ABSTRACT Chloroquine (CQ) and its analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were recently included in several clinical trials as potential prophylactic and therapeutic options for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. However, drug effectiveness in preventing, treating, or slowing the progression of the disease is still unknown. Despite some initial promising in vitro results, rigorous pre-clinical animal studies and randomized clinical trials have not been performed yet. On the other hand, while the potential effectiveness of CQ/HCQ is, at best, hypothetical, their side effects are factual and most worrisome, particularly when considering vulnerable groups of patients being treated with these drugs. in this comment, we briefly explain the possible mechanisms of action of CQ/HCQ for treating other diseases, possible actions against covid-19, and their potent side effects, in order to reinforce the necessity of evaluating the benefit-risk balance when widely prescribing these drugs for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. We conclude by strongly recommending against their indiscriminate use.

ABSTRACT Chloroquine (CQ) and its analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were recently included in several clinical trials as potential prophylactic and therapeutic options for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. However, drug effectiveness in preventing, treating, or slowing the progression of the disease is still unknown. Despite some initial promising in vitro results, rigorous pre-clinical animal studies and randomized clinical trials have not been performed yet. On the other hand, while the potential effectiveness of CQ/HCQ is, at best, hypothetical, their side effects are factual and most worrisome, particularly when considering vulnerable groups of patients being treated with these drugs. in this comment, we briefly explain the possible mechanisms of action of CQ/HCQ for treating other diseases, possible actions against covid-19, and their potent side effects, in order to reinforce the necessity of evaluating the benefit-risk balance when widely prescribing these drugs for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. We conclude by strongly recommending against their indiscriminate use.

Abstract Despite the successful clinical application of titanium (Ti) as a biomaterial, the exact cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for Ti osseointegration remains unclear, especially because of the limited methodological tools available in this field. Objective: In this study, we present a microscopic and molecular characterization of an oral implant osseointegration model using C57Bl/6 mice. Material and Methods: Forty-eight male wild-type mice received a Ti implant on the edentulous alveolar crest and the peri-implant sites were evaluated through microscopic (μCT, histological and birefringence) and molecular (RealTimePCRarray) analysis in different points in time after surgery (3, 7, 14 and 21 days). Results: The early stages of osseointegration were marked by an increased expression of growth factors and MSC markers. Subsequently, a provisional granulation tissue was formed, with high expression of VEGFb and earlier osteogenic markers (BMPs, ALP and Runx2). The immune/inflammatory phase was evidenced by an increased density of inflammatory cells, and high expression of cytokines (TNF, IL6, IL1) chemokines (CXCL3, CCL2, CCL5 and CXC3CL1) and chemokine receptors (CCR2 and CCR5). Also, iNOS expression remained low, while ARG1 was upregulated, indicating predominance of a M2-type response. At later points in time, the bone matrix density and volume were increased, in agreement with a high expression of Col1a1 and Col21a2. The remodelling process was marked by peaks of MMPs, RANKL and OPG expression at 14 days, and an increased density of osteoclasts. At 21 days, intimate Ti/bone contact was observed, with expression of final osteoblast differentiation markers (PHEX, SOST), as well as red spectrum collagen fibers. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a unique molecular view of oral osseointegration kinetics in C57Bl/6 mice, evidencing potential elements responsible for orchestrating cell migration, proliferation, ECM deposition and maturation, angiogenesis, bone formation and remodeling at the bone-implant interface in parallel with a novel microscopic analysis.

Previous studies demonstrate that the balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators determines the stable or progressive nature of periapical granulomas by modulating the balance of the osteoclastogenic factor RANKL and its antagonist OPG. However, the cytokine networks operating in the development of periapical lesions are quite more complex than what the simple pro- versus anti-inflammatory mediators' paradigm suggests. Here we simultaneously investigated the patterns of Th1, Th2, Th9, Th17, Th22, Thf, Tr1 and Tregs cytokines/markers expression in human periapical granulomas. Methods: The expression of TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-17A, IL23, IL21, IL-33, IL-10, IL-4, IL-9, IL-22, FOXp3 markers (via RealTimePCR array) was accessed in active/progressive (N=40) versus inactive/stable (N=70) periapical granulomas (as determined by RANKL/OPG expression ratio), and also to compare these samples with a panel of control specimens (N=26). A cluster analysis of 13 cytokine levels was performed to examine possible clustering between the cytokines in a total of 110 granulomas. Results: The expression of all target cytokines was higher in the granulomas than in control samples. TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-17A and IL-21 mRNA levels were significantly higher in active granulomas, while in inactive lesions the expression levels of IL-4, IL-9, IL-10, IL-22 and FOXp3 were higher than in active granulomas. Five clusters were identified in inactive lesion groups, being the variance in the expression levels of IL-17, IL-10, FOXp3, IFN-γ, IL-9, IL-33 and IL-4 statistically significant (KW p<0.05). Three clusters were identified in active lesions, being the variance in the expression levels of IL-22, IL-10, IFN-γ, IL-17, IL-33, FOXp3, IL-21 and RANKL statistically significant (KW p<0.05). Conclusion: There is a clear dichotomy in the profile of cytokine expression in inactive and active periapical lesions. While the widespread cytokine expression seems to be a feature of chronic lesions, hierarchical cluster analysis demonstrates the association of TNF-α, IL-21, IL-17 and IFN-γ with lesions activity, and the association of FOXP3, IL-10, IL-9, IL-4 and IL-22 with lesions inactivity.