Effectiveness of ivermectin and atazanavir on time to resolution from COVID-19 symptoms: a prospective cohort

Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Atazanavir compared to placebo in the time to resolution of symptoms and duration of illness due to COVID-19. Method: observational, prospective, longitudinal, descriptive and analytical cohort study with symptomatic outpatients, followed for 06 months in two Basic Health Units for COVID-19 care in Teresina-Piaui, Brazil, from November to April 2021 identified by 1:1:1 random sampling. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were performed for laboratory confirmation of suspected infection with the new coronavirus and sociodemographic and clinical evaluation. Results: of the 87 randomized patients, 62.1% (n=54) were male, with a mean age of 35.1 years, had a partner (53.9%), low income (50.6%), eutrophic (40.7%) and without health comorbidities (78.2%). There was no difference between the median time to resolution of symptoms, which was 21 days (IQR, 8-30) in the atazanavir group, 30 days (IQR, 5-90) in the ivermectin group compared with 14 days (IQR, 9-21) in the control group. At day 180, there was resolution of symptoms in 100% in the placebo group, 93.9% in the atazanavir group, and 95% in the ivermectin group. The median duration of illness was 8 days in all study arms. Conclusion: Treatment with atazanavir (6 days) and ivermectin (3 days) did not reduce the time to symptom resolution or the duration of illness among outpatients with mild COVID-19 compared to the placebo group. The results do not support the use of ivermectin and atazanavir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19.

Coronavirus in patient with positive PCR test in cerebrospinal fluid led to generalized tonic-clonic seizure without brain lesion: a case report

SARS-CoV-2 which first was observed in Wuhan region, China in December 2019 is affected many organs, such as central nervous system. We describe a case of a 57-year-old male patient, in hospital with the loss of consciousness, in the form of lack of verbal and visual communication. He got a seizure attack for about 3 minutes in the form of generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTS) and admitted to the neurological department and was intubated. Since, the patient was not aware, awake, did not obey, corneal reflexes test was positive and his pupils were isochoric and reactive therefore, the primary diagnosis was cerebrovascular accident (CVA). On the second day after admission, although the brain computed tomography (CT) did not show brain lesion, but chest X-ray (CXR) revealed lung involvement. In addition, on third day the RT-PCR test for coronavirus RNA in and the cerebrospinal fluid and nasopharyngeal swap done and the result was positive for both of them. Therefore, treatment for the covid-19 was started. Result(s): Since, the treatment for the covid-19 was started with Atazanavir, Clindamycin and ceftriaxone, ten days after hospitalization, the lung involvement and general condition of patient got better and after two weeks he was released from the hospital. Conclusion(s): GTS should be considered as a neurological outcome of COVID-19 and medications against the coronavirus, such as Atazanavir, Clindamycin and ceftriaxone can recover the neurological deficits in these patients.Copyright© 2020, TMU Press.

Use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of Covid-19: a scoping review / Uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento da Covid-19: uma revisão de escopo / Uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de Covid-19: una revisión de alcance

Objetivo: Examinar e mapear as evidências científicas sobre a eficácia do uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19. Metodologia: Scoping Review, baseado nos procedimentos recomendados pelo Instituto Joanna Briggs. Estabeleceu-se a pergunta norteadora: "Quais são as evidências científicas sobre o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de pacientes com sintomas leves de COVID-19?". Foram realizadas buscas em seis bases de dados nacionais e internacionais, sobre trabalhos publicados até dezembro de 2022. Dos 357 estudos encontrados, 22 foram selecionados para leitura na íntegra, resultando em uma amostra final de 11 estudos analisados. Resultados: As 11 publicações analisadas foram publicadas de 2020 a 2022 durante período pandêmico, de âmbito nacional e internacional com delineamento de estudos experimentais, do tipo ensaio clínico com randomização. Apenas 03 estudos (25%) testaram o atazanavir como intervenção conjugada a outras drogas, não evidenciando melhorias significativas em relação ao seu uso. Já no tratamento com Ivermectina, dos oito (75%) estudos que a testaram, apenas três (37,5%) recomendaram seu uso e cinco (62,5%) não suportam seu uso para tratamento de COVID-19 leve. O tempo de resolução dos sintomas variou de 8 a 10 dias nos braços tratados com ivermectina e em média 07 dias no tratamento com atazanavir. Não se detectou eventos adversos graves relacionados ao uso das duas drogas. Conclusão: As evidências que recomendavam o uso de ivermectina datam do início do período pandêmico, 2020, mas posteriormente, com a realização de ensaios clínicos robustos e controlados, novas evidências não suportam o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19 leve mostrando que não houve diferença no tempo de resolução dos sintomas, na taxa de mortalidade, taxa de internação na UTI e tempo de hospitalização.

Objective: To examine and map the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of using ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Methodology: Scoping Review, based on the procedures recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The guiding question was established, "What is the scientific evidence on the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19?" Searches were conducted in six national and international databases on papers published until December 2022. Of the 357 studies found, 22 were selected for reading in full, resulting in a final sample of 11 studies analyzed. Results: The 11 publications analyzed were published from 2020 to 2022 during pandemic period, of national and international scope with experimental study design, of clinical trial type with randomization. Only 03 studies (25%) tested atazanavir as a combined intervention with other drugs, showing no significant improvements in relation to its use. As for the treatment with Ivermectin, of the eight (75%) studies that tested it, only three (37.5%) recommended its use and five (62.5%) did not support its use for treating mild COVID-19. The time to symptom resolution ranged from 8 to 10 days in the ivermectin-treated arms and on average 07 days in the atazanavir treatment. No serious adverse events related to the use of the two drugs were detected. Conclusion: evidence recommending the use of ivermectin dates back to the beginning of the pandemic period, 2020, but subsequently, with robust controlled clinical trials, new evidence does not support the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of mild COVID-19 showing that there was no difference in time to symptom resolution, mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and length of hospital stay.

Objetivo: Examinar y mapear la evidencia científica sobre la eficacia del uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de COVID-19. Metodología: Scoping Review, basada en los procedimientos recomendados por el Instituto Joanna Briggs. La pregunta guía era: "¿Cuál es la evidencia científica sobre el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de pacientes con síntomas leves de COVID-19? Se realizaron búsquedas en seis bases de datos nacionales e internacionales, en artículos publicados hasta diciembre de 2022. De los 357 estudios encontrados, se seleccionaron 22 para su lectura completa, lo que dio lugar a una muestra final de 11 estudios analizados. Resultados: Las 11 publicaciones analizadas fueron publicadas entre 2020 y 2022 durante el periodo pandémico, de ámbito nacional e internacional con diseño de estudio experimental, de tipo ensayo clínico con aleatorización. Apenas 03 estudios (25%) probaron el atazanavir como intervención combinada con otras drogas, sin evidenciar mejoras significativas en relación con su uso. En cuanto al tratamiento con Ivermectina, de los ocho (75%) estudios que la probaron, sólo tres (37,5%) recomendaron su uso y cinco (62,5%) no apoyaron su uso para tratar la COVID-19 leve. El tiempo transcurrido hasta la resolución de los síntomas osciló entre 8 y 10 días en los brazos tratados con ivermectina y una media de 07 días en el tratamiento con atazanavir. No se detectaron acontecimientos adversos graves relacionados con el uso de los dos fármacos. Conclusión: las pruebas que recomiendan el uso de ivermectina se remontan al inicio del periodo pandémico, 2020, pero posteriormente, con ensayos clínicos controlados sólidos, las nuevas pruebas no apoyan el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de la COVID-19 leve, lo que demuestra que no hubo diferencias en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas, la tasa de mortalidad, la tasa de ingreso en la UCI y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.

Drug repurposing against COVID-19 by GWAS

This note is prepared by the authors of a recent publication on shared genetic architecture of drug response based on summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to propose a drug repurposing approach for the treatment of coronavirus COVID-19. The authors proposed that in silico studies may be preceded by analyzing shared genetic architecture of drug response based on existing GWAS.Copyright © 2020, Health Biotechnology and Biopharma.

Efficacy of N-acetyl Cysteine in Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial

Background: Today, various drugs have been investigated as the primary or complementary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has been used as a mucolytic in pulmonary diseases. This drug apparently contributes to the retrieval of the intracellular antioxidant system. Objective(s): This study aimed to determine the efficacy of NAC in severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Method(s): This single-blinded randomized controlled phase III clinical trial included 40 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (based on polymerase chain reaction) admitted to the Shahid Mohammadi Hospital's ICU, Bandar Abbas, Iran, in 2020. All cases had severe COVID-19. They were allocated randomly to two equal groups. Patients in the control group received standard drug therapy based on the treatment protocol of the national COVID-19 committee, while those in the NAC group received a single dose of intravenous NAC (300 mg/kg) upon admission to the ICU in addition to standard drug treatment. Clinical status and laboratory tests were done on admission to the ICU and then 14 days later or at discharge without knowing the patient grouping. Result(s): The two groups were comparable regarding age, gender, and other baseline laboratory and clinical parameters. At the final evaluation, respiratory rate (21.25 +/- 4.67 vs. 27.37 +/- 6.99 /min) and D-dimer (186.37 +/- 410.23 vs. 1339.04 +/- 2183.87 ng/mL) were significantly lower in the NAC group (P = 0.004 and P = 0.030, respectively). Also, a lower percentage of patients in the NAC group had lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) <= 245 U/L (0% vs. 25%, P = 0.047). Although the length of ward and ICU stay was shorter in the NAC group than in controls, the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.598 and P = 0.629, respectively). Mortality, on the other hand, was 75% in the control group and 50% in the NAC group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.102). Concerning the change in the study parameters, only the decrease in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was significantly higher with NAC (P = 0.042). The intubation and mechanical ventilation rates were higher, while oxygen with mask and nasal oxygen rates were lower with NAC, but the difference was statistically insignificant. Conclusion(s): Based on the current research, NAC is related to a significant decrease in RR, D-dimer, and DBP in severe COVID-19. Also, LDH was significantly lower in the NAC group than in the controls. More research with larger sample sizes is needed to validate the current study results.Copyright © 2023, Author(s).

COVID-19: From the Molecular Mechanisms to Treatment

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes severe pneumonia called COVID-19 and leads to severe acute respiratory syndrome with a high mortality rate. The SARS-CoV-2 virus in the human body leads to jumpstarting immune reactions and multi-organ inflammation, which has poorer outcomes in the presence of predisposing conditions, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, abnormal adiposity, and even endothelial dysfunction via biomolecular mechanisms. In addition, leucopenia, hypoxemia, and high levels of both cytokines and chemokines in the acute phase of this disease, as well as some abnormalities in chest CT images, were reported in most patients. The spike protein in SARS-CoV-2, the primary cell surface protein, helps the virus anchor and enter the human host cells. Additionally, new mutations have mainly happened for spike protein, which has promoted the infection's transmissibility and severity, which may influence manufactured vaccines' efficacy. The exact mechanisms of the pathogenesis, besides molecular aspects of COVID-19 related to the disease stages, are not well known. The altered molecular functions in the case of immune responses, including T CD4+, CD8+, and NK cells, besides the overactivity in other components and outstanding factors in cytokines like interleukin-2, were involved in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, it is highly needed to identify the SARS-CoV-2 bio-molecular characteristics to help identify the pathogenesis of COVID-19. This study aimed to investigate the bio-molecular aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection, focusing on novel SARS-CoV-2 variants and their effects on vaccine efficacy.Copyright © 2022 NRITLD, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Iran.

Virtual Screening of Potential Therapeutic Inhibitors Against Spike, Heli-case, and Polymerase of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected around 13 million people and has caused more than 5.7 lakh deaths worldwide since December 2019. In the absence of FDA approved drugs for its treatment, only symptomatic management is done. Method(s): We attempted to uncover potential therapeutic targets of spike, helicase, and RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 employing a computational approach. The PDB structure of spike and RdRp and predicted structure of helicase proteins were docked with 100 approved anti-viral drugs, natural compounds, and some other chemical compounds. Result(s): The anti-SARS ligands EK1 and CID 23631927, and NCGC00029283 are potential entry in-hibitors as they showed affinity with immunogenic Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the spike pro-tein. This RBD interacts with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE2) receptor, facilitating the entry of virion in the host cells. The FDA approved drugs, including Nelfinavir, Saquinavir, Tipranavir, Setrobu-vir, Indinavir, and Atazanavir, showed potential inhibitory activity against targeted domains and thus, may act as entry or replication inhibitor or both. Furthermore, several anti-HCoV natural compounds, including Amentoflavone, Rutin, and Tannin, are also potential entry and replication inhibitors as they showed affinity with RBD, P-loop containing nucleoside triphosphate hydrolase, and the catalytic domain of the respective protein. Dithymoquinone showed significant inhibitory potential against the fusion peptide of S2 domain. Importantly, Tannin, Dithymoquinone, and Rutin can be extracted from Nig-ella sativa seeds and thus, may prove to be one of the most potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Conclusion(s): Several potential ligands were identified with already known anti-HCoVs activities. Fur-thermore, as this study showed that some of the ligands acted as both entry and replication inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2, it is envisaged that a combination of either inhibitor with a dual mode of action would prove to be a much desired therapeutic option against this viral infection.Copyright © 2021 Bentham Science Publishers.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients. Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087. Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups. Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less. Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).

A randomized, open-label trial of combined nitazoxanide and atazanavir/ritonavir for mild to moderate COVID-19.

Background: The nitazoxanide plus atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 (NACOVID) trial investigated the efficacy and safety of repurposed nitazoxanide combined with atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19. Methods: This is a pilot, randomized, open-label multicenter trial conducted in Nigeria. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus a 14-day course of nitazoxanide (1,000 mg b.i.d.) and atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg od) and followed through day 28. Study endpoints included time to clinical improvement, SARS-CoV-2 viral load change, and time to complete symptom resolution. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04459286). Results: There was no difference in time to clinical improvement between the SoC (n = 26) and SoC plus intervention arms (n = 31; Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.492-1.638, p = 0.725). No difference was observed in the pattern of saliva SARS-CoV-2 viral load changes from days 2-28 in the 35% of patients with detectable virus at baseline (20/57) (aHR = 0.948, 95% CI: 0.341-2.636, p = 0.919). There was no significant difference in time to complete symptom resolution (aHR = 0.535, 95% CI: 0.251-1.140, p = 0.105). Atazanavir/ritonavir increased tizoxanide plasma exposure by 68% and median trough plasma concentration was 1,546 ng/ml (95% CI: 797-2,557), above its putative EC90 in 54% of patients. Tizoxanide was undetectable in saliva. Conclusion: Nitazoxanide co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir was safe but not better than standard of care in treating COVID-19. These findings should be interpreted in the context of incomplete enrollment (64%) and the limited number of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 in saliva at baseline in this trial. Clinical trial registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459286], identifier [NCT04459286].

DFT investigation of atazanavir as potential inhibitor for 2019-nCoV coronavirus M protease.

Atazanavir (ATZ) is an antiviral drug synthesized.ATZ is being investigated for potential application against the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV. To find candidate drugs for 2019-nCoV, we have carried out a computational study to screen for effective available drug ATZ which may work as an inhibitor for the Mpro of 2019-nCoV. In the present work, the first time the molecular structure of ATZ molecule has been studied using Density Functional Theory (CAMB3LYP/6-31G*) in solvent water. The electronic properties, atomic charges, MEP, NBO analysis, and excitation energies of ATZ have also been studied. The interaction of ATZ compound with the Coronavirus was performed by molecular docking studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Atazanavir/Ritonavir Versus Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: While several antivirals have been considered among the candidate repurposed drugs against SARS-CoV-2 infection, limited evidence exists on Atazanavir/Ritonavir. Objectives: This trial was designed to assess the efficacy of Atazanavir/Ritonavir compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir, another antiretroviral drug investigated in the previous studies. Methods: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on hospitalized patients with laboratory or confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either Lopinavir/Ritonavir (200mg Lopinavir+50mg Ritonavir, twice a day) or Atazanavir/Ritonavir (300mg Atazanavir+100 mg Ritonavir, once a day) for up to 14 days during their admission along with the standard care. The primary endpoint was total all-cause death in all patients during the hospitalization period. Secondary outcomes included length of hospitalization. Results: Out of 103 adults included in the analysis 54 and 49 were assigned to Atazanavir/Ritonavir and Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups, respectively. The occurrence of adverse effects, defined as symptoms attributed to the drugs which no longer appear upon the cessation of the drug, was higher for cardiac side effects in Atazanavir/Ritonavir group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the length of hospitalization. After adjustment for other covariates in the study, treatment with Atazanavir/ritonavir did not result in a significant reduction in mortality compared to treatment with Lopinavir/Ritonavir. Conclusion: The efficacy of Atazanavir/Ritonavir in this preliminary study was not superior to Lopinavir/Ritonavir in reducing mortality and length of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. However, the limited efficacy of both compounds does not support their use in primary care for COVID-19 patients.

Development and in vitro Evaluation of Atazanavir Microcrystals for Intranasal Delivery

Background: Nasal route of drug administration has gained popularity nowadays specially for drugs acting on nasopulmonary area. Atazanavir is an antiviral drug which has proved efficacy in different viral infection including COVID-19. Therefore the hypothesis is, if given through intra nasal route this formulation will be able to prevent the viral infection like COVID-19 by directly acting on the virus at its entry point. Objectives: This study aims to prepare a stable mucoadhesive microcrystal formulation of this antiviral drug with good permeation for intra nasal delivery. Materials and Methods: The formulation was prepared by high-speed homogenization process. Prepared microcrystals were estimated for in vitro drug release and permeation, drug excipient interaction study by DSC, FTIR and in vitro mucoadhesiveness study on agar gel plate. A short-term stability study was conducted on all formulations for 6 months. Results: The melting point and absorbance maxima of atazanavir were found as 200.9°C and 248 nm. The DSC and FTIR study results confirmed no drug excipient interaction was there in the formulation. The particle size of the formulations was found as 5-11 µm in range. Drug release was better and faster from the microcrystals as compare to pure powder drug. The flux for microcrystal formulation was found to be 100 whereas flux for the pure drug powder was 24. Formulations had sufficient mucoadhesive strength due to incorporation of HPMC 400 polymer and they were found stable after six months stability study. Conclusion: Lastly, it can be concluded that this formulation would be a promising system for the delivery through intra nasal route as it showed good drug release and permeation during a short time span in in vitro nasal condition with a particle size range suitable for intranasal delivery. However, further in vivo studies are required to confirm the hypothesis.

PREDICTORS of VIRAL SUPPRESSION FOLLOWING ENHANCED ADHERENCE COUNSELING: VISEND TRIAL

Background: The WHO recommends enhanced adherence counseling (EAC) before regimen switch for HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy (ART)-treated individuals with non-suppressed viral loads (VL). However, there is a paucity of data, especially within a clinical trial setting, on the determinants of viral suppression (VS) following EAC among those failing ART. We thus evaluated predictors of VS among adults failing ART who had undergone EAC in the VISEND clinical trial. Methods: Our trial is a randomized 144 week open label non-inferiority study with adults failing (VL≧ 1000 copies/mL) ART of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), lamivudine (3TC) plus efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP), switched to 1) TDF,3TC,DTG or 2) tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), emtricitabine (FTC),DTG or 3) lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir/r (ATV/r), zidovudine (ZDV),3TC. Viral loads and other biomarkers were collected at weeks 12, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 144. Adults with VL≧ 1000 copies/mL at each of these time points underwent EAC involving 3 sessions over a period of 3 months according to existing guidelines. We calculated proportions of individuals who achieved VS post EAC and analyzed factors (demographic and clinical) independently associated with VS post EAC. Using multivariable log regression models, associations were analyzed as crude risk ratios (CRR) and adjusted risk ratios (ARR). Results: The overall VS rates following EAC among individuals with virologic failure was 66%;broken down as follows: TAF,FTC,DTG (78%), TDF,3TC,DTG (71%), ZDV,3TC,ATV/r (62%), and ZDV,3TC,LPV/r (53%). Compared to adults with no formal education, those having primary (ARR 1.55 [1.32-1.81], P<0.001) or secondary level education (ARR 1.93 [1.65-2.27], P<0.001) were more likely to achieve VS. Those less likely to suppress post EAC were individuals on ART for > 5 years (ARR 0.75 [0.75-0.75], P<0.001), VL > 10,000 copies/mL at time of failure (0.48 [0.48-0.48], P<0.001), presence of comorbidities (ARR 0.77 [0.66-0.90], P=0.001) and those taking concomitant medications (ARR 0.67 [0.58-0.79], P<0.001). Having suffered from COVID-19 infection had no association with VS post EAC (ARR 0.59 [0.22-1.58], P=0.30). Consistent results are in Table 1. Conclusion: In the VISEND trial, EAC led to VS rates near the WHO target of 70% with disparities in outcomes according to gender, education, and other factors. There is a need to routinely incorporate EAC into clinical trials and practice before regimen switch in order to maximize outcomes.

Atazanavir versus lopinavir on Covid-19 infection: A retrospective protease inhibitors comparative study 2020.

Background: Evaluation of protease inhibitors (PIs) is important in terms of prescribing an effective regimen for reducing mortality and hospitalization in Covid-19. Therefore, follow-up of patients better determines the characteristics of existing regimens. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the demographic, co-morbidities, gastrointestinal (GI) and liver complications of patients at two teaching hospitals from the first of March to the end of July 2020. All patients received one of two recommended regimens including hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg BD on the first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV) (300/100 mg daily) or HCQ with the same dose plus lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) (400/100 mg BD) for 5-7 days. Results: We chose 170 cases that received 2 different regimens. In group one, 85(57.6% males) patients received Kaletra and HCQ and group two, 85 (55.3% males) patients received ATV and HCQ. The study of hospitalization in both groups showed no difference in more or less than 5 days hospitalization. (P=0.757) Comparison of mortality rates has not shown a significant difference including 19 (22.4%) deaths in group 1 and 15(17.6%) deaths in group 2 (P=0.443). Nausea followed by diarrhea was the most common side effects in group 1. But no side effects were reported in group 2 (P=0.000). Abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) were seen in both groups. Conclusion: Comparison of hospitalization and mortality were not statistically significant. It seems that a respect to similar effect on mortality and hospitalization. ATV regimen is superior to Kaletra especially for better GI tolerance and less daily pills.

The Role of Nanotechnology in Antiviral Regime: An Overview

Nanomedicine or nanotechnology exhibits outstanding features to challenge severe health issues including pathogenic viral infections, the most culpable invaders in the present situation. The perpetual mutational pattern in viruses topped with raising resistance to drug epitomizes the current situation as a trigger to explore nanotech platforms in antiviral therapies. Referring to novel physicochemical features of nanomaterials associated with effective drug delivery, it is viewed as an ideal strategy for treatment of viral infections. The coronavirus induced pathogenesis, including MERS, SARS and SARS-CoV-2 infections, has triggered alarming and highly dangerous precedents against existence of humans. Applications of nanotechnology can serve a new direction for disinfection or treatment of viruses. Presently, various types of nanomaterials, such as nanogels, nanospheres, nanocapsules, liposomes, nanoparticles and many others, that have been investigated in vivo and in vitro for successful drug delivery, vaccination, diagnostic assay and device development with anticipation to be translated in advanced clinical practices, need a collective relook. This paper intents to contribute insightful critique of current studies on the efficacy of nanoplatforms as drug transporter, diagnostic tool and vaccine candidate against pathogenic viruses counting the highly pathogenic and incurable "coronaviruses".

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Atazanavir/Ritonavir Plus Hydroxychloroquine with Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with Moderate COVID-19, A Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial.

This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of Atazanavir/Ritonavir (ATZ/RTV) with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus ATZ/RTV or LPV/RTV for a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcomes were the reduced length of hospital stay and clinical recovery within 10 days from starting the intervention. The rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and mortality, the lengths of ICU stay and being intubated, recovery within 14 days, and the frequency of adverse reactions were considered as secondary outcomes. Among 132 enrolled patients, 62 cases in each arm were analyzed at the end of the intervention. Fifty-one (82.3%) cases in the ATZ/RTV arm versus 41 (66.1%) in the LPV/RTV arm were discharged within 10 days (P = 0.06). The median number of the intervention days was 6 (IQR: 5-8) in ATZ/RTV arm versus 7 (IQR: 6-9) in LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.01). The rate and length of ICU admission and intubation (P ≥ 0.99), rate of mortality (P = 0.49), and recovery within 14 days (P = 0.09) were not statistically different between groups. The most reported adverse reactions were nausea and vomiting that all cases were in the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.006). ATZ/RTV is better tolerated in comparison with LPV/RTV; however, it did not show more efficacy than LPV/RTV in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in this study.

In silico evaluation of atazanavir as a potential HIV main protease inhibitor and its comparison with new designed analogs.

Starting three decades ago and spreading rapidly around the world, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is an infectious disease distinct from other contagious diseases by its unique ways of transmission. Over the past few decades, research into new drug compounds has been accompanied by extensive advances, and the design and manufacture of drugs that inhibit virus enzymes is one way to combat the AIDS virus. Since blocking enzyme activity can kill a pathogen or correct a metabolic imbalance, the design and use of enzyme inhibitors is a new approach against viruses. We carried out an in-depth analysis of the efficacy of atazanavir and its newly designed analogs as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors using molecular docking. The best-designed analogs were then compared with atazanavir by the molecular dynamics simulation. The most promising results were ultimately found based on the docking analysis for HIV protease. Several exhibited an estimated free binding energy lower than -9.45 kcal/mol, indicating better prediction results than the atazanavir. ATV7 inhibitor with antiviral action may be more beneficial for infected patients with HIV. Molecular dynamics analysis and binding energy also showed that the ATV7 drug had more inhibitory ability than the atazanavir drug.

Atazanavir Is a Competitive Inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, Impairing Variants Replication In Vitro and In Vivo.

Atazanavir (ATV) has already been considered as a potential repurposing drug to 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, there are controversial reports on its mechanism of action and effectiveness as anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Through the pre-clinical chain of experiments: enzymatic, molecular docking, cell-based and in vivo assays, it is demonstrated here that both SARS-CoV-2 B.1 lineage and variant of concern gamma are susceptible to this antiretroviral. Enzymatic assays and molecular docking calculations showed that SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) was inhibited by ATV, with Morrison's inhibitory constant (Ki) 1.5-fold higher than GC376 (a positive control) dependent of the catalytic water (H2Ocat) content. ATV was a competitive inhibitor, increasing the Mpro's Michaelis-Menten (Km) more than sixfold. Cell-based assays indicated that different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 is susceptible to ATV. Using oral administration of ATV in mice to reach plasmatic exposure similar to humans, transgenic mice expression in human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (K18-hACE2) were partially protected against lethal challenge with SARS-CoV-2 gamma. Moreover, less cell death and inflammation were observed in the lung from infected and treated mice. Our studies may contribute to a better comprehension of the Mpro/ATV interaction, which could pave the way to the development of specific inhibitors of this viral protease.

Risk Factors of Oropharyngeal Candidiasis in COVID-19 Patients: A Case-control Study

Background: With the emergence and spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, health care systems have faced the biggest challenge in recent decades. Objectives: The present study aimed to identify risk factors associated with oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The total number of confirmed COVID-19 patients was 218 (105 cases with OPC and 113 controls without OPC). The questionnaire used in this study consisted of demographic data, treatment strategy, clinical and laboratory data, and underlying diseases collected from the onset of clinical OPC until the end of hospitalization. Results: Pseudomembranous candidiasis (77/105, 73.3%) was the most prevalent form of OPC in case patients. The majority of the cases (58.1%) and controls (58.4%) were males. Increasing age (P = 0.03) and hospitalization length (P = 0.016) were significantly associated with OPC in COVID-19 patients. Diabetes (P = 0.003), solid tumor (P = 0.019), and hypertension (P = 0.000) were the most common underlying conditions. The use of dentures (P = 0.003) and poor oral hygiene (P = 0.000) were related to OPC in the case group. Therapy with chloroquine (P = 0.012), IVIG (P = 0.001), diuretics (P = 0.000), and corticosteroid pulse therapy (P = 0.000) were significantly associated with developing OPC in case patients. Conclusions: Old age, hospitalization length, poor oral hygiene, corticosteroids use, diabetes, solid tumor, and hypertension may predispose COVID-19 patients to develop OPC. © 2021, Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comparing the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.