A global treatments for coronaviruses including COVID-19

In late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, several patients with viral pneumonia were identified as 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). So far, there are no specific treatments for patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), and the treatments available today are based on previous experience with similar viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and Influenza virus. In this article, we have tried to reach a therapeutic window of drugs available to patients with COVID-19. Cathepsin L is required for entry of the 2019-nCoV virus into the cell as target teicoplanin inhibits virus replication. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE2) in soluble form as a recombinant protein can prevent the spread of coronavirus by restricting binding and entry. In patients with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine decreases the inflammatory response and cytokine storm, but overdose causes toxicity and mortality. Neuraminidase inhibitors such as oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir are invalid for 2019-nCoV and are not recommended for treatment but protease inhibitors such as lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) inhibit the progression of MERS-CoV disease and can be useful for patients of COVID-19 and, in combination with Arbidol, has a direct antiviral effect on early replication of SARS-CoV. Ribavirin reduces hemoglobin concentrations in respiratory patients, and remdesivir improves respiratory symptoms. Use of ribavirin in combination with LPV/r in patients with SARS-CoV reduces acute respiratory distress syndrome and mortality, which has a significant protective effect with the addition of corticosteroids. Favipiravir increases clinical recovery and reduces respiratory problems and has a stronger antiviral effect than LPV/r. currently, appropriate treatment for patients with COVID-19 is an ACE2 inhibitor and a clinical problem reducing agent such as favipiravir in addition to hydroxychloroquine and corticosteroids.     

Session-to-session variations in external load measures during small-sided games in professional soccer players

The aims of this study were 1) to analyse session-to-session variations in different external load measures and 2) to examine differences in within-session intervals across different small-sided game (SSG) formats in professional players. Twenty professional soccer players (mean ± SD; age 28.1 ± 4.6 years, height 176.7 ± 4.9 cm, body mass 72.0 ± 7.8 kg, and body fat 10.3 ± 3.8%) participated in 3v3, 4v4, and 6v6 SSGs under different conditions (i.e., touch limitations and presence of goalkeepers vs. free touch and ball possession drill) over three sessions. Selected external load measures—including total distance (TD), high-intensity running (HIR, distance covered > 14.4 km^.h^-1), high-speed running (HSR, distance covered > 19.8 km^.h^-1), and mechanical work (MW, accelerations and deceleration > 2.2 m^.s²)—were recorded using GPS technology during all SSG sessions. Small to large standardized typical errors were observed in session-to-session variations of selected measures across SSGs. TD^.min^-1 showed less variability, having a coefficient of variation (CV) of 2.2 to 4.6%, while all other selected external load measures had CV values ranging from 7.2% to 29.4%. Trivial differences were observed between intervals in TD^.min^-1 and HIR^.min^-1 for all SSGs, as well as in HSR^.min^-1 and MW^.min^-1 for most SSG formats. No reductions or incremental trends in session-to-session variations were observed when employing touch limitations or adding goalkeepers. The increased noise observed in higher speed zones (e.g., high-speed running) suggests a need for more controlled, running-based conditional drills if the aim is greater consistency in these measures.