Molnupiravir in COVID-19: A systematic review of literaturef.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aims
Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently been tested in COVID-19. We aim to conduct a systematic review of literature to find out the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19.Methods
We systematically searched the electronic database of PubMed, MedRxiv and Google Scholar from inception until October 15, 2021, using MeSH keywords. Ongoing trials of molnupiravir in COVID-19 were additionally searched from the ClinicalTrials.Gov and ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials. We retrieved all the available granular details of phase 1 to 3 studies of molnupiravir in COVID-19. Subsequently we reviewed the results narratively.Results
Two phase 1 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (DBRPC) studies of molnupiravir showed that 1600 mg daily dose is safe and tolerable, without any serious adverse events up to 5.5 days. One phase 2 DBPRC study found significantly lower time to clearance (RNA negativity) with molnupiravir 800 mg twice daily compared to the placebo (log-rank p value = 0.013) in mild to moderate COVID-19. Interim report of one phase 3 DBRPC study in non-hospitalized COVID-19 found a significant reduction in the risk of hospital admission or death by 50% (p = 0.0012). However, no significant benefit was observed with molnupiravir in the later stage of moderate to severe COVID-19.Conclusion
Molnupiravir is first oral antiviral drug to demonstrate a significant benefit in reducing hospitalization or death in mild COVID-19 and could be an important weapon in the battle against SARS-CoV-2. However, its role in moderate to severe COVID-19 is questionable and more studies are needed.
SUBMITTER: Singh AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556684 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThroughout the time of the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 virus, there has been a compelling necessity for the development of effective antiviral agents and prophylactic vaccines to limit the virus spread, disease burden, hospitalization, and mortality. Until mid of 2021, the NIH treatment guideline declared no single oral therapy was proven to treat mild to moderate cases. A new hope arose when a repurposed direct acting oral anti-viral agent "Molnupiravir" was shown to be effective in decreasing mortality and need for hospitalization in mild to moderate cases with relatively good safety profile; exhibiting a significant reduction in virus titers only after two days from administration. Molnupiravir recently granted the FDA emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 patients with at least one risk factor for progression.MethodsWe performed a computer-based literature search of (PubMed, Science direct, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, Cochrane COVID study register, EU registry, and CTRI registry) till February 15th, 2022. The following keywords were used in our search ("Molnupiravir", "NHC", "EIDD-2807", "MK-4482" or "EIDD-1931").ResultsWe identified from the initial search a total of 279 articles; 246 articles (BioRxiv and MedRxiv N = 186, PubMed N = 33, Science direct N = 27) and 33 Clinical trials from the following registries (ISCTRN (N = 1), Clinical Trials.gov (N = 6), CTRI (N = 12), Cochrane (N = 14)). Through screening phases, 21 records were removed as duplicates and 198 irrelevant records were also excluded. The included studies in this systematic review were (N = 60) included 39 published papers and 21 clinical trials. After Manual addition (N = 4), the qualitative assessment included (N = 64).ConclusionBased on the cumulative evidence from preclinical and clinical studies, Molnupiravir is proven to be a well tolerated, direct acting oral anti-viral agent to halt the disease progression in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases; in terms of mortality and hospitalization rates.
| S-EPMC8906919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA vast amount of mobile apps have been developed during the past few months in an attempt to "flatten the curve" of the increasing number of COVID-19 cases.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to shed light into studies found in the scientific literature that have used and evaluated mobile apps for the prevention, management, treatment, or follow-up of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched the bibliographic databases Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, PubMed, and Scopus to identify papers focusing on mobile apps for COVID-19 that show evidence of their real-life use and have been developed involving clinical professionals in their design or validation.ResultsMobile apps have been implemented for training, information sharing, risk assessment, self-management of symptoms, contact tracing, home monitoring, and decision making, rapidly offering effective and usable tools for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMobile apps are considered to be a valuable tool for citizens, health professionals, and decision makers in facing critical challenges imposed by the pandemic, such as reducing the burden on hospitals, providing access to credible information, tracking the symptoms and mental health of individuals, and discovering new predictors.
| S-EPMC7732358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In its wake, the COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in a surge in the number of cases of mucormycosis. Most cases are temporally linked to COVID-19; hence, the entity is described as COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM). The present systematic review was undertaken to provide an up-to-date summary of the hitherto available literature on CAM. PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched using appropriate keywords till 14 May 2021, to identify case reports/case series pertaining to mucormycosis in patients with COVID-19. Relevant data extracted included demographic characteristics, comorbidity profile, clinical category of mucormycosis, glucocorticoid use, treatment offered and patient outcome. We identified 30 case reports/case series, pooling data retrieved from 99 patients with CAM. Most cases were reported from India (72%). The majority of the patients was male (78%) and had diabetes mellitus (85%). A prior history of COVID-19 was present in 37% patients with mucormycosis developing after an initial recovery. The median time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and the first evidence of mucormycosis infection or CAM diagnosis was 15 days. Glucocorticoid use was reported in 85% of cases. Rhino-orbital mucormycosis was most common (42%), followed by rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis (24%). Pulmonary mucormycosis was observed in 10 patients (10%). The mortality rate was 34%; the use of adjunct surgery, which was undertaken in 81% of patients, was associated with better clinical outcomes (p < .001). In conclusion, CAM is an emerging problem necessitating increased vigilance in COVID-19 patients, even those who have recovered. CAM portends a poor prognosis and warrants early diagnosis and treatment.
| S-EPMC8447126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pulmonary thromboembolic events have been linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their incidence and long-term sequelae remain unclear. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE), microthrombi, thrombosis in situ (thromboinflammatory disease), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) during and after COVID-19. PubMed and the World Health Organization Global Research Database were searched on May 7, 2021. Hospital cohort and database studies reporting data for ≥1000 patients and autopsy studies reporting data for ≥20 patients were included. Results were summarized descriptively. We screened 1438 records and included 41 references (32 hospital/database studies and 9 autopsy studies). The hospital/database studies reported the incidence of PE but not CTEPH, microthrombi, or thromboinflammatory disease. PE incidence varied widely (0%-1.1% of outpatients, 0.9%-8.2% of hospitalized patients, and 1.8%-18.9% of patients in intensive care). One study reported PE events occurring within 45 days after hospital discharge (incidence in discharged patients: 0.2%). Segmental arteries were generally the most common location for PE. In autopsy studies, PE, thromboinflammatory disease, and microthrombi were reported in 6%-23%, 43%-100%, and 45%-84% of deceased patients, respectively. Overall, the included studies mostly focused on PE during the acute phase of COVID-19. The results demonstrate the challenges of identifying and characterizing vascular abnormalities using current protocols (e.g., visual computed tomography reads). Further research is needed to detect subtle pulmonary vascular abnormalities, distinguish thromboinflammatory disease from PE, optimize treatment, and assess the incidence of long-term sequelae after COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9349961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.
| S-EPMC9739751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.
| S-EPMC9489065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to review the literature on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing in patients with COVID-19 for evidence of viral neuroinvasion by SARS-CoV-2.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of Medline and Embase between December 1, 2019 and November 18, 2020 to identify case reports or series of patients who had COVID-19 diagnosed based on positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or serologic testing and had CSF testing due to a neurologic symptom.ResultsWe identified 242 relevant documents which included 430 patients with COVID-19 who had acute neurological symptoms prompting CSF testing. Of those, 321 (75%) patients had symptoms that localized to the central nervous system (CNS). Of 304 patients whose CSF was tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, there were 17 (6%) whose test was positive, all of whom had symptoms that localized to the central nervous system (CNS). The majority (13/17, 76%) of these patients were admitted to the hospital because of neurological symptoms. Of 58 patients whose CSF was tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibody, 7 (12%) had positive antibodies with evidence of intrathecal synthesis, all of whom had symptoms that localized to the CNS. Of 132 patients who had oligoclonal bands evaluated, 3 (2%) had evidence of intrathecal antibody synthesis. Of 77 patients tested for autoimmune antibodies in the CSF, 4 (5%) had positive findings.ConclusionDetection of SARS-CoV-2 in CSF via PCR or evaluation for intrathecal antibody synthesis appears to be rare. Most neurological complications associated with SARS- CoV-2 are unlikely to be related to direct viral neuroinvasion.
| S-EPMC7833669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe study was aimed at encapsulating the evidence of in vitro and in vivo antiviral activities of molnupiravir and its active form against highly pathogenic SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen responsible for COVID-19, and finding out the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in clinical trials.Main bodyInformation on publications was explored on several databases, gray literature was reviewed, and the outcomes were discussed narratively. Molnupiravir's antiviral efficacy and associated mechanism of action have been verified in vitro against both non-COVID and multiple coronaviruses. Molnupiravir has been tried in preclinical investigations in numerous animal models against non-coronaviruses. Clinical studies in several countries are now being conducted to evaluate its antiviral efficacy in persons infected with COVID-19. The medication displays antiviral effect via generation of copying mistakes during viral RNA replication.ConclusionsMolnupiravir is the first oral antiviral medicine to show considerable and convincing antiviral activity in vitro and in animal models. Molnupiravir stops the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in animals that have been infected and in cells grown in a lab. In a clinical research, early molnupiravir treatment reduced hospitalization and death risk in unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. In the battle against SARS-CoV-2, it could be a potent weapon. However, its role in COVID-19 in moderate to severe cases is still up in the air, and more research is needed.
| S-EPMC8907909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the global experiences of community responses to the COVID-19 epidemic.MethodFive electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science) were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English, from inception to October 10, 2021. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts. A systematic review (with a scientific strategy for literature search and selection in the electronic databases applied to data collection) was used to investigate the experiences of community responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThis review reported that community responses to COVID-19 consisted mainly of five ways. On the one hand, community-based screening and testing for Coronavirus was performed; on the other hand, the possible sources of transmission in communities were identified and cut off. In addition, communities provided medical aid for patients with mild cases of COVID-19. Moreover, social support for community residents, including material and psychosocial support, was provided to balance epidemic control and prevention and its impact on residents' lives. Last and most importantly, special care was provided to vulnerable residents during the epidemic.ConclusionThis study systematically reviewed how communities to respond to COVID-19. The findings presented some practical and useful tips for communities still overwhelmed by COVID-19 to deal with the epidemic. Also, some community-based practices reported in this review could provide valuable experiences for community responses to future epidemics.
| S-EPMC9343721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients with clinically acute presentations have been approached differently. The fear of viral transmission along with the short period of study made patients delay their hospital visits and doctors reassess the approach of certain acute situations. This study aimed to assess the changes in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis before and during COVID-19.MethodsA systematic review of the literature using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases was performed until 01 September 2021. Totally, two kinds of studies were included, those assessing the management of acute cholecystitis during COVID-19 and those comparing the periods before and during the pandemic. The outcomes recorded include management approaches, complications, and mean length of stay.ResultsA number of 15 eligible articles were included in the study. During the pandemic, six studies revealed a shift toward conservative management of acute cholecystitis and five of them reported that conservative management was opted in 73% of the patients. On the contrary, data from all studies revealed that the surgical approach was preferred in only 29.2% of patients. Furthermore, when comparing the periods before vs. during COVID-19, the conservative approach was reported in 36.3 and 43.2% before vs. during COVID-19, respectively, whereas surgical intervention was performed in 62.5% of patients before COVID-19 and 55.3% during the pandemic. The length of stay was delayed when a non-surgical approach was selected in most studies. Complications, mainly classified by the Clavien-Dindo scale, were higher in the pandemic period.ConclusionA tendency toward more conservative approaches was observed in most studies, reversing the previously used surgical approach in most cases of acute cholecystitis. In most of the examined cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, antibiotic treatment and percutaneous cholecystostomy were much more considered and even preferred.
| S-EPMC9039201 | biostudies-literature