Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated.

Methods

The databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test.

Results

Out of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions: supportive care (n=4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n=2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n=1), lopinavir-ritonavir+novaferon (n=1) and lopinavir-ritonavir+interferon beta 1b+ribavirin (n=1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD: 0.00 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.02), I²=0], virological cure [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.31), I²=0%], radiological improvement [RR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.17, 38.90), I²=75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR: 2.96 (95% CI: 1.42-6.18); I²=0%].

Conclusion

There is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Patel TK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056786 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 (caused by SARS-Cov-2) is very serious, and no effective antiviral treatment has yet been confirmed. The adage "old drug, new trick" in this context may suggest the important therapeutic potential of existing drugs. We found that the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment recommended in the fifth edition of the Treatment Plan of China can only help to improve a minority of throat-swab nucleic-acid results (3/15) in hospitals. Our previous use of chloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19 infection showed an improvement in more throat-swab nucleic-acid results (5/10) than the use of lopinavir/ritonavir.Methods/designThis is a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled, multicenter clinical study. The study consists of three phases: a screening period, a treatment period of no more than 10 days, and a follow-up period for each participant. Participants with COVID-19 infection who are eligible for selection for the study will be randomly allocated to the trial group or the control group. The control group will be given lopinavir/ritonavir treatment for no more than 10 days. The trial group will be given chloroquine phosphate treatment for no more than 10 days. The primary outcome is the clinical recovery time at no more than 28 days after the completion of therapy and follow-up. The secondary outcomes include the rate of treatment success after the completion of therapy and follow-up, the time of treatment success after no more than 28 days, the rate of serious adverse events during the completion of therapy and follow-up, and the time to return to normal temperature (calculated from the onset of illness) during the completion of therapy and follow-up. Comparisons will be performed using two-sided tests with a statistical significance level of 5%.DiscussionThis experiment should reveal the efficacy and safety of using chloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir for patients with mild/general COVID-19 infection. If the new treatment including chloroquine shows a higher rate of throat-swab SARS-CoV-2 real-time fluorescent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and is safe, it could be tested as a future COVID-19 treatment.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR2000029741 . Registered on 11 February 2020.

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:To systematically review and synthesize the safety and efficacy of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in children and adolescents. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR), and ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched to collect accessible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the safety and efficacy of human COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents until May 1, 2022. Three steps, including duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, were used to screen the studies. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Microsoft Excel 16.57 (2021) software was used for data extraction and analysis. (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42021295422). COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in a total of 10 950 children and adolescents in seven published studies and over 49 530 participants in 26 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Descriptive findings of the included published studies were reported stratified by vaccine type. The overall, local, and systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported in most trials were similar between the vaccine and placebo groups. Most of the reactions reported were mild to moderate, whereas a few were severe. The common adverse events were injection-site pain, fever, headache, cough, fatigue, and muscle pain. Few clinical trials reported serious adverse events, but most of them were unrelated to vaccination. In terms of efficacy, the investigated messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was found to be 90.7%-100% efficacious in preventing COVID-19 among children and adolescents, revealing good efficacy profiles in this age group. Among children and adolescents, the safety of current COVID-19 vaccines is acceptable, and studies have suggested that mRNA vaccines can provide high protection against COVID-19 infection in pediatric age groups.