Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 294
Filter
1.
Lancet ; 399(10339): 1941-1953, 2022 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2159958

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-ß1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date. METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-ß1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both). FUNDING: WHO.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , World Health Organization
2.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 18186, 2022 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096799

ABSTRACT

Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon ß-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Ritonavir , Animals , Humans , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Cytokines/therapeutic use , Interferons/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
3.
PLoS Med ; 19(10): e1004120, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079651

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
4.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(41): e30998, 2022 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2077958

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19. METHODS: We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Doxycycline/therapeutic use , Humans , Imatinib Mesylate/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1b/therapeutic use , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Network Meta-Analysis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
5.
Obstet Gynecol ; 140(3): 447-449, 2022 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2018210

ABSTRACT

This is a descriptive study of pregnant patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy from April 16, 2022, through May 18, 2022. Patients were eligible to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir if they were diagnosed with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with symptom onset within 5 days, did not require oxygen therapy or hospital admission, and had no contraindications to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. During the study time frame, 11 patients were identified as candidates for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment. All patients agreed to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment after a telehealth consultation; seven patients completed the treatment. All patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir experienced symptom resolution without the need for additional care. All but one patient tolerated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir without immediate adverse effects, and no adverse fetal or neonatal effects were observed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Female , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Humans , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Pregnancy Outcome , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/drug therapy
6.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(10)2022 May 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1953481

ABSTRACT

Although many efforts have been made to elucidate the pathogenesis of COVID-19, the underlying mechanisms are yet to be fully uncovered. However, it is known that a dysfunctional immune response and the accompanying uncontrollable inflammation lead to troublesome outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Pannexin1 channels are put forward as interesting drug targets for the treatment of COVID-19 due to their key role in inflammation and their link to other viral infections. In the present study, we selected a panel of drugs previously tested in clinical trials as potential candidates for the treatment of COVID-19 early on in the pandemic, including hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, dexamethasone, ribavirin, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir, and ritonavir. The effect of the drugs on pannexin1 channels was assessed at a functional level by means of measurement of extracellular ATP release. Immunoblot analysis and real-time quantitative reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction analysis were used to study the potential of the drugs to alter pannexin1 protein and mRNA expression levels, respectively. Favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and the combination of lopinavir with ritonavir were found to inhibit pannexin1 channel activity without affecting pannexin1 protein or mRNA levels. Thusthree new inhibitors of pannexin1 channels were identified that, though currently not being used anymore for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, could be potential drug candidates for other pannexin1-related diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Connexins , COVID-19/drug therapy , Connexins/genetics , Connexins/metabolism , Drug Repositioning , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Inflammation , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Nerve Tissue Proteins/genetics , Nerve Tissue Proteins/metabolism , RNA, Messenger , Ritonavir
7.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0267884, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910620

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving pandemic that urged the need to investigate various antiviral therapies. This study was conducted to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of darunavir-cobicistat versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted on adult patients hospitalized in one of the COVID-19 facilities in Qatar. Patients were included if they received darunavir-cobicistat or lopinavir-ritonavir for at least three days as part of their COVID-19 treatments. Data were collected from patients' electronic medical records. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used at alpha level of 0.05. A total of 400 patients was analyzed, of whom 100 received darunavir-cobicistat and 300 received lopinavir-ritonavir. Majority of patients were male (92.5%), with a mean (SD) time from symptoms onset to start of therapy of 7.57 days (4.89). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than patients received darunavir-cobicistat (4 days [IQR 3-7] vs. 6.5 days [IQR 4-12]; HR 1.345 [95%CI: 1.070-1.691], P = 0.011). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement (5 days [IQR 3-8] vs. 8 days [IQR 4-13]; HR 1.520 (95%CI: 1.2-1.925), P = 0.000), and slower time to virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat (25 days [IQR 15-33] vs. 21 days [IQR 12.8-30]; HR 0.772 (95%CI: 0.607-0.982), P = 0.035). No significant difference in the incidence or severity of adverse events between groups. The study was limited to its retrospective nature and the possibility of covariates, which was accounted for by multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat. Future trials are warranted to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425382.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Adult , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cobicistat , Darunavir/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir , Treatment Outcome
8.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0267645, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910614

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of the combined treatment of antibiotics (3rd-generation cephalosporin and azithromycin) and antiviral agents (lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine) on moderate COVID-19 patients in South Korea. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of the 358 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) patients was conducted. 299 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression method were used to control and adjust for confounding factors. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were managed with either CA/LoP (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) (n = 57), CA/HQ (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and hydroxychloroquine) (n = 25) or standard supportive care (n = 217). We analyzed the association between treatment group and standard supportive group in terms of three endpoints: time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration. Using propensity-score matching analysis, three rounds of propensity-matching analysis were performed to balance baseline characteristics among three cohorts. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier curves fitted using propensity score-matched data revealed no significant differences on time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, hospital stay duration among the three treatment arms (CA/LoP vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.2, 0.58, and 0.74 respectively for the three endpoints) (CA/HQ vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.46, 0.99, and 0.75 respectively). Similarly, Cox regression analysis on matched cohorts of CA/LoP and standard supportive group showed that hazard ratios of time to symptom resolution (HR: 1.447 [95%-CI: 0.813-2.577]), time to viral clearance(HR: 0.861, [95%-CI: 0.485-1.527]), and hospital stay duration (HR: 0.902, [95%-CI: 0.510-1.595]) were not significant. For CA/HQ and standard supportive group, hazard ratios of the three endpoints all showed no statistical significance (HR: 1.331 [95%-CI:0.631-2.809], 1.005 [95%-CI:0.480-2.105], and 0.887, [95%-CI:0.422-1.862] respectively). No severe adverse event or death was observed in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of 3rd cephalosporin, azithromycin and either low-dose lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine was not associated with better clinical outcomes in terms of time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration compared to standard supportive treatment alone. Microbiological evidence should be closely monitored when treating SARS-CoV-2 patients with antibiotics to prevent indiscreet administration of empirical antimicrobial treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cephalosporins/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
11.
Curr Drug Res Rev ; 14(3): 203-214, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875265

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, first detected in Wuhan, China, has evolved into a lifethreatening pandemic spread across six continents, with the global case count being more than 243 million, and mortality over 4.95 million, along with causing significant morbidity. It has initiated an era of research on repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, remedesivir, ivermectin, alongside selective antivirals to treat or prevent COVID- 19. Molnupiravir is an orally available emerging antiviral drug considered highly promising for COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have performed a scoping review for the use of molnupiravir against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. It acts by inhibiting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), and exhibits broad-spectrum antiviral activity. Preclinical studies have evaluated the therapeutic efficacy as well as prophylactic activity of molnupiravir against SARS CoV-2 in various animal models that include ferrets, hamsters, mice, immunodeficient mice implanted with human lung tissue and cell cultures, in various doses ranging from 5-300 mg/kg, and results have been encouraging. Initial evidence of safety and efficacy from early phase clinical studies has been encouraging too, and recent results from a large phase 3 global trial have shown significant benefits among symptomatic outpatients. Other late-phase clinical trials are still underway with the aim of establishing molnulpiravir as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, particularly for non-hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: On the basis of the limited evidence available as of now, molnupiravir could prove to be a promising oral therapy, worthy of further exploration of its utility for both treatment and prevention of COVID-19 in humans. Elaborate clinical evaluation is further warranted to confirm whether the results are replicable to the clinical scenario among outpatients to reduce the chance of progression to more severe disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cricetinae , Humans , Animals , Mice , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/pharmacology , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Ivermectin , Ferrets , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase , Adrenal Cortex Hormones
13.
BMJ ; 377: e069400, 2022 05 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832391

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify, match, and compare treatment effects and study demographics from individual or meta-analysed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same covid-19 treatments, comparators, and outcomes. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: National Institutes of Health Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines, a living review and network meta-analysis published in The BMJ, a living systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis in PLOS Medicine (The LIVING Project), and the Epistemonikos "Living OVerview of Evidence" (L·OVE) evidence database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES: RCTs in The BMJ's living review that directly compared any of the three most frequently studied therapeutic interventions for covid-19 across all data sources (that is, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone) for any safety and efficacy outcomes. Observational studies that evaluated the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes that were reported in The BMJ's living review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Safety and efficacy outcomes from observational studies were identified and treatment effects for dichotomous (odds ratios) or continuous (mean differences or ratios of means) outcomes were calculated and, when possible, meta-analyzed to match the treatment effects from individual RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review with the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (that is, matched pairs). The analysis compared the distribution of study demographics and the agreement between treatment effects from matched pairs. Matched pairs were in agreement if both observational and RCT treatment effects were significantly increasing or decreasing (P<0.05) or if both treatment effects were not significant (P≥0.05). RESULTS: 17 new, independent meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted that compared hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone with an active or placebo comparator for any safety or efficacy outcomes in covid-19 treatment. These studies were matched and compared with 17 meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review. 10 additional matched pairs with only one observational study and/or one RCT were identified. Across all 27 matched pairs, 22 had adequate reporting of demographical and clinical data for all individual studies. All 22 matched pairs had studies with overlapping distributions of sex, age, and disease severity. Overall, 21 (78%) of the 27 matched pairs had treatment effects that were in agreement. Among the 17 matched pairs consisting of meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 (82%) were in agreement; seven (70%) of the 10 matched pairs consisting of at least one observational study or one RCT were in agreement. The 18 matched pairs with treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes had a higher proportion of agreement (n=16, 89%) than did the nine matched pairs with treatment effects for continuous outcomes (n=5, 56%). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs evaluating treatments for covid-19 have summary treatment effects that are generally in agreement. Although our evaluation is limited to three covid-19 treatments, these findings suggest that meta-analyzed evidence from observational studies might complement, but should not replace, evidence collected from RCTs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
14.
Med Intensiva (Engl Ed) ; 46(4): 179-191, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1829191

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to identify the risk factors associated with mortality at six weeks, especially by analyzing the role of antivirals and munomodulators. DESIGN: Prospective descriptive multicenter cohort study. SETTING: 26 Intensive care units (ICU) from Andalusian region in Spain. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive critically ill patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included from March 8 to May 30. INTERVENTIONS: None. VARIABLES: Variables analyzed were demographic, severity scores and clinical condition. Support therapy, drug and mortality were analyzed. An univariate followed by multivariate Cox regression with propensity score analysis was applied. RESULTS: 495 patients were enrolled, but 73 of them were excluded for incomplete data. Thus, 422 patients were included in the final analysis. Median age was 63 years and 305 (72.3%) were men. ICU mortality: 144/422 34%; 14 days mortality: 81/422 (19.2%); 28 days mortality: 121/422 (28.7%); 6-week mortality 152/422 36.5%. By multivariable Cox proportional analysis, factors independently associated with 42-day mortality were age, APACHE II score, SOFA score at ICU admission >6, Lactate dehydrogenase at ICU admission >470U/L, Use of vasopressors, extrarenal depuration, %lymphocytes 72h post-ICU admission <6.5%, and thrombocytopenia whereas the use of lopinavir/ritonavir was a protective factor. CONCLUSION: Age, APACHE II, SOFA>value of 6 points, along with vasopressor requirements or renal replacement therapy have been identified as predictor factors of mortality at six weeks. Administration of corticosteroids showed no benefits in mortality, as did treatment with tocilizumab. Lopinavir/ritonavir administration is identified as a protective factor.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infant , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
15.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(9)2022 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1820294

ABSTRACT

Connexin43 (Cx43) hemichannels form a pathway for cellular communication between the cell and its extracellular environment. Under pathological conditions, Cx43 hemichannels release adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which triggers inflammation. Over the past two years, azithromycin, chloroquine, dexamethasone, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, remdesivir, ribavirin, and ritonavir have been proposed as drugs for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is associated with prominent systemic inflammation. The current study aimed to investigate if Cx43 hemichannels, being key players in inflammation, could be affected by these drugs which were formerly designated as COVID-19 drugs. For this purpose, Cx43-transduced cells were exposed to these drugs. The effects on Cx43 hemichannel activity were assessed by measuring extracellular ATP release, while the effects at the transcriptional and translational levels were monitored by means of real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis and immunoblot analysis, respectively. Exposure to lopinavir and ritonavir combined (4:1 ratio), as well as to remdesivir, reduced Cx43 mRNA levels. None of the tested drugs affected Cx43 protein expression.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Connexin 43 , Adenosine Triphosphate/metabolism , COVID-19/drug therapy , Connexin 43/drug effects , Connexin 43/genetics , Connexin 43/metabolism , Humans , Inflammation , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/pharmacology
16.
Value Health ; 25(8): 1268-1280, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1804687

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates time-sensitive policy and implementation decisions regarding new therapies in the face of uncertainty. This study aimed to quantify consequences of approving therapies or pursuing further research: immediate approval, use only in research, approval with research (eg, emergency use authorization), or reject. METHODS: Using a cohort state-transition model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with the following interventions: hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, tocilizumab, lopinavir-ritonavir, interferon beta-1a, and usual care. We used the model outcomes to conduct cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses from a US healthcare perspective and a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Assuming a $100 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, only remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, and tocilizumab were (cost-) effective (incremental net health benefit 0.252, 0.164, 0.545, 0.668, and 0.524 QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit $25 249, $16 375, $54 526, $66 826, and $52 378). Our value of information analyses suggest that most value can be obtained if these 5 therapies are approved for immediate use rather than requiring additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (net value $20.6 billion, $13.4 billion, $7.4 billion, $54.6 billion, and $7.1 billion), hydroxychloroquine (net value $198 million) is only used in further RCTs if seeking to demonstrate decremental cost-effectiveness and otherwise rejected, and interferon beta-1a and lopinavir-ritonavir are rejected (ie, neither approved nor additional RCTs). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the real-time value of collecting additional evidence during the pandemic can inform policy makers and clinicians about the optimal moment to implement therapies and whether to perform further research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dexamethasone , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
17.
Paediatr Drugs ; 24(3): 269-280, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797448

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: There was initially insufficient understanding regarding suitable pharmacological treatment for pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) was originally used for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. It was also used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) with positive results. Nonetheless, results from recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies on COVID-19 patients were unfavorable. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 933 COVID-19 patients aged ≤ 18 years were admitted between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was receiving LPV/r within the first two days of admission. Time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, seroconversion and hyperinflammatory syndrome, cumulative costs, and hospital length of stay were assessed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and linear models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: LPV/r users were associated with longer time to clinical improvement (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001), hospital discharge (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001) and seroconversion (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; p < 0.001) when compared with controls. LPV/r users were also associated with prolonged hospital length of stay (6.99 days, 95% CI 6.23-7.76; p < 0.001) and higher costs at 30 days (US$11,709 vs US$8270; p < 0.001) as opposed to controls. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients was associated with longer time to clinical improvement. Our study advocates the recommendation against LPV/r use for pediatric patients across age groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Child , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
18.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 148: 1-9, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773456

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate for coronavirus disease 2019 treatments without benefits in subsequent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scopus searches (December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine, or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and had >150 citations. Their conclusions were correlated with study design features. The 10 most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained. RESULTS: Forty eligible articles of clinical studies had received >150 citations. Twenty of forty (50%) had favorable conclusions and four were equivocal. Highly cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs (3/20), although those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (15/20, P = 0.0003). Only one RCT with favorable conclusions had >160 patients. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, especially news items. Only nine (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical. CONCLUSION: Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective coronavirus disease 2019 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Azithromycin , Interferons , Colchicine
19.
Antiviral Res ; 202: 105311, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773103

ABSTRACT

Nelfinavir is an HIV protease inhibitor that has been widely prescribed as a component of highly active antiretroviral therapy, and has been reported to exert in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. We here assessed the effect of Nelfinavir in a SARS-CoV-2 infection model in hamsters. Despite the fact that Nelfinavir, [50 mg/kg twice daily (BID) for four consecutive days], did not reduce viral RNA load and infectious virus titres in the lung of infected animals, treatment resulted in a substantial improvement of SARS-CoV-2-induced lung pathology. This was accompanied by a dense infiltration of neutrophils in the lung interstitium which was similarly observed in non-infected hamsters. Nelfinavir resulted also in a marked increase in activated neutrophils in the blood, as observed in non-infected animals. Although Nelfinavir treatment did not alter the expression of chemoattractant receptors or adhesion molecules on human neutrophils, in vitro migration of human neutrophils to the major human neutrophil attractant CXCL8 was augmented by this protease inhibitor. Nelfinavir appears to induce an immunomodulatory effect associated with increasing neutrophil number and functionality, which may be linked to the marked improvement in SARS-CoV-2 lung pathology independent of its lack of antiviral activity. Since Nelfinavir is no longer used for the treatment of HIV, we studied the effect of two other HIV protease inhibitors, namely the combination Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Kaletra™) in this model. This combination resulted in a similar protective effect as Nelfinavir against SARS-CoV2 induced lung pathology in hamsters.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , HIV Protease Inhibitors , Animals , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cricetinae , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Protease Inhibitors/pharmacology , HIV Protease Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Lung , Mesocricetus , Nelfinavir/pharmacology , Nelfinavir/therapeutic use , RNA, Viral , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 88(9): 4080-4091, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1769686

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events. METHODS: Systematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone and interferon-ß. Data were independently extracted by 2 study investigators and analysed. RESULTS: Out of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care. CONCLUSION: In comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Network Meta-Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL