Dataset Information

Comparison of antiviral effect for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 cases between lopinavir/ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: A nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to compare the antiviral effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Nationwide retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare the effect of HCQ and LPV/r on viral shedding duration among patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 using the reimbursement data of National Health Insurance Service. After propensity score matching (PSM), multivariate analysis was conducted to determine statistically significant risk factors associated with prolonged viral shedding.

Results

Overall, 4197 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were included. Patients were categorized into three groups: LPV/r (n = 1268), HCQ (n = 801), and standard care without HCQ or LPV/r (controls, n = 2128). The median viral shedding duration was 23 (IQR 17-32), 23 (IQR 16-32), and 18 (IQR 12-25) days in the LPV/r, HCQ, and control groups, respectively. Even after PSM, the viral shedding duration was not significantly different between LPV/r and HCQ groups: 23 (IQR, 17-32) days versus 23 (IQR, 16-32) days. On multivariate analysis, old age, malignancy, steroid use, and concomitant pneumonia were statistically significant risk factors for prolonged viral shedding.

Conclusion

The viral shedding duration was similar between HCQ and LPV/r treatment groups. There was no benefit in improving viral clearance compared to the control group.

SUBMITTER: Choi MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7590837 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.MethodsWe conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed.ResultsA total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent.ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Project description:IntroductionThe burden of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in the United Kingdom (UK) is not well understood. Long-lasting AD flares may lead to systemic inflammation resulting in reversible progression from mild to more severe AD. This study aimed to assess the clinical and economic burden of mild-to-moderate AD in the UK.MethodsAD patients were identified in the Health Improvement Network (THIN) from 2013 to 2017 and propensity score matched to non-AD controls by demographics. Patients were identified based on continuous disease activity using validated algorithms and sufficient patient status to fully validate data integrity for the entire period. Mild-to-moderate AD patients were identified by using treatment as a surrogate. Demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use (HCRU) were obtained from THIN. Literature reviews were conducted to obtain additional outcomes. A cost-of-illness model was developed to extrapolate the burden in 2017 to the UK population and in subsequent years (2018-2022).ResultsIn 2017, the prevalence of mild-to-moderate AD in THIN was 1.28%. These patients reported higher comorbidity rates and significantly higher (p < 0.0001) HCRU, encompassing mean general practitioner visits (5.57 versus 3.59), AD-related prescriptions (5.85 versus 0.68) and total referrals (0.97 versus 0.82) versus matched non-AD controls. The model projected total HCRU and drug excess costs of €462.99M over the 5 years. The excess cost decreased to €417.35M after excluding patients on very potent topical corticosteroids, who most likely had at least moderate disease. The excess costs increased to €1.21B and €7.06B when considering comorbidity burden and productivity losses, respectively.ConclusionMild-to-moderate AD patients had higher comorbidity burden, HCRU and cost compared with matched non-AD controls. Overall, UK country-based economic burden was high given partly the high prevalence of this disease. Moreover, productivity burden and comorbidities had considerable impact on the economic burden, which further suggests the importance of optimal disease management.