is a promising and potential therapeutic agent for patients suffering from COVID-19. Notably, more clinical study is necessary in the future.

Umifenovir
Umifenovir (brand name: Arbidol, ARB) is an antiviral drug, which has the ability to inhibit the replication of influenza A and B virus through impeding the early membrane fusion event (Leneva et al., 2009). Table 5 indicates the summary of clinical trials of umifenovir for the treatment of COVID-19. Zhu et al. (2020) accessed the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ ritonavir and umifenovir involving 50 COVID-19 patients, 34 cases with lopinavir/ritonavir treatment, and 16 cases with umifenovir treatment. From the results, no side effects and developed pneumonia or ARDS were observed in both groups. More importantly, patients with umifenovir treatment have shorter duration of positive RNA test compared with those with lopinavir/ritonavir treatment; thus, the authors indicated that umifenovir may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir against COVID-19. Similarly, Deng et al. (2020) demonstrated that lopinavir/ritonavir combined with umifenovir had more favorable clinical outcomes compared with lopinavir/ritonavir only in a retrospective cohort study. Furthermore, Nojomi et al.
(2020) evaluated HCQ followed by lopinavir/ritonavir or HCQ followed by umifenovir among 100 patients with COVID-19. As a result, the researchers found that patients in the umifenovir group had shorter hospitalized duration and higher peripheral oxygen saturation rate, also had improvements in requiring ICU admissions, and chest CT involvement. Moreover, some studies showed that umifenovir was well-tolerated with mild gastrointestinal tract reaction and related to the lower mortality in COVID-19 cases (Jomah et al., 2020).
However, Lian et al. (2020) indicated that umifenovir is not relative to the improved response in non-ICU COVID-19

Azithromycin
Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic medication. Azithromycin binds to the 50S subunit of ribosome, and thereby prevents the mRNA translation and interferes with protein synthesis (Bakheit et al., 2014).

Antibacterial/antibiotic drugs
It has been reported that bacterial coinfection happened in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients (Sieswerda et al., 2021). In other words, the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have risk of bacterial infections. Sieswerda et al. (2021) recommended that the 5-day antibiotic therapy is required for the COVID-19 patients suffering with suspected bacterial respiratory infection after clinical improvements. However, their recommendation needs to be confirmed because unnecessary antibiotic treatment should be prevented. Also, some studies revealed that bacterial and fungal coinfection would occur in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, thereby the antimicrobial treatment regimen and stewardship interventions are necessary to control the exacerbating COVID-19 pandemic (Rawson et al., 2020). More importantly, antimicrobial resistance should be considered as the collateral effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and thus, proper trend for antibiotic stewardship interventions should be analyzed and prescribed in the emergency department (Pulia et al., 2020).

Monoclonal antibody
Tocilizumab Tocilizumab (TCZ, trade name: Actemra) is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody (Sheppard et al., 2017). TCZ is well-tolerated without significant abnormalities after long-term toxicity tests on animals (Gabay et al., 2013). For the mechanism of action, TCZ specially binds membrane-bound interleukin-6 receptor (mIL-6R) and soluble interleukin-6 receptor (sIL-6R) and inhibits signal transduction (Ibrahim et al., 2020). It has been reported that COVID-19 induces higher plasma levels of cytokines including, but not limited to, IL-6, IL-2, IL-7, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), IFN-γ-inducible protein, etc., in ICU patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (Chen N. et al., 2020;, which refers to a cytokine storm in patients. Furthermore, several studies indicated that TCZ treatment could return the temperature to normal quickly and improve the respiratory function through blocking IL-6 receptors Zhang et al., 2020).      . The results showed that TCZ cannot improve survival rate; it only reduced the possibility of progression to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death for the patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation. Currently, TCZ undergoes several phase III clinical trials (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04423042, NCT04356937, NCT04403685, etc.) to further understand the TCZ treatment as a supportive care option in alleviating the severe respiratory symptoms correlated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (Alzghari and Acuña, 2020). Overall, TCZ appears to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients to calm the inflammatory storm and to reduce mortality. Notably, the efficacy of TCZ is controversial and remains to be further determined.

Mepolizumab
Mepolizumab (brand name: Nucala) is a human monoclonal antibody medication used for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis, and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) (Mukherjee et al., 2014;Ennis et al., 2019). Mepolizumab binds to IL-5 and prevents it from binding to its receptor on the surface of eosinophil white blood cells. Notably, some experts recommended to continue the mepolizumab therapy in COVID-19 patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, but the concern is that eosinopenia, which may serve as a diagnostic indicator for COVID-19 disease, may be a risk factor for worse disease outcomes Du et al., 2020;Bousquet et al., 2021). In other words, it is a challenge to manage patients with severe eosinophilic asthma infected by SARS-CoV-2. Aksu et al. (2021) reported that no evidence of loss of asthma control was observed during mepolizumab therapy in a woman patient with asthma infected by SARS-CoV-2. In addition, Azim et al. (2021) observed the outcomes from four patients receiving mepolizumab treatment. The researchers found that all four patients had a further reduction in their eosinophil counts within the reference range at the presentation with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the underlying mechanism is not fully investigated, and subsequently recovered without any immediate evidence of long-term respiratory outcomes. Of note, one of four patients required hospitalization and ventilatory support. They thereby suggested that the mepolizumab therapy should be continued without any changed outcomes in the COVID-19 course. However, evidence from Eger et al. (2020) involved 634 severe asthma patients diagnosed with COVID-19 showed that patients with severe asthma receiving mepolizumab therapy have a more severe course of COVID-19 and an increasing risk of severity of COVID-19 compared with the general population. Overall, because the relevant data are limited, and the guideline is currently absent, maintaining or postponing mepolizumab treatment until the patient recovers from SARS-CoV-2 infection should be a case-by-case based decision for COVID-19 patients with severe asthma.

Sarilumab
Sarilumab (brand name: Kevzara) is a humanized monoclonal antibody against IL-6 receptor. In 2017, FDA approved sarilumab for rheumatoid arthritis treatment (Khiali et al., 2021). It has reported that severe COVID-19 disease is characterized by elevated serum levels of C reactive protein (CRP) and cytokines, including, but not limited to, IFN-γ, IL-8, and IL-6 (Conti et al., 2020;Mo et al., 2020;Qin et al., 2020). Hence, this result provides a clue that anti-IL-6 agents have the possibility against SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a retrospective case report involving 15 COVID-19 patients, early intervention with sarilumab could have clinical improvement with decreased   CRP level to patients with COVID-19 disease. More importantly, serum levels of CRP could be a potential biomarker for treatment response (Montesarchio et al., 2020). An open-label cohort study assessed the clinical outcome of sarilumab among 28 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 compared with 28 contemporary patients receiving standard of care alone (Della-Torre et al., 2020). The results indicated that no significant difference was observed between sarilumab and standard of care. Of note, the clinical improvement suggested that sarilumab is relative to faster recovery in a subset of patients showing minor lung consolidation at baseline. In addition, there are several ongoing clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of sarilumab either plus standard of care (Caballero Bermejo et al., 2020) or combined with corticosteroids (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357808) (Garcia-Vicuña et al., 2020) on COVID-19 disease. To date, the overall evaluation toward sarilumab on COVID-19 disease is much positive, which needs further tracking in the future.

Stem cell-based therapy
To date, most studies regarding stem-based therapy to SARS-CoV-2 infection have focused on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) (Choudhery and Harris, 2020). MSC-based therapy has the ability to suppress the cytokine storm by secreting anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptosis, and antifibrosis cytokines. Also, MSCs contribute to antibacterial activity, as well as tissue repair and regeneration (Sadeghi et al., 2020). Table 8 shows clinical trials of MSCs on COVID-19 treatment. For patients suffering from COVID-19, MSCs would repair damaged alveolar epithelial cells and blood vessels, and also prevent pulmonary fibrosis (Chen et al., 2018;Leeman et al., 2019;Zanoni et al., 2019;Afra and Matin, 2020;Li Z. et al., 2020;Golchin et al., 2020). Seven COVID-19 patients who received intravenous transplantation of MSCs had significantly improved pulmonary function in 2 days after transplantation (Leng et al., 2020). Notably, the increased peripheral lymphocytes and IL-10 level, decreased C-reactive protein (CRP) and TNF-α level, and disappeared overactivated cytokine-secreting immune cells were observed within 14 days after MSC injection. Interestingly, Jayaramayya et al. reported that MSC-derived exosomes (MSC-Exo) may be an option to improve the clinical response to COVID-19 patients (Jayaramayya et al., 2020). A phase I clinical trial investigated the use of MSC-Exo inhalation to alleviate COVID-19-induced symptoms (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04276987). Moreover, MSClike derivatives have acceptable safety and efficacy for COVID-19 treatment in preclinical and clinical studies (Li Z. et al., 2020). However, some limitations remain to be considered (Sadeghi et al., 2020). First, some patients with, including, but not limited to, a history of malignant tumor, coinfections of other respiratory viruses, and pregnant woman are not eligible to evolve in clinical trials. Most clinical trials worldwide remain in phase I and II, and    comprehensive results are not clear. Furthermore, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of MSC therapy alone when coadministration with other conventional drugs, such as remdesivir or dexamethasone, in many cases. Importantly, the standard therapeutic protocol, such as administration route, dosage, and transplantation frequency, needs to be determined. Nevertheless, the MSC profile on the immune system provides researchers evidence that it may be a good candidate as a combination therapy of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Overall, MSC-based therapy appears to be a potential and promising therapeutic method to overcome SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Convalescence plasma transfusion
Convalescent plasma treatment provides immediate immunity by passive polyclonal antibody administration (Mair-Jenkins et al., 2015). The efficacy of convalescent plasma transfusion may result from viremia suppression (Chen L. et al., 2020). It has reported that convalescent plasma treatment can be used to improve the survival rate on patients with severe acute respiratory syndromes of viral etiology (Mair-Jenkins et al., 2015). Several studies indicated that SARS patients who were treated with convalescent plasma had a shorter hospital stay and lower mortality than those who were not treated with convalescent plasma (Soo et al., 2004;Cheng et al., 2005;Lai, 2005). Table 9 shows the clinical trials of convalescent plasma transfusion on COVID-19 treatment. Based on the findings from recent studies, initiating treatment no later than 5 days may be the most appropriate (Woelfel et al., 2020;. Tiberghien et al. (2020) recommend that convalescent plasma administration at the early phases of the disease in patients at high risk of deleterious evolution may reduce the frequency of patient deterioration and, thereby, COVID-19 mortality. Also, close monitoring is necessary to detect any unintended side effects. However, a randomized trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04383535) evolved in 228 COVID-19 patients to evaluate the clinical status after convalescent plasma intervention was added to standard treatment (Simonovich et al., 2021). Unfortunately, no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or overall mortality between patients infused with convalescent plasma added to standard treatment and those who received standard treatment alone within 30 days. Similarly, an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2000029757) was performed in seven medical centers with 103 COVID-19 patients . The results showed that convalescent plasma therapy in addition to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Of note, it is known that other treatments, including antiviral drugs, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin, have the possibility to affect the relationship between convalescent plasma and antibody level (Luke et al., 2006). Thus, it is controversial whether it is worthwhile to examine the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma intervention against SARS-CoV-2 infection in further randomized clinical trials.

Vaccines
An efficacious vaccine is critical to prevent morbidity and mortality caused by COVID-19. There are four categories of COVID-19 vaccines under clinical evaluation, including wholepathogen vaccines (inactivated vaccines), subunit vaccines, and nucleic acid (DNA and mRNA) vaccines. However, defining and assessing an efficacious vaccine is complex. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, an efficacious vaccine could reduce the likelihood of an infection in an individual, severity of a disease in an individual, or the degree of transmission within a population (Hodgson et al., 2021). The comprehensive understanding of SARS-Cov-2 is unclear and evolving, thereby the outcomes for a COVID-19 vaccine are critically appraised with scientific rigor to understand their generalizability and clinical significance. Currently, three vaccines are authorized in the United States: Pfizer-BioNTech (Name: BNT162b2), Moderna (Name: mRNA-1273), and Johnson and Johnson/Janssen (Name: JNJ-78436735). Tables 10-12 summarize the clinical trials of these vaccines for the treatment of COVID-19. Of note, people under 12 years old are not eligible to receive vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, and people under 18 years old are not eligible to receive vaccines produced by Moderna and Johnson and Johnson/Janssen. Kamidani et al. (2021) indicated that children are supposed to have the opportunity to be included in clinical trials in parallel to ongoing adult phase III clinical trials. It is because the development of a pediatric COVID-19 vaccine could prevent disease and alleviate downstream effects including social isolation and interruption in education, thereby enabling children to reengage in their world. Considering the SARS-CoV-2 variants, evidence from Polack et al. (2020) proved that BNT162b2 is 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection. A 6 months of follow-up evaluation from Thomas et al. (2021) indicated that BNT162b2 has a favorable safety profile and effectively prevents COVID-19 for up to 6 months including the beta variant even though there is a gradual decline in effectiveness. Bernal et al. (Lopez Bernal et al., 2021) reported that the efficacy of the one-shot BNT162b2 vaccine is 30.7% among individuals with the delta variant, while the efficacy is 48.7% among individuals with the alpha variant. The efficacy of two shots of BNT162b2 vaccine is 88.0% among individuals with the delta variant, while the efficacy is 93.7% among individuals with the alpha variant. In other words, as CDC recommendation, vaccination against COVID-19 is the best way to stop the spread of these predominate COVID-19 strains.
Most recently, a COVID-19 vaccine booster emerged to help individuals build enough protection after vaccination. According to the information from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, https://www.cdc.gov), individuals who have received their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (produced by either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) for 8 months are eligible to get a booster shot. Currently, for individuals who got Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine, there is not enough data to support getting an mRNA vaccine dose.

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE
Xuebijing injection (XBJ) consists of Carthamus tinctorius L., Paeonia lactiflora Pall., Ligusticum striatum DC., Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge, and Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels (Shi et al., 2017). XBJ constructs a "drug-ingredient-target-pathway" effector network to exert its therapeutic effects on COVID-19 prevention and treatment . Guo et al. (2020) conducted a retrospective case-control study to determine the efficacy of XBJ on SARS-CoV-2 infection with 42 patients who received routine treatment combined with XBJ (observation group) and 16 patients who received routine treatment alone (control group). The results showed that patients in the observation group had a significant reduction in body temperature, improvement in CT imaging results, and shorter time in a negative nucleic acid test recovery relative to those in the control group. Also, improvement in IL-6 levels was found in the observation group compared with those in the control group, while TNF-α and IL-10 levels did not show significant differences between the two groups. In addition, 284 COVID-19 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of Lianhuaqingwen (LH) capsule (Hu et al., 2021). Compared with patients in the control group (received usual treatment alone), patients with usual treatment in combination with LH capsule treatment had higher recovery rate, shorter median time to symptom recovery, and higher rate of improvements in chest CT manifestations and clinical cure. Hence, both XBJ and LH capsules could be considered to ameliorate clinical symptoms of COVID-19. Moreover, Ni et al. reported that using Western medicine combined with Chinese traditional patent medicine Shuanghuanglian oral liquid (SHL) has expected therapeutic outcomes to COVID-19 patients, and thereby warrants further clinical trials (Ni et al., 2020b).

CONCLUDING REMARKS
For antimicrobial drugs, the acquired drug resistance should be considered and explored. The use of CQ and HCQ is controversial due to their toxicity and side effects. Moreover, lopinavir/ritonavir, umifenovir, and azithromycin appear to be promising therapeutic drugs even though some studies do not show ideal and unfavorable clinical outcomes on COVID-19 patients. The IFNs are usually used in addition to other antiviral drugs. Also, the application of IFN-λ have more advantages than other types of IFNs in COVID-19 treatment.
TCZ, an antibody, has the ability to improve clinical responses on COVID-19 patients by suppressing inflammatory storm and, thereby, reduces mortality cases. Mepolizumab, as an antibody medication for asthma, may increase the risk of severe COVID-19 and induce a more severe course of COVID-19, particularly for COVID-19 patients with severe asthma receiving mepolizumab therapy. Sarilumab, as an FDA-approved antibody medication for rheumatoid arthritis treatment, shows clinical improvement with decreased CRP level to patients with COVID-19 disease. Furthermore, stem cell-based therapy, especially MSCs, could improve clinical symptoms and repair tissue caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of note, the standard protocol of MSCs therapy needs to be determined. Additionally, COVID-19 patients who received convalescent plasma transfusion in addition to standard treatment shows no clinical differences compared with those who received standard treatment alone. Therefore, it is controversial whether it is worthwhile to assess the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma intervention against SARS-CoV-2 infection in further randomized clinical trials.
In addition, TCMs play a critical role in ameliorating and alleviating clinical symptoms on COVID-19 patients. Also, it is known that TCMs in combination with Western medicine is a potential therapeutic strategy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. To date, remdesivir is FDA approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19. Also, several vaccines are authorized and recommended in the United States and other countries. Most treatment regimens against the COVID-19 pandemic are controversial and remain under preclinical and clinical trials. Overall, more comprehensive information regarding each treatment regimen is uncertain and needs to be further explored.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

FUNDING
This work was partially supported by the Second Batch of Outstanding Young Medical Talents in Ganzhou City Health System (Jiangxi, China). The author (YY) thanks the support as a teaching fellow from Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. John's University (New York, United States).