Comparative therapeutic efficacy of remdesivir and combination lopinavir, ritonavir, and interferon beta against MERS-CoV.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sheahan TP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6954302 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV), and interferon-beta (INF-beta) are considered as potential treatments for COVID-19. We examined the efficacy and safety of FVP and INF-beta compared to LPV/RTV and INF-beta combinations for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. It was a single-center randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomized to receive FVP plus INF-beta versus LPV/RTV plus INF-beta. The primary endpoint was the viral clearance after seven days of randomization. ICU admission, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, in-hospital mortality, and the incidence of adverse events were also measured. This trial was registered on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20200506047323N3). Patients were randomly allocated to the FVP (n = 33) and LPV/RTV (n = 33) groups. The viral clearance on Day seven was not significantly different between the FVP (31.1%) and the LPV/RTV groups (16.1%). The rate of ICU admission and likewise the in-hospital mortality in the FVP group (12.5% and 6.3%, respectively) were similar to the LPV/RTV groups (19.4% and 19.4%, respectively). The median LOS in the hospital was also not different (6.8 days [interquartile range; IQR = 5.0-11.0] in the FVP and (8.0 days [IQR = 5.5-12.5]) in LPV/RTV groups (p = 0.140). Adverse events were observed in 25.0% of FVP and 32.3% of LPV/RTV groups. The combination therapy with FVP did not exert a higher efficacy compared to the combination regimen of LPV/RTV. However, both treatment regimens demonstrated a mild profile of adverse events.
| S-EPMC9088571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid development of safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 had become a top priority to fight against this spreading pandemic worldwide in 2019. 20%–30% of COVID-19 patients experience severe cardiovascular damage, patients with pre-existing heart complications are more likely to develop severe illness and have higher risk of death compared with patients without co-morbidities. In such a context, whether the repurposed drugs are at risk of inducing heart damage to COVID-19 patients remains unclear. Here, we demonstrated that four antiviral drugs, including apilimod, remdesivir, ritonavir, and lopinavir, exhibit cardiotoxicity at clinically relevant doses. RNA-seq analysis revealed that human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hCMs) treated by each drug had significantly different expression profiles when compared with the untreated control. The expression of genes that regulate cardiomyocyte function, such as sarcomere organization and ion hemostasis, was significantly altered after drug treatment. These results not only warrant caution and careful monitoring when prescribing the above-mentioned drugs in patients, but also provide a valuable platform for understanding the molecular mechanism underlined the toxic effects of these prospective drugs and for protective agent discovery.
2023-11-15 | GSE247541 | GEO
Project description:ObjectivesOur study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of IFN-based therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon β-1b) vs. favipiravir (FPV) in a cohort of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19.MethodsSingle center observational study comparing IFN-based therapy (interferon β-1b, ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) vs. FPV in non-critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allocation to either treatment group was non-random but based on changes to national treatment protocols rather than physicians' selection (quasi-experimental). We examined the association between IFN-based therapy and 28-day mortality using Cox regression model with treatment as a time-dependent covariate.ResultsThe study cohort included 222 patients, of whom 68 (28%) received IFN-based therapy. Antiviral therapy was started at a median of 5 days (3-6 days) from symptoms onset in the IFN group vs. 6 days (4-7 days) for the FPV group, P <0.0001. IFN-based therapy was associated with a lower 28-day mortality as compared to FPV (6 (9%) vs. 18 (12%)), adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] (95% Cl) = 0.27 (0.08-0.88)). No difference in hospitalization duration between the 2 groups, 9 (7-14) days vs. 9 (7-13) days, P = 0.732 was found. IFN treated group required less use of systemic corticosteroids (57%) as compared to FPV (77%), P = 0.005 after adjusting for disease severity and other confounders. Patients in the IFN treated group were more likely to have nausea and diarrhea as compared to FPV group (13%) vs. (3%), P = 0.013 and (18%) vs. (3%), P<0.0001, respectively.ConclusionEarly IFN-based triple therapy was associated with lower 28-days mortality as compared to FPV.
| S-EPMC8191942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The spread of COVID-19 has significantly increased research on antiviral drugs and measures such as case isolation and contact tracing. This study compared the effects of lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir on COVID-19 patients with a control group receiving no antiviral drugs. Patients confirmed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection via real-time RT-PCR were divided into three groups: lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and control. We assessed the efficacy of these drugs in reducing viral load and viral shedding duration using real-time RT-PCR and Vero E6 cell cultures. Lopinavir/ritonavir led to no detectable infectious SARS-CoV-2, with a median viral clearance time of one day, whereas one remdesivir-treated case remained culture-positive until day 12. Lopinavir/ritonavir significantly reduced viral load compared to remdesivir and control groups (p = 0.0117 and p = 0.0478). No infectious virus was detected in the lopinavir/ritonavir group, and the non-infectious SARS-CoV-2 proportion remained constant at 90%, higher than in the remdesivir and control groups (p = 0.0097). There was a significant difference in culture positivity among the groups (p = 0.0234), particularly between the lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir groups (p = 0.0267). These findings suggest that lopinavir/ritonavir reduces viral load and shortens the viral shedding duration compared to remdesivir, despite not being an effective treatment option.
| S-EPMC11357406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) causes severe disease in human with an overall case-fatality rate of >35%. Effective antivirals are crucial for improving the clinical outcome of MERS. Although a number of repurposed drugs, convalescent-phase plasma, antiviral peptides, and neutralizing antibodies exhibit anti-MERS-CoV activity in vitro, most are not readily available or have not been evaluated in nonhuman primates. We assessed 3 repurposed drugs with potent in vitro anti-MERS-CoV activity (mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], lopinavir/ritonavir, and interferon-β1b) in common marmosets with severe disease resembling MERS in humans. The lopinavir/ritonavir-treated and interferon-β1b-treated animals had better outcome than the untreated animals, with improved clinical (mean clinical scores ↓50.9%-95.0% and ↓weight loss than the untreated animals), radiological (minimal pulmonary infiltrates), and pathological (mild bronchointerstitial pneumonia) findings, and lower mean viral loads in necropsied lung (↓0.59-1.06 log10 copies/glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase [GAPDH]; P < .050) and extrapulmonary (↓0.11-1.29 log10 copies/GAPDH; P < .050 in kidney) tissues. In contrast, all MMF-treated animals developed severe and/or fatal disease with higher mean viral loads (↑0.15-0.54 log10 copies/GAPDH) than the untreated animals. The mortality rate at 36 hours postinoculation was 67% (untreated and MMF-treated) versus 0-33% (lopinavir/ritonavir-treated and interferon-β1b-treated). Lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b alone or in combination should be evaluated in clinical trials. MMF alone may worsen MERS and should not be used.
| S-EPMC7107395 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9076583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779.MethodsTreatment-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily.ResultsAt week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm(3) for women and 269 cells/mm(3) for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm(3) for women and 286 cells/mm(3) for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2-4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group.ConclusionsOnce-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.
| S-EPMC3019087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBeing protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination.Materials and methodsComparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.ResultsNo discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC.ConclusionIn our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).
| S-EPMC7722914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective antiviral therapy is important for tackling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We assessed the efficacy and safety of combined interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin for treating patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis was a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial in adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to six hospitals in Hong Kong. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to a 14-day combination of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h, ribavirin 400 mg every 12 h, and three doses of 8 million international units of interferon beta-1b on alternate days (combination group) or to 14 days of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h (control group). The primary endpoint was the time to providing a nasopharyngeal swab negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RT-PCR, and was done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04276688.FindingsBetween Feb 10 and March 20, 2020, 127 patients were recruited; 86 were randomly assigned to the combination group and 41 were assigned to the control group. The median number of days from symptom onset to start of study treatment was 5 days (IQR 3-7). The combination group had a significantly shorter median time from start of study treatment to negative nasopharyngeal swab (7 days [IQR 5-11]) than the control group (12 days [8-15]; hazard ratio 4·37 [95% CI 1·86-10·24], p=0·0010). Adverse events included self-limited nausea and diarrhoea with no difference between the two groups. One patient in the control group discontinued lopinavir-ritonavir because of biochemical hepatitis. No patients died during the study.InterpretationEarly triple antiviral therapy was safe and superior to lopinavir-ritonavir alone in alleviating symptoms and shortening the duration of viral shedding and hospital stay in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Future clinical study of a double antiviral therapy with interferon beta-1b as a backbone is warranted.FundingThe Shaw-Foundation, Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, and Sanming Project of Medicine.
| S-EPMC7211500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a kind of viral pneumonia with an unusual outbreak in Wuhan, China, which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There is currently no licensed antiviral treatment available to prevent human CoV infection. The widespread clinical use and existing knowledge on antiviral mechanisms of remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of previous epidemic diseases, namely, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), may be helpful in the combat with novel SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recent clinical evidence didn't confirm the beneficial role of lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients and their use was reassessed. We provide an overview of the current evidence into the mechanisms of action of these available drugs which are repurposed for treatment of the new virus. Available data identifies remdesivir as an adenosine analogue that can target the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and block viral RNA synthesis. It has been a promising antiviral drug against a wide array of RNA viruses. 3CLpro is a major CoV protease that cleaves the large replicase polyproteins during viral replication and can be targeted by the protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir but the clinical effects are controversial. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine could impair the replication of SARSCoV-2 by multiple mechanisms and their immunomodulatory properties could ameliorate clinical manifestations that are mediated by immune reactions of the host although its beneficial effects are under question and need to be proven at the clinical level. Existing in vitro and in vivo evidence delineate the molecular mechanisms of these drugs in CoV-infected cells. Numerous studies demonstrated the ability of remdesivir to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication but future research would be needed to understand the exact mode of action of lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infected cells and to use this knowledge in the treatment of the current COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7444940 | biostudies-literature