The Nucleoside/Nucleotide Analogs Tenofovir and Emtricitabine Are Inactive against SARS-CoV-2.

The urgent response to the COVID-19 pandemic required accelerated evaluation of many approved drugs as potential antiviral agents against the causative pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using cell-based, biochemical, and modeling approaches, we studied the approved HIV-1 nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tenofovir (TFV) and emtricitabine (FTC), as well as prodrugs tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxilfumarate (TDF) for their antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2. A comprehensive set of in vitro data indicates that TFV, TAF, TDF, and FTC are inactive against SARS-CoV-2. None of the NRTIs showed antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infected A549-hACE2 cells or in primary normal human lung bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells at concentrations up to 50 µM TAF, TDF, FTC, or 500 µM TFV. These results are corroborated by the low incorporation efficiency of respective NTP analogs by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent-RNA polymerase (RdRp), and lack of the RdRp inhibition. Structural modeling further demonstrated poor fitting of these NRTI active metabolites at the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp active site. Our data indicate that the HIV-1 NRTIs are unlikely direct-antivirals against SARS-CoV-2, and clinicians and researchers should exercise caution when exploring ideas of using these and other NRTIs to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic.

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

The consequential impact of JUUL on youth vaping and the landscape of tobacco products: The state of play in the COVID-19 era.

JUUL is a groundbreaking electronic cigarette (e-cig) and the preeminent vaping product on the market. We present an overview of the rapid and spectacular rise of JUUL and its remarkable fall within the timespan of 2015 - 2020. We highlight JUUL's entering the market in June 2015, becoming the industry leader in mid 2017, and experiencing a litany of setbacks by late 2019 through to early 2020. We address the role played by JUUL in the ongoing epidemic of youth vaping. We also feature competing views on the public health impact of JUUL use (in particular), and e-cig vaping (in general). We further highlight the latest trends in youth vaping and sales records for JUUL and tobacco cigarettes. In view of the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, we briefly summarize the existing evidence on the relationship between vaping and smoking and the prevalence, disease course, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

Pharmacological considerations for the treatment of COVID-19 in people living with HIV (PLWH).

INTRODUCTION: When coronavirus infectious disease-2019 (COVID-19) blew up, ill-fated auguries on the collision between COVID-19 and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemics loomed. AREAS COVERED: Data from observational studies suggest similar incidence attacks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PLWH) and HIV-uninfected populations. The mortality rate of COVID-19 is similar in both populations too. The authors discuss the role of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in preventing infection or reducing COVID-19 severity. They also discuss the pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in PLWH. EXPERT OPINION: Management of COVID-19 in PLWH is no different from the general population. It should be based on careful supportive care, emphasizing lung-protective ventilation, and wise pharmacological interventions. The antiviral drug remdesivir and dexamethasone are the only pharmacological interventions with clinical benefit for COVID-19, whereas anticoagulation may prevent thrombotic complications. The experience with using these drugs in PLWH is limited, which prevents from rendering well-founded conclusions. Until more data on COVID-19 in PLWH become available, the best weapons within our reach are sound supportive care and sensible use of RDV and dexamethasone, bearing in mind the potential for drug-drug interactions of most corticosteroids and antiretroviral drugs.

Preventive Efficacy of Tenofovir/Emtricitabine Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Users.

BACKGROUND: The preventive effect that tenofovir/emtricitabine (FTC) could have against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human immunodeficiency virus-negative people is unknown. The objective of this study was to analyze the seroprevalence and clinical manifestations of COVID-19 among users of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), disoproxil fumarate/FTC (TDF/FTC), or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC and to compare it to that of a control group. METHODS: An observational descriptive study of the seroprevalence of antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 among men who have sex with men and transgender women without use of PrEP (Group 1; n = 250) and PrEP users with TDF/FTC (n = 409) or TAF/FTC (n = 91) (Group 2; n = 500) was conducted from May11, 2020 to June 27, 2020. All participants were provided with a structured questionnaire that collected information on the variables to be analyzed, and testing for immunoglobulin G antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay) was then carried out. RESULTS: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-13.5) in the group without PrEP and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0-18.4) in the group with PrEP (P = .026). Among users of TDF/FTC it was 14.7% (95% CI, 11.4-18.5), and in users of TAF/FTC it was 16.5% (95% CI, 9.5-25.7) (P = .661). In those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and receiving PrEP, 57.4% manifested symptoms, compared with 78.3% in the control group (P = .070). In users of TDF/FTC the figure was 53.3% and in users of TAF/FTC the figure was 73.3% (P = .100). The duration of symptoms was 11.5 days in the control group, 9.0 days in PrEP users (P = .116), 7.0 days in users of TDF/FTC, and 13.0 days in users of TAF/FTC (P = .100). CONCLUSIONS: Users of PrEP, TDF/FTC, or TAF/FTC presented a higher seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 than the control group. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to clinical manifestations. The PrEP users should use the same prevention measures as those indicated for the general population.