Baricitinib: A Review of Pharmacology, Safety, and Emerging Clinical Experience in COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jorgensen SCJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7323235 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The global pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has created an urgent need for effective antivirals. Remdesivir (formerly GS-5734) is a nucleoside analogue pro-drug currently being evaluated in COVID-19 clinical trials. Its unique structural features allow high concentrations of the active triphosphate metabolite to be delivered intracellularly and it evades proofreading to successfully inhibit viral RNA synthesis. In pre-clinical models, remdesivir has demonstrated potent antiviral activity against diverse human and zoonotic β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. In this article, we critically review available data on remdesivir with an emphasis on biochemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and in vitro activity against coronaviruses as well as clinical experience and current progress in COVID-19 clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7283864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Baricitinib is an oral, selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 that transiently and reversibly inhibits many proinflammatory cytokines. This mechanism is a key mediator in a number of chronic inflammatory diseases; accordingly, baricitinib has been studied and approved for the treatment of several rheumatological and dermatological disorders, as well as COVID-19. This narrative review summarises and discusses the safety profile of baricitinib across these diseases, with special focus on adverse events of special interest (AESI) for JAK inhibitors, using integrated safety data sets of clinical trial data, and puts findings into context with the underlying risk in the respective disease populations, using supporting literature. We show that rates of infection with baricitinib generally reflected the inherent risk of the disease populations being treated, with serious infections and herpes zoster being more frequent in rheumatic diseases than in dermatological disorders, and herpes simplex being reported particularly in atopic dermatitis. Similarly, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and malignancies were generally within or below the ranges reported for the respective disease populations, thereby reflecting the underlying risk; these events were therefore more frequent in patients with rheumatic diseases than in those with dermatological disorders, the latter of whom generally had low absolute risk. AESI were usually more common in patients with risk factors specific for each event. When a population similar to that of ORAL Surveillance was considered, the incidence rate of MACE with baricitinib was numerically lower than that reported with tofacitinib and similar to that of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. No safety concerns were observed in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib for up to 14 days. Identifying the patterns and likelihoods of AEs that occur during treatment in large groups of patients with different diseases can help the physician and patient better contextualise the benefit-to-risk ratio for the individual patient.
| S-EPMC9443639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsDatabases were searched for studies that compared the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of baricitinib with standard therapy for the treatment of severe COVID-19 and clearly reported relevant outcomes published until December 31, 2022. The corresponding data were extracted from these studies. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. The study protocol can be accessed at PROSPERO (CRD42023394173).ResultsThe baricitinib group had a significantly lower mortality rate and proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation than the control group (OR = 0.61, 0.57; P = .008, 0.02; 95% CI 0.42-0.88; 0.35-0.92; I2 = 71% and 86%, respectively). The length of hospital stay and rates of severe adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionBaricitinib reduces mortality and mechanical ventilation requirements in patients with severe COVID-19. Therefore, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the role of baricitinib in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10695502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsRemdesivir is a broad spectrum anti-viral drug that has shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2, in vitro and in vivo. In absence of any effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), remdesivir has been tried for a compassionate use in severe COVID-19. Newer randomized controlled studies that have recently become available, showed a mixed result. We aimed to systematically search the literature to understand the pharmacology and clinical effects of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, ClinicalTrial.Org and MedRxiv database up till May 5, 2020 using specific key words such as "Remdesivir" or 'GS-5734″ AND "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" and retrieved all the article published in English language, that have reported the pharmacology and the clinical outcomes of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.ResultsInitial compassionate use of remdesivir has shown a fairly good result, but difficult to quantify, in the absence of control arm. While the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted in Wuhan, did not find any significant benefit compared to the control, the preliminary result of another similar multi-country trial has shown a significant faster time to recovery but without any difference in mortality.ConclusionsRemdesivir has shown a mixed result in patients with COVID-19 with an acceptable side effect. However, jury is still out while awaiting the results from the forthcoming trials.
| S-EPMC7214279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory response; however, there is a lack of systematic review directly evaluating their efficacy and safety. Objective: This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and baricitinib in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Relevant databases were searched for studies that compared the effect or safety of baricitinib or tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The mortality was the main outcome. The hospital length of stay or adverse drug reactions were taken into consideration as secondary endpoints. The analyses were performed in Revman 5.3 or Stata 16.0. The protocol and analysis plan were pre-registered in PROSPERO, with the registration number CRD42023408219. Results: In total, 10 studies with 2,517 patients were included. The overall pooled data demonstrated that, there was no statistically significant difference in the 28-day mortality rate and the hospital length of stay between the tocilizumab and baricitinib (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.51, p = 0.57; OR = -0.68, 95% CI = -2.24-0.87, p = 0.39). The adverse reactions including secondary infection rate, thrombotic and bleeding events, and acute liver injury of tocilizumab were significantly higher than that of baricitinib. (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.18-1.88, p < 0.001,OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.11-2.08, p = 0.009; OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.11-2.08, p = 0.009; OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.49-3.35, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, no discernible difference in therapeutic efficacy was observed between tocilizumab and baricitinib; however, the group treated with baricitinib demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of adverse effects.
| S-EPMC10703388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.
| S-EPMC9624173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Baricitinib is a JAK1/2 inhibitor that was first approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but that later showed considerable efficacy in the control of exaggerated inflammatory responses that occur in a wide range of diseases. There is a growing body of evidence, obtained from clinical trials and case reports, demonstrating clinical and paraclinical improvement in patients following administration of baricitinib including RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, alopecia areata, interferon-mediated autoinflammatory diseases, graft-versus-host disease, diabetic kidney disease, and, recently, coronavirus disease-19. However, despite overall encouraging results, many adverse effects have been observed in baricitinib-treated patients, ranging from simple infections to increased risk of malignancies, particularly in long-term use. The significant efficacy of baricitinib, versus the probable adverse effects, urge further investigation before establishing it as a part of standard therapeutic protocols. Here, we have provided a review of the studies that have used baricitinib for treating various inflammatory disorders and summarized the advantages and disadvantages of its administration.
| S-EPMC8250677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aspirin-clopidogrel combination is the current gold standard antiplatelet regimen following percutaneous coronary intervention and for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Despite the clinical benefit of this combination, patients continue to have vascular events. Another purinergic (P2Y(12)) receptor antagonist, prasugrel, became available last year. Although prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel in reducing clinical endpoints, a higher bleeding rate has been identified particularly in high-risk patients. Ticagrelor, a reversible P2Y(12) receptor antagonist currently being evaluated for approval, is also more potent than clopidogrel but has a similar bleeding risk. Two additional P2Y(12) antagonists are being investigated that will be available as an intravenous formulation. Apart from the P2Y(12) receptor antagonists, multiple other agents are being developed with unique mechanisms of platelet inhibition. These agents are being studied as an alternative to or in combination with clopidogrel. The antiplatelet agents currently under development include: thrombin receptor antagonists, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, a thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist, a serotonin receptor blocker, a platelet adhesion antagonist, nitric oxide-releasing aspirin, a glycoprotein VI antagonist, and a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. The purpose of this review is to describe the efficacy and safety profiles of the emerging antiplatelet agents and their role in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.
| S-EPMC3262324 | biostudies-other
Project description:COVID-19 patients are generally asymptomatic during initial SARS-CoV-2 replication, but may suffer severe immunopathology after the virus has receded and blood monocytes have infiltrated the airways. In the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients with severe COVID-19, lung-infiltrating monocytes expressed high mRNA levels encoding inflammatory mediators, including CXCL8and IL-1ß, and contained SARS-CoV-2transcripts. To study this process in more depth, we developed a novel organotypic model whereby primary human blood monocytes are transmigrated across a differentiated human lung epithelium infected by SARS-CoV-2. Infiltrating monocytes acquiredSARS-CoV-2 from the epithelium and upregulated expression and secretion of inflammatory mediators includingCXCL8 and IL-1ß, mirroring in vivo data. The JAK1/2inhibitor baricitinib gained emergency use authorization by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19 originally in combination with the antiviral remdesivir, and recently as a stand-alone treatment. To explore the mechanisms by which baricitinib alone or in combination with remdesivir may result in more favorable disease outcomes, we leveraged this model to characterize viral burden, gene expression and inflammatory mediator secretion by lung epithelial cells and infiltrating monocytes. As expected, remdesivir decreased viral burden in both the epithelium and monocytes, while baricitinib enhanced antiviral signaling and decreased specific inflammatory mediators in monocytes. Combined use of baricitinib and remdesivir enhanced the rate of virus clearance from SARS-CoV-2-positivemonocytes. Taken together, baricitinib enhances the antiviral state of monocytes infiltrating the COVID-19 lung, while decreasing the expression of inflammatory mediators, thus limiting the likelihood of a cytokine storm and ensuing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
2021-10-30 | GSE186460 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had global impacts and caused some health systems to experience substantial pressure. The need for accurate health information has been felt widely. Chatbots have great potential to reach people with authoritative information, and a number of chatbots have been quickly developed to disseminate information about COVID-19. However, little is known about user experiences of and perspectives on these tools.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe what is known about the user experience and user uptake of COVID-19 chatbots.MethodsA scoping review was carried out in June 2021 using keywords to cover the literature concerning chatbots, user engagement, and COVID-19. The search strategy included databases covering health, communication, marketing, and the COVID-19 pandemic specifically, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Emerald, and EBSCO. Studies that assessed the design, marketing, and user features of COVID-19 chatbots or those that explored user perspectives and experience were included. We excluded papers that were not related to COVID-19; did not include any reporting on user perspectives, experience, or the general use of chatbot features or marketing; or where a version was not available in English. The authors independently screened results for inclusion, using both backward and forward citation checking of the included papers. A thematic analysis was carried out with the included papers.ResultsA total of 517 papers were sourced from the literature, and 10 were included in the final review. Our scoping review identified a number of factors impacting adoption and engagement including content, trust, digital ability, and acceptability. The papers included discussions about chatbots developed for COVID-19 screening and general COVID-19 information, as well as studies investigating user perceptions and opinions on COVID-19 chatbots.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique and specific challenge for digital health interventions. Design and implementation were required at a rapid speed as digital health service adoption accelerated globally. Chatbots for COVID-19 have been developed quickly as the pandemic has challenged health systems. There is a need for more comprehensive and routine reporting of factors impacting adoption and engagement. This paper has shown both the potential of chatbots to reach users in an emergency and the need to better understand how users engage and what they want.
| S-EPMC9822175 | biostudies-literature