Dataset Information

Safety and effectiveness concerns of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 affected patients: a retrospective series.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Originally developed for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the antiviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is being repurposed for treating the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) despite minimal experience in this markedly different population and an in-vitro derived EC50 against SARS-CoV-2 several hundred-fold greater than for HIV. We present a case series including a case of severe hyponatremia and a 32-fold overdose raising safety and effectiveness concerns in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

We measured LPV trough concentrations in 12 patients and reviewed their clinical charts for side effects known to occur in HIV patients.

Findings

Compared to established LPV trough concentrations in HIV patients, concentrations in COVID-19 patients were 3-fold greater (19.37 ± 10.12 mcg/mL versus 6.25 mcg/mL). In addition, cholestasis and dyslipidemia toxicity thresholds were exceeded in 12/12 and 11/12 patients respectively. No patients achieved the presumed therapeutic concentration. Side effects included gastrointestinal symptoms (5/12), electrolyte imbalances (4/12), liver enzyme disturbances (5/12) and triglyceride elevations (2/12).

Conclusion

No patients reached presumed therapeutic LPV concentrations despite experiencing side effects and exceeding cholestasis and dyslipidemia toxicity thresholds. This raises concerns for the safety and effectiveness of LPV/r. Clinicians should consider closely monitoring for side effects and not necessarily attribute them to COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Lepage MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7919102 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first.ResultsA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events.ConclusionsIn hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).

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).