While the COVID-19 pandemic advances, the scientific community struggles in the search for treatments. Several improvements have been made, including the discovery of clinical efficacy of chloroquine (CQ) in COVID-19 patients, but the effective treatment protocols are still missing. In order to find novel treatment options many scientists utilize the in silico approach to identify compounds that could interfere with the key molecules involved in entrance, replication, or dissemination of the SARS-CoV-2. However, most of the identified molecules are currently not available as pharmacological agents, and assessing their safety and efficacy could take many months. Here, we took a different approach based on the proposed pharmacodynamic model of CQ in COVID-19. The main mechanism of action responsible for the favourable outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with CQ seems to be related to pH modulation-mediated effect on the endolysosomal trafficking, a characteristic of chemical compounds often called lysosomotropic agents because of the physico-chemical properties that enable them to passively diffuse through the endosomal membrane and undergo protonation-based trapping in the lumen of the acidic vesicles. In this review, we discuss lysosomotropic and lysosome targeting drugs that are already in clinical use and are characterized by good safety profiles, low cost, and wide availability. We emphasize that some of these drugs, in particular azithromycin and other macrolide antibiotics, indomethacin and some other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and fluoxetine could provide additional therapeutic benefits in addition to the potential antiviral effect that still has to be confirmed by well-controlled clinical trials. As some of these drugs, mostly antibiotics, were already empirically used in the treatment of COVID-19, we encourage our colleagues all over the world to publish patient data so potential efficacy of these agents can be evaluated in the clinical context and rapidly implemented in the therapeutic protocols if the beneficial effect on clinical outcome is observed.

Introduction: The Pandemic of COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 motivated the scientific community to work together in order to gather, organize, process and distribute data on the novel biomedical hazard. Here, we analyzed how the scientific community responded to this challenge by quantifying distribution and availability patterns of the academic information related to COVID-19. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the information flow and scientific collaboration, two factors we believe to be critical for finding new solutions for the ongoing pandemic. Materials and methods: The RISmed R package, and a custom Python script were used to fetch metadata on articles indexed in PubMed and published on Rxiv preprint server. Scopus was manually searched and the metadata was exported in BibTex file. Publication rate and publication status, affiliation and author count per article, and submission-to-publication time were analysed in R. Biblioshiny application was used to create a world collaboration map. Results: Our preliminary data suggest that COVID-19 pandemic resulted in generation of a large amount of scientific data, and demonstrates potential problems regarding the information velocity, availability, and scientific collaboration in the early stages of the pandemic. More specifically, our results indicate precarious overload of the standard publication systems, significant problems with data availability and apparent deficient collaboration. Conclusion: In conclusion, we believe the scientific community could have used the data more efficiently in order to create proper foundations for finding new solutions for the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, we believe we can learn from this on the go and adopt open science principles and a more mindful approach to COVID-19-related data to accelerate the discovery of more efficient solutions. We take this opportunity to invite our colleagues to contribute to this global scientific collaboration by publishing their findings with maximal transparency.

Introduction: A large number of COVID-19 publications has created a need to collect all research-related material in practical and reliable centralized databases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functionality and quality of the compiled World Health Organisation COVID-19 database and compare it to Pubmed and Scopus. Methods: Article metadata for COVID-19 articles and articles on 8 specific topics related to COVID-19 was exported from the WHO global research database, Scopus and Pubmed. The analysis was conducted in R to investigate the number and overlapping of the articles between the databases and the missingness of values in the metadata. Results: The WHO database contains the largest number of COVID-19 related articles overall but retrieved the same number of articles on 8 specific topics as Scopus and Pubmed. Despite having the smallest number of exclusive articles overall, the highest number of exclusive articles on specific COVID-19 related topics was retrieved from the Scopus database. Further investigation revealed that PubMed and Scopus have more comprehensive structure than the WHO database, and less missing values in the categories searched by the information retrieval systems. Discussion: This study suggests that the WHO COVID-19 database, even though it is compiled from multiple databases, has a very simple and limited structure, and significant problems with data quality. As a consequence, relying on this database as a source of articles for systematic reviews or bibliometric analyses is undesirable.