ABSTRACT
Background: Currently, the present world is facing a new deadly challenge from a pandemic disease called COVID-19, which is caused by a coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2. To date, no drug or vaccine can treat COVID-19 completely, but some drugs have been used primarily, and they are in different stages of clinical trials. This review article discussed and compared those drugs which are running ahead in COVID-19 treatments. Method(s): We have explored PUBMED, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, as well as press releases of WHO, NIH and FDA for articles related to COVID-19 and reviewed them. Result(s): Drugs like favipiravir, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, corticosteroids and interferons have been found effective to some extent, and partially approved by FDA and WHO to treat COVID-19 at different levels. However, some of these drugs have been disapproved later, although clinical trials are going on. In parallel, plasma therapy has been found fruitful to some extent too, and a number of vaccine trials are going on. Conclusion(s): This review article discussed the epidemiologic and mechanistic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, and how drugs could act on this virus with the comparative discussion on progress and drawbacks of major drugs used till date, which might be beneficial for choosing therapies against COVID-19 in different countries.Copyright © 2022 Bentham Science Publishers.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 are needed to overcome challenges associated with mitigating the global pandemic. We report the safety and immunogenicity of V590, a live recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate. METHODS: In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-part phase 1 study, healthy adults were randomised to receive a single intramuscular dose of vaccine or placebo. In Part 1, younger (18-54 years) and, in Part 2, older (≥55 years) adults seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid received one of four V590 dose levels (5.00 × 105; 2.40 × 106; 1.15 × 107; or 5.55 × 107 plaque-forming units [pfu]) or placebo. In Part 3, a single V590 dose level (5.55 × 107 pfu) or placebo was administered to younger SARS-CoV-2 seropositive adults. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and for Parts 1 and 2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralising antibody responses measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation (PRNT50) assay at Day 28. Registration NCT04569786 [P001-02]. FINDINGS: 232 participants were randomised and 219 completed the study. In seronegative participants, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody responses to V590 were low and comparable to placebo across the lower dose levels. At the highest dose level (5.55 × 107 pfu), anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific PRNT50 was 2.3-fold higher than placebo. The most frequently reported AEs were injection-site pain (38.4%), headache (15.1%) and fatigue (13.4%). INTERPRETATION: V590 was generally well-tolerated. However, Day 28 anti-SARS-Cov-2 spike-specific antibody responses in seronegative participants following a single intramuscular administration of V590 were not sufficient to warrant continued development. FUNDING: The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.