Dataset Information

Old and re-purposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has developed since December 2019. It has caused a global pandemic with more than three hundred thousand case fatalities. However, apart from supportive care by respirators, no standard medical therapy is validated. Areas covered: This paper presents old drugs with potential in vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. The in vitro database, adverse effects, and potential toxicities of these drugs are reviewed regarding their feasibility of clinical prescription for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. To obtain convincing recommendations, we referred to opinions from the US National Institute of Health regarding drugs repurposed for COVID-19 therapy. Expert opinion: Although strong evidence of well-designed randomized controlled studies regarding COVID-19 therapy is presently lacking, remdesivir, teicoplanin, hydroxychloroquine (not in combination with azithromycin), and ivermectin might be effective antiviral drugs and are deemed promising candidates for controlling SARS-CoV-2. In addition, tocilizumab might be considered as the supplementary treatment for COVID-19 patients with cytokine release syndrome. In future, clinical trials regarding a combination of potentially effective drugs against SARS-CoV-2 need to be conducted to establish the optimal regimen for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Jean SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7441793 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This Perspective examines a recent surge of information regarding the potential benefits of acid-suppression drugs in the context of COVID-19, with a particular eye on the great variability (and, thus, confusion) that has arisen across the reported findings, at least as regards the popular antacid famotidine. The degree of inconsistency and discordance reflects contradictory conclusions from independent, clinical-based studies that took roughly similar approaches, in terms of both experimental design (retrospective, observational, cohort-based, etc.) and statistical analysis workflows (propensity-score matching and stratification into sub-cohorts, etc.). The contradictions and potential confusion have ramifications for clinicians faced with choosing therapeutically optimal courses of intervention: e.g., do any potential benefits of famotidine suggest its use in a particular COVID-19 case? (If so, what administration route, dosage regimen, duration, etc. are likely optimal?) As succinctly put this March in Freedberg et al. (2021), "…several retrospective studies show relationships between famotidine and outcomes in COVID-19 and several do not." Beyond the pressing issue of possible therapeutic indications, the conflicting data and conclusions related to famotidine must be resolved before its inclusion/integration in ontological and knowledge graph (KG)-based frameworks, which in turn are useful for drug discovery and repurposing. As a broader methodological issue, note that reconciling inconsistencies would bolster the validity of meta-analyses which draw upon the relevant data-sources. And, perhaps most broadly, developing a system for treating inconsistencies would stand to improve the qualities of both 1) real world evidence-based studies (retrospective), on the one hand, and 2) placebo-controlled, randomized multi-center clinical trials (prospective), on the other hand. In other words, a systematic approach to reconciling the two types of studies would inherently improve the quality and utility of each type of study individually.

Dataset Information

Old and re-purposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets