A mixture of essential oils from three Cretan Aromatic Plants (thyme, Greek sage and Cretan dittany, CAPeo) inhibits SASR-CoV-2 proliferation: in vitro evidence and a Proof-of-Concept intervention study in mild ambulatory COVID-19-positive patients

CAPeo production and use

Spanish oregano (Coridothymus capitatus (L) Rchb. F. synonym of Thymbra capitata (L) Cav.), dictamnus or Cretan dittany (Origanum dictamnus L) and sage (Salvia fruticosa Mill., Salvia pomifera L., were cultivated under total Good Agricultural Practice and high precision agriculture, based on an Ecological Niche Modelling tool, we have recently developed (Bariotakis et al., 2019), in order to maximize their essential oil composition and content. A constant genotype of plants, specified by a barcoding of each batch, was used. Essential oils were prepared by steam distillation of the dried plant leaves, under GMP conditions. The final extract, contained 4 parts Corydothymus Capitatus (L) extract, 2 parts Salvia Fruticosa Mill. extract and 1 part Origanum Dictsmnus L extract. It was analyzed by Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectroscopy (GC–MS), in a Shimadzu, QP 5050A apparatus. The mixture of essential oils contains carvacrol (53%) eucalyptol (13%) and β-Caryophyllene (3%). Concentrations of the compounds p-Cymene, γ-Terpinene, Borneol and α-Terpineol were 1.32, 1.17, 1.68 and 1.06% respectively, while the concentrations of the remaining 15 compounds were less than 1%. For the complete analysis of compounds, please refer to previous reports (Duijker et al., 2015;Kalyvianaki et al., 2020). These concentrations refer to the stock essential oil mixture, while a concentration of 1.5% in DMSO (Sigma-Aldrich) was used in the present study. This refers to the dilution 1/1, mimicking the suggested daily dose of the CAPeo extract in humans (1 ml of a 1.5% of CAPeo in olive oil, for the management of upper respiratory tract infections (Duijker et al., 2015;Anastasaki et al., 2017)). As the pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of CAPeo are under investigation, we have used bibliography data, suggesting a variable absorption of phenolic compounds ranging from 27 to 0.0006% and a blood recovery ≤1% for the majority of compounds (Scalbert et al., 2002;Manach et al., 2005). Therefore, to mimic available concentrations in humans, different dilutions (1:10, 1:100 and 1:1000 of the clinically administered concentration -15 mL extract/L, 1 mL/day-) in DMSO) were used in the present study. The same concentrations were used in a previous study, to determine the protective and therapeutic effect of CAPeo in cells infected with other upper respiratory viruses (Tseliou et al., 2019).

Virus and virus titration

SARS -CoV-2 (isolate 30-287) was obtained through culture in Vero E6 cells, from an infected patient, in Alexandroupolis, Greece. Virus stock was prepared by infecting fully confluent Vero E6 cells in DMEM, 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), with antibiotics at 37°C, 5% CO₂. Four days after inoculation, the supernatant was frozen at −80°C until use. Titration was carried-out in 96 -well plates using Vero E6 cells and TCID₅₀ was calculated according to the method of Reed and Muench (Reed and Muench, 1938). Plates were incubated at 37°C for 4 days, and the cytopathic effect (CPE) was scored by observation under an inverted phase contrast microscope.

Infections and Treatment

Infections were carried out in 96-well plates, using SARS -CoV-2 (m.o.i. of 0.1) on Vero E6 cells. Cells were treated with different concentrations of CAPeo, as described above, in a volume of 15 μl, per 150 μl of medium, for 48h. Cell morphology was observed with phase contrast, in an inverted microscope, to record CPE. Culture supernatants were also collected and analyzed using real-time RT-PCR.

Real-time RT-PCR

To determine viral load, RNA was extracted from 96-well supernatants (100 μl) using NucleoSpin Dx Virus according to the manufacturer (Macherey Nagel). Multi-target real-time RT-PCR was performed using COVID-19 SARS-Cov-2 Real-TM according to the manufacturer (Sacace Biotechnologies, Como, Italy).

Patients included in the study

Seventeen (17) young adult patients (34.4±11 years) were included in a Proof-of-Concept intervention study, reporting to a single primary care unit with symptoms, related to an upper respiratory tract infection. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by real-time PCR, performed in the regional COVID-19 reference centre for COVID infections (Laboratory of Clinical Virology, University of Crete, School of Medicine). The study was conducted from Sep 1 to Oct 15, 2020. In parallel to the eligible patients, data for two family members (real-time PCR negative) of one infected participant, were included in the study analysis (see Results). The CAPeo mixture, in the form of two 0.5 ml soft capsules, in a concentration of 15 ml/L, was administered daily for two weeks (14 days), per os. Information regarding demographics, medical history, smoking habits, symptoms and signs has been recorded in a pre-tested questionnaire for all study participants (Table 1).

Data were collected on day 1, day 4, day 7 and day 14; following the initial face-to-face consultation, data collection and consultations were performed, either remotely (by phone), or via home visits, by trained medical personnel. The severity of symptoms was assessed through the utilisation of a seven-point Likert scale, with data recorded on Day 1 and taken as the baseline. A seven-point Likert scale allowed recording of reported symptoms starting from 1 (minor) to 2 (very mild) and 3 (mild), 4 (somewhat moderate) and 5 (moderate) and culminating to 6 (severe) and 7 (very severe). The main outcome defined to assess the clinical effectiveness of the CAPeo was symptom reduction, in terms of severity and frequency, defined as total number of symptoms over the 14-day period, and with measurement on day 4, day 7 and day 14. Five patients reported symptoms prior to their confirmed diagnosis; the corresponding interval varied from 2 to 4 days. For the purposes of reporting and given the small interval prior to the confirmed diagnosis and study inclusion, the date of the confirmed diagnosis, i.e., day 1 of the study was considered as day 1 for symptoms, and severity and frequency assessment.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) and Origin Pro 2018 (Originlab Co, Nothampton, MA). A critical value of 0.05 was taken as the threshold of statistical significance.

Ethics

The study received approval by the University of Crete Bioethics Committee (No 78/01.04.2020). This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with number NCT04705753.

Protective effect of CAPeo on VERO cells

The potential antiviral effect of CAPeo against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed both at cellular and molecular level, in vitro. Cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 present a CPE effect. CPE of infected VERO cells, was monitored in the presence of different concentrations of CAPeo (Figure 1A). As shown, cells were viable and presented a morphology similar to that of non-infected cells, up to a concentration of 1/100 CAPeo, where minimal CPE was present. At lower concentrations, CPE was obvious and cell morphology was more similar to the vehicle (DMSO)-treated cells. Similar results were found in cells preincubated with the same concentrations of CAPeo, for 2h, before infection with SARS-CoV-2 (0.1 m.o.i.).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

In vitro effect of CAPeo on SARS-Cov2 induced CPE and SARS-Cov2 replication. A. Light microscopy photographs of CPE in control (0, DMSO) and SARS-CoV-2 infected VERO cells (0.1 m.o.i), pre-treated or co-treated with different concentrations of CAPeo, in DMSO. B. Bar chart representing relative abundance (% of untreated control) of SARS-Cov2 RNA after pre-treatment (B) or co-treatment (C) with different concentrations of CAPeo, using real-time quantitative RT-PCR, targeting N and E regions of SARS-Cov2 genome and E-common region shared by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

To avoid drug carry-over effects during TCID₅₀ and to assess more accurately viral RNA production, we used quantitative real time PCR for the determination of viral RNA presence in culture medium. Real-time PCR analysis of three different SARS-CoV-2 genes (N, E, and SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2 common E region), from the supernatant of infected cells, treated with different concentrations of CAPeo, is shown in Figure 1B. Results (expressed as % of non-treated cells) showed that at a concentration of 1/10, CAPeo significantly reduced the viral release to the medium by >80%. The effect, albeit smaller (∼35%), persisted at concentrations of CAPeo 1/100 of the suggested dose in humans, but is absent at concentrations 1/1000. The calculated IC₅₀ of CAPeo, with a logistic curve fitting, is 1/60 of the proposed dose for viral growth and ∼1/250 for maintenance of the cell phenotype. Interestingly, similar results (Figure 1C) were found when VERO cells were preincubated with different concentrations of CAPeo for 2h prior infection, suggesting that CAPeo, in addition to a possible therapeutic action, might be dotted with a prophylactic effect against SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Effect of a 14-days CAPeo administration in humans on the severity and duration of symptoms of COVID-19-positive individuals. A proof-of-concept study

Results, presented above, suggest a direct SARS-CoV-2 inhibitory effect of CAPeo in cells. In order to provide a proof of concept on the effect of the preparation in humans, we have performed a small intervention study in 17 COVID-19-positive individuals, with mild symptoms, not necessitating hospitalization, in the context of a primary care center. No adverse effects were noted in any patient, in accordance with our previous observations in humans (Duijker et al., 2015;Anastasaki et al., 2017) and experimental animals (Kalyvianaki et al., 2020). The average age of enrolled patients was 34.4±11.0 years and underlying morbidities were reported in 29.4% of them; co-morbidities included dyslipidaemia, obesity, COPD and Hashimoto disease. Based on the questionnaire used, infection source was established to be either cohabitation (23.5%) or close contact with a confirmed case (58.8%).

On day 1, these individuals have consulted their General Practitioner (GP), with a variety of symptoms, both general and local (Figure 2A). Interestingly, general symptoms (fever, which in our population was mild, lower than 37.5°C, in all that two individuals, headache, fatigue and myalgias) were similar to those previously reported in two of the largest studies, focusing on symptom duration for COVID-19 outpatients in the US (Tenforde et al., 2020) and on the clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of COVID-19 in Europe (Lechien et al., 2020). However, in our group, the frequency of nasal congestion, cough, anosmia and ageusia was lower.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

CAPeo administration in humans ameliorates symptoms of mild COVID-19 in ambulatory patients. A. Frequency of symptoms, common to both studies at Day 1, in our group and in (Tenforde et al., 2020). B. Heatmaps of symptom frequency in our CAPeo-treated group (left panel) and the population reported by (Tenforde et al., 2020) (right panel). C. Evolution of selected symptoms in our CAPeo-treated group (red curves). T_1/2 for the resolution of symptoms was calculated with a logistic regression fit, with Origin Pro 2018. For comparison, the frequency of symptoms in the reference population reported by (Tenforde et al., 2020) is also presented (green curves). In panels B-C, the frequency of symptoms was extracted from Figure 1 of (Tenforde et al., 2020), with the online resource WebPlotDigitizer (Rohatgi, 2020).

In our study group, we have observed that the number of symptoms (4 at day1, 2 at day 4 and 1 at day 7) and the frequency of symptoms significantly decreased after CAPeo administration (Table 2, Figure 2B, left panel). The severity of symptoms, measured as the sum of symptoms in the seven-point Likert scale (see Material and Methods) was also decreased, following CAPeo administration (Wilcoxon tests; p<0.01, Table 2). Interestingly, at day 14, almost all symptoms completely regressed, with the notable exception of anosmia and ageusia, and mild ENT symptoms (nasal congestion and cough, in a small number of patients). EC₂₀, EC₅₀ and EC₈₀, calculated with a logistic fit from data shown in Table 2 for the totality of symptom frequency and intensity was 2.3, 3.7 and 5.7 days respectively. Unfortunately, there are not many studies reporting the evolution of COVID-19 symptoms for comparison. From the two large published studies (Allen et al., 2020;Tenforde et al., 2020), we have extracted values from reported figures, with the help of the web resource WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd) (Rohatgi, 2020). Data from (Tenforde et al., 2020) are reported in Figure 2B, right panel. Fourteen days after COVID-19 testing, a number of symptoms persist; they include headache, fatigue, myalgias, anosmia, ageusia and respiratory distress. Concerning the common general symptoms (Figure 2C), we observe a notable, significant difference in the frequency of occurrence of headache, fatigue and myalgias, while fever was absent in both groups and a similar proportion of patients with persisting anosmia and ageusia.

Symptoms evolution was compared to that reported by (Tenforde et al., 2020); the authors report symptoms at days 1 and 14. In another study, we have used also as reference (Allen et al., 2020), including a much larger number of cases, symptoms were self-reported, daily, but without the implication of a medical examiner. We also used these data for comparison, as the frequency of symptoms was significantly different from the two other studies (Lechien et al., 2020;Tenforde et al., 2020), at day 1. A complete resolution of headache, a major symptom in COVID-19, was found in our group, with T_1/2 of 5.1 days, while it persisted in 14% of cases in (Tenforde et al., 2020) and was almost absent in (Allen et al., 2020). Fatigue was also completely resolved in our group with T_1/2 of 5.8 days, while it persisted in 35% of patients in the study of (Tenforde et al., 2020) and at about 15% in (Allen et al., 2020). Fever, another major symptom in day 1, completely resolved in our group, with T_1/2 of 2.7 days, as compared to ∼9 days in (Allen et al., 2020). At 14 days, fever was also absent in studies by (Allen et al., 2020;Tenforde et al., 2020). Therefore, CAPeo seems to ameliorate general symptoms very quickly, better than the reference population. In addition, as shown in Figure 2B, the majority of symptoms, both general and local, completely resolve at the end of the first week. A special notion applies to anosmia and ageusia. Both in our group and in the European multi-center study (Allen et al., 2020), these symptoms progressively increase, peaking at day 4 and at days 4-6 respectively. Thereafter, at day 14, these two symptoms persist in 17%, 23% and 21% in our group, in (Tenforde et al., 2020) and in (Allen et al., 2020) studies, respectively.

As mentioned, and according to protocol, we included three subjects in the analysis since they were family members (father, mother and sister of one patient), working together and living in the same house. They received the CAPeo for prophylactic use, on the basis of the decision of the family doctor, despite having tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. One of them (mother) presented symptoms two days after the baseline, and was re-tested and found positive, and she was enrolled in the study, while the remaining two (father and sister) did not report symptoms on any of the days of observation. We consider this an important reporting aspect in terms of establishing guidelines for sequential testing, managing oligo- or asymptomatic patients, in outpatient settings and to inform future clinical study design across settings, as highlighted by a recent report (Wernhart et al., 2020). The median incubation period of five days creates a false sense of safety, but also presents a challenge in terms of study inclusion and sound trial conduct and reporting (Lauer et al., 2020).