Dataset Information

Comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of LPV/r drugs in the treatment of SARS and MERS to provide potential treatment options for COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experienced an outbreak that expanded worldwide. Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), which is used effectively for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections, was applied for COVID-19 treatment given similarities in the molecular structures of these viruses. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir antiviral treatment in patients with SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. After registration with INPLASY, a search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and other databases for all relevant literature on lopinavir/ritonavir treatment of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. The Cochrane Collaboration's bias risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the literature, and RevMan 5.3 software was used to evaluate the relevant outcome indicators of the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. A total of 18 eligible studies (including randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies) were retrieved and included with a total of 2273 patients. The lopinavir/ritonavir group exhibited an increased nucleic acid conversion rate (P=0.004), higher virus clearance rate (P<0.0001), lower mortality rate (P=0.002), and reduced incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (P=0.02) compared with the control group. No significant benefit in the improvement rate of chest CT (P=0.08) or incidence of adverse events (P=0.45) was noted. The lopinavir/ritonavir group had a lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (P=0.02). According to the clinical prognostic results, the incidence of adverse events between the two groups was not statistically significant (P<0.0001). The efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19 was significantly better than that of the control. Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events did not significantly increase. Lopinavir/ritonavir is effective in the treatment of COVID-19, and this combination should be further assessed in RCT studies. In addition, when we analyzed the differences in age and sex, we found that the differences were statistically significant in the safety and effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19, and both of these factors played a significant role in the trial.

SUBMITTER: Wu L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8109137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Several antiretroviral drugs are being considered for the treatment of COVID-19, the disease caused by a newly identified coronavirus, (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes of using antiretroviral drugs for the prevention and treatment of coronaviruses and planned clinical trials. METHODS:Three databases were screened from inception to 30 March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with SARS, MERS or COVID-19 treated with antiretrovirals. RESULTS:From an initial screen of 433 titles, two randomized trials and 24 observational studies provided clinical outcome data on the use of antiretroviral drugs; most studies reported outcomes using LPV/r as treatment. Of the 21 observational studies reporting treatment outcomes, there were three studies among patients with SARS, six studies among patients with MERS and 12 studies among patients with COVID-19. In one randomized trial 99 patients with severe COVID-19 illness were randomized to receive LPV/r (400/100 mg twice a day) and 100 patients to standard of care for 14 days: LPV/r was not associated with a statistically significant difference in time to clinical improvement, although LPV/r given within 12 days of symptoms was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement; 28 day mortality was numerically lower in the LPV/r group (14/99) compared to the control group (25/100), but this difference was not statistically significant. The second trial found no benefit. The certainty of the evidence for the randomized trials was low. In the observational studies 3 out of 361 patients who received LPV/r died; the certainty of evidence was very low. Three studies reported a possible protective effect of LPV/r as post-exposure prophylaxis. Again, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to uncertainty due to limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of the available evidence it is uncertain whether LPV/r and other antiretrovirals improve clinical outcomes or prevent infection among patients at high risk of acquiring COVID-19.

Project description:The rapidly progressing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global concern. This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of current option of therapies for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) besides COVID-19, in an attempt to identify promising therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and WANFANG DATA for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated therapies (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy, and ribavirin-based therapy, etc.) for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The primary outcomes were mortality, virological eradication and clinical improvement, and secondary outcomes were improvement of symptoms and chest radiography results, incidence of acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS), utilization of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AEs). Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models, and the quality of evidence was appraised using GRADEpro. Eighteen articles (5 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 11 retrospective cohort studies) involving 4,941 patients were included. Compared with control treatment, anti-coronary virus interventions significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I2 = 81.3%), remarkably ameliorate clinical improvement (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19) and radiographical improvement (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36, I2 = 11.0 %), without manifesting clear effect on virological eradication, incidence of ARDS, intubation, and AEs. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids remarkably decreased mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68). The lopinavir/ritonavir-based combination showed superior virological eradication and radiographical improvement with reduced rate of ARDS. Likewise, hydroxychloroquine improved radiographical result. For safety, ribavirin could induce more bradycardia, anemia and transaminitis. Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine could increase AEs rate especially diarrhea. Overall, the quality of evidence on most outcomes were very low. In conclusion, although we could not draw a clear conclusion for the recommendation of potential therapies for COVID-19 considering the very low quality of evidence and wide heterogeneity of interventions and indications, our results may help clinicians to comprehensively understand the advantages and drawbacks of each anti-coronavirus agents on efficacy and safety profiles. Lopinavir/ritonavir combinations might observe better virological eradication capability than other anti-coronavirus agents. Conversely, ribavirin might cause more safety concerns especially bradycardia. Thus, large RCTs objectively assessing the efficacy of antiviral therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infections should be conducted with high priority.

Project description:BackgroundEsthesioneuroblastoma (ENB), also known as olfactory neuroblastoma, is a rare malignant neoplasm of the olfactory mucosa. Despite surgical resection combined with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy, ENB often relapses with rapid progression. Current multimodality, nontargeted therapy for relapsed ENB is of limited clinical benefit.Materials and methodsWe queried whether comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of relapsed or refractory ENB can uncover genomic alterations (GA) that could identify potential targeted therapies for these patients. CGP was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 41 consecutive clinical cases of ENBs using a hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation based next-generation sequencing assay to a mean coverage depth of 593X. The results were analyzed for base substitutions, insertions and deletions, select rearrangements, and copy number changes (amplifications and homozygous deletions).ResultsClinically relevant GA (CRGA) were defined as GA linked to drugs on the market or under evaluation in clinical trials. A total of 28 ENBs harbored GA, with a mean of 1.5 GA per sample. Approximately half of the ENBs (21, 51%) featured at least one CRGA, with an average of 1 CRGA per sample. The most commonly altered gene was TP53 (17%), with GA in PIK3CA, NF1, CDKN2A, and CDKN2C occurring in 7% of samples.ConclusionWe report comprehensive genomic profiles for 41 ENB tumors. CGP revealed potential new therapeutic targets, including targetable GA in the mTOR, CDK and growth factor signaling pathways, highlighting the clinical value of genomic profiling in ENB.Implications for practiceComprehensive genomic profiling of 41 relapsed or refractory ENBs reveals recurrent alterations or classes of mutation, including amplification of tyrosine kinases encoded on chromosome 5q and mutations affecting genes in the mTOR/PI3K pathway. Approximately half of the ENBs (21, 51%) featured at least one clinically relevant genomic alteration (CRGA), with an average of 1 CRGA per sample. The most commonly altered gene was TP53 (17%), and alterations in PIK3CA, NF1, CDKN2A, or CDKN2C were identified in 7% of samples. Responses to treatment with the kinase inhibitors sunitinib, everolimus, and pazopanib are presented in conjunction with tumor genomics.

Dataset Information

Comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of LPV/r drugs in the treatment of SARS and MERS to provide potential treatment options for COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets