[Results of a randomized double-blind multicenter clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of riamilovir in the treatment of COVID-19].

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of riamilovir in the treatment of COVID-19 in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 180 patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 which fully meet the criteria for inclusion, non-inclusion and exclusion, signed a voluntary informed consent to participate in a clinical trial. RESULTS: The efficacy, good tolerability and safety of the drug riamilovir in the treatment of COVID-19 have been established. CONCLUSION: As a result of a multicenter randomized double-blind clinical trial, the effectiveness of the drug riamilovir for therapeutic use in patients with COVID-19 according to the 1250 mg/day scheme (250 mg capsules 5 times per day) for 10 days was established. The drug riamilovir in a daily dose of 1250 mg for 10 days does not differ in safety from placebo.

Safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and severe renal impairment: experience at a large medical center.

BACKGROUND: Literature on the safety of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe renal impairment is limited. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received remdesivir between April 2022 and October 2022. Outcomes were compared between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 groups. The primary safety outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI) and bradycardia, while the primary effectiveness outcomes included mortality in COVID-19-dedicated wards and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included laboratory changes, disease progression, and recovery time. RESULTS: A total of 1,343 patients were recruited, with 307 (22.9%) in the eGFR <30 group and 1,036 (77.1%) in the eGFR ≥30 group. Patients with an eGFR <30 had higher risks of AKI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.92, 95% CI 1.93-4.44) and hospital mortality (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.05) but had comparable risks of bradycardia (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85-1.56) and mortality in dedicated wards (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 0.90-2.28) than patients with an eGFR ≥30. Risk of disease progression was higher in the eGFR <30 group (adjusted odds ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.16-2.26). No difference between the two groups in laboratory changes and recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir with severe renal impairment had an increased risk of AKI, hospital mortality, and COVID-19 disease progression compared to patients without severe renal impairment.

A case of successful treatment of a rare retinal disease presented by interferon-induced retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To showcase a rare retinal lesion and the results of contemporary diagnostic and treatment of interferon-induced retinopathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: We describe a case of a 36-year-old patient with interferon-induced retinopathy, with hepatitis C, that received prolonged interferon treatment. Clinical signs, examination and combined laser and pharmacologic treatment were showcased in the study. RESULTS: Results: As a result of pharmacologic and laser treatment, the patient's visual acuity increased from 0.1 to 1.0 through the duration of 3 months after treatment. The patients` condition remained stable under dynamic observation. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Because interferon-induced retinopathy is a rare occurrence in routine ophthalmologic practice, combined laser therapy can be used for treatment of preretinal hemorrhage, which leads to improvement of visual functions and stabilization of the retinal processes. This case is an addition to the few described cases of interferon-induced retinopathy.

Safety analysis of Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil after market approval: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Amidst limited influenza treatment options, evaluating the safety of Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil is crucial, particularly given their comparable efficacy. This study investigates post-market safety profiles, exploring adverse events (AEs) and their drug associations to provide essential clinical references. METHODS: A meticulous analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data spanning the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2022 was conducted. Using data mining techniques like reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio, Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network, and Multiple Gamma Poisson Shrinkage, AEs related to Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil were examined. Venn analysis compared and selected specific AEs associated with each drug. RESULTS: Incorporating 15,104 Oseltamivir cases and 1,594 Baloxavir Marboxil cases, Wain analysis unveiled 21 common AEs across neurological, psychiatric, gastrointestinal, dermatological, respiratory, and infectious domains. Oseltamivir exhibited 221 significantly specific AEs, including appendicolith [ROR (95% CI), 459.53 (340.88 ∼ 619.47)], acne infantile [ROR (95% CI, 368.65 (118.89 ∼ 1143.09)], acute macular neuroretinopathy [ROR (95% CI), 294.92 (97.88 ∼ 888.64)], proctitis [ROR (95% CI), 245.74 (101.47 ∼ 595.31)], and Purpura senile [ROR (95% CI), 154.02 (81.96 ∼ 289.43)]. designated adverse events (DMEs) associated with Oseltamivir included fulminant hepatitis [ROR (95% CI), 12.12 (8.30-17.72), n=27], ventricular fibrillation [ROR (95% CI), 7.68 (6.01-9.83), n=64], toxic epidermal necrolysis [ROR (95% CI), 7.21 (5.74-9.05), n=75]. Baloxavir Marboxil exhibited 34 specific AEs, including Melaena [ROR (95% CI), 21.34 (14.15-32.18), n = 23], cystitis haemorrhagic [ROR (95% CI), 20.22 (7.57-54.00), n = 4], ileus paralytic [ROR (95% CI), 18.57 (5.98-57.71), n = 3], and haemorrhagic diathesis [ROR (95% CI), 16.86 (5.43-52.40)), n = 3]. DMEs associated with Baloxavir Marboxil included rhabdomyolysis [ROR (95% CI), 15.50 (10.53 ∼ 22.80), n = 26]. CONCLUSION: Monitoring fulminant hepatitis during Oseltamivir treatment, especially in patients with liver-related diseases, is crucial. Oseltamivir's potential to induce abnormal behavior, especially in adolescents, necessitates special attention. Baloxavir Marboxil, with lower hepatic toxicity, emerges as a potential alternative for patients with liver diseases. During Baloxavir Marboxil treatment, focused attention on the occurrence of rhabdomyolysis is advised, necessitating timely monitoring of relevant indicators for those with clinical manifestations. The comprehensive data aims to provide valuable insights for clinicians and healthcare practitioners, facilitating an understanding of the safety profiles of these influenza treatments in real-world scenarios.

Therapeutic effectiveness analysis of tenofovir alafenamide and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on the treatment for chronic hepatitis B.

To explore the therapeutic effectiveness of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) on the treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Retrospectively analyzing 241 cases of chronic hepatitis B patients admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to December 2021, they were divided into a TAF group of 180 cases and a TDF group of 61 cases. The liver function, serum virus markers, clinical efficacy, adverse reactions and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) analysis of 2 groups were compared. Two groups of patients had no statistically significant difference in the levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and total bilirubin (TBIL) before treatment. After treatment, the levels of ALT, AST and TBIL were lower than before treatment in both groups (P < .05), but the inter-group difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). After treatment, Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) conversion rate and Hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) conversion rate in the 2 groups had no statistically significant difference. After treatment, the difference in total clinical cure rate between the 2 groups has no statistical significance (P > .05), adverse reactions rate of TAF group was lower than that of TDF group (P < .05). The drug cost median of TAF group was higher than that of TDF (P < .05), but Cost-effectiveness analysis showed the CER of TAF group was similar of TDF group. TAF or TDF therapy can both improve liver function and promote recovery in patients with CHB, achieving the goal of treatment. TAF have more cost but have similar CER to TDF. Moreover, TAF therapy has a higher safety profile.

Pitfalls in Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Dose Adjustment Based on Renal Function in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Valganciclovir (VGC) is administered as prophylaxis to kidney transplant recipients (KTR) CMV donor (D)+/recipient (R)- and CMV R+ after thymoglobulin-induction (R+/TG). Although VGC dose adjustments based on renal function are recommended, there is paucity of real-life data on VGC dosing and associations with clinical outcomes. This is a retrospective Swiss Transplant Cohort Study-embedded observational study, including all adult D+/R- and R+/TG KTR between 2010 and 2020, who received prophylaxis with VGC. The primary objective was to describe the proportion of inappropriately (under- or over-) dosed VGC week-entries. Secondary objectives included breakthrough clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) and potential associations between breakthrough-csCMVi and cytopenias with VGC dosing. Among 178 KTR, 131 (73.6%) patients had ≥2 week-entries for the longitudinal data of interest and were included in the outcome analysis, with 1,032 VGC dose week-entries. Overall, 460/1,032 (44.6%) were appropriately dosed, while 234/1,032 (22.7%) and 338/1,032 (32.8%) were under- and over-dosed, respectively. Nineteen (14.5%) patients had a breakthrough-csCMVi, without any associations identified with VCG dosing (p = 0.44). Unlike other cytopenias, a significant association between VGC overdosing and lymphopenia (OR 5.27, 95% CI 1.71-16.22, p = 0.004) was shown. VGC prophylaxis in KTR is frequently inappropriately dosed, albeit without meaningful clinical associations, neither in terms of efficacy nor safety.

The Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry: Three decades of prospective monitoring for birth defects.

PURPOSE: Antiretrovirals (ARVs) are life-saving drugs used for the treatment and prevention of HIV infection and antiviral drugs (AVs) for the treatment of chronic HBV infection. ARVs have proven highly effective in reducing perinatal HIV transmission, however the risk of birth defects from prenatal exposure to ARVs/AVs is an ongoing concern. The Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry (APR), an international, prospective exposure-registration cohort study, monitors ARV and AV use in pregnancy for early signals of teratogenicity. This communication reports results of 30-years' experience of ARV/AV exposure during pregnancy and lessons learned through continuous quality improvement. METHODS AND RESULTS: Birth defect prevalence is estimated and compared to internal and external groups. Statistical inference is based on exact methods for binomial proportions. Between 2006 and 2023, cumulative enrollment more than tripled from 6893 to 25 960 pregnancies and ARVs/AVs monitored increased from 29 to 222. Through January 2023, there were 21 636 live births and 631 outcomes with birth defects, for overall prevalence of 2.9/100 live births (95% CI 2.7, 3.2). The birth defect prevalence was 3.0% (95% CI 2.7%, 3.3%) among first trimester exposures and 2.8% (95% CI 2.5%, 3.2%) among second/third trimester exposures (prevalence ratio 1.04 [95% CI 0.89, 1.21]). CONCLUSIONS: Birth defect prevalence is not statistically significantly different between first trimester ARV/AV pregnancy exposures compared to second/third trimester exposures and is also not different from two population-based surveillance systems: 2.72/100 live births reported in the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP); and 4.17/100 live births from the Texas Birth Defects Registry (TBDR).

Nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) in the treatment of viral exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral infections are major drivers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Interferon-ß is naturally produced in response to viral infection, limiting replication. This exploratory study aimed to demonstrate proof-of-mechanism, and evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled recombinant interferon-ß1a (SNG001) in COPD. Part 1 assessed the effects of SNG001 on induced sputum antiviral interferon-stimulated gene expression, sputum differential cell count, and respiratory function. Part 2 compared SNG001 and placebo on clinical efficacy, sputum and serum biomarkers, and viral clearance. METHODS: In Part 1, patients (N = 13) with stable COPD were randomised 4:1 to SNG001 or placebo once-daily for three days. In Part 2, patients (N = 109) with worsening symptoms and a positive respiratory viral test were randomised 1:1 to SNG001 or placebo once-daily for 14 days in two Groups: A (no moderate exacerbation); B (moderate COPD exacerbation [i.e., acute worsening of respiratory symptoms treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids]). RESULTS: In Part 1, SNG001 upregulated sputum interferon gene expression. In Part 2, there were minimal SNG001-placebo differences in the efficacy endpoints; however, whereas gene expression was initially upregulated by viral infection, then declined on placebo, levels were maintained with SNG001. Furthermore, the proportion of patients with detectable rhinovirus (the most common virus) on Day 7 was lower with SNG001. In Group B, serum C-reactive protein and the proportion of patients with purulent sputum increased with placebo (suggesting bacterial infection), but not with SNG001. The overall adverse event incidence was similar with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SNG001 was well-tolerated in patients with COPD, and upregulated lung antiviral defences to accelerate viral clearance. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU clinical trials register (2017-003679-75), 6 October 2017.

Feasibility, safety, efficacy and potential scaling-up of sofosbuvir-based HCV treatment in Central and West Africa: (TAC ANRS 12311 trial).

Access to Hepatis C treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa is a clinical, public health and ethical concern. The multi-country open-label trial TAC ANRS 12311 allowed assessing the feasibility, safety, efficacy of a specific care model of HCV treatment and retreatment in patients with hepatitis C in Sub Saharan Africa. Between November 2015 and March 2017, with follow-up until mid 2019, treatment-naïve patients with HCV without decompensated cirrhosis or liver cancer were recruited to receive 12 week-treatment with either sofosbuvir + ribavirin (HCV genotype 2) or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (genotype 1 or 4) and retreatment with sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + voxilaprevir in case of virological failure. The primary outcome was sustained virological response at 12 weeks after end of treatment (SVR12). Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, safety and SVR12 in patients who were retreated due to non-response to first-line treatment. The model of care relied on both viral load assessment and educational sessions to increase patient awareness, adherence and health literacy. The study recruited 120 participants, 36 HIV-co-infected, and 14 cirrhotic. Only one patient discontinued treatment because of return to home country. Neither death nor severe adverse event occurred. SVR12 was reached in 107 patients (89%): (90%) in genotype 1 or 2, and 88% in GT-4. All retreated patients (n = 13) reached SVR12. HCV treatment is highly acceptable, safe and effective under this model of care. Implementation research is now needed to scale up point-of-care HCV testing and SVR assessment, along with community involvement in patient education, to achieve HCV elimination in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Human bronchopulmonary disposition and plasma pharmacokinetics of oral bemnifosbuvir (AT-527), an experimental guanosine nucleotide prodrug for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Bemnifosbuvir (AT-527) is a novel oral guanosine nucleotide antiviral drug for the treatment of persons with COVID-19. Direct assessment of drug disposition in the lungs, via bronchoalveolar lavage, is necessary to ensure antiviral drug levels at the primary site of SARS-CoV-2 infection are achieved. OBJECTIVES: This Phase 1 study in healthy subjects aimed to assess the bronchopulmonary pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of repeated doses of bemnifosbuvir. METHODS: A total of 24 subjects were assigned to receive bemnifosbuvir twice daily at doses of 275, 550 or 825 mg for up to 3.5 days. RESULTS: AT-511, the free base of bemnifosbuvir, was largely eliminated from the plasma within 6 h post dose in all dosing groups. Antiviral drug levels of bemnifosbuvir were consistently achieved in the lungs with bemnifosbuvir 550 mg twice daily. The mean level of the guanosine nucleoside metabolite AT-273, the surrogate of the active triphosphate metabolite of the drug, measured in the epithelial lining fluid of the lungs was 0.62 µM at 4-5 h post dose. This exceeded the target in vitro 90% effective concentration (EC90) of 0.5 µM for antiviral drug exposure against SARS-CoV-2 replication in human airway epithelial cells. Bemnifosbuvir was well tolerated across all doses tested, and most treatment-emergent adverse events reported were mild in severity and resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The favourable pharmacokinetics and safety profile of bemnifosbuvir demonstrates its potential as an oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19, with 550 mg bemnifosbuvir twice daily currently under further clinical evaluation in persons with COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of brivudine for the treatment of herpes zoster: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, incidence of postherpetic neuralgia of brivudine. METHODS: Data of randomized controlled Trials (RCTS) were obtained from the databases of both English (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Journal Database, and WanFang Database) literatures from inception to 12 September 2022. Meta-analyses of efficacy and safety of Brivudine for the treatment of herpes zoster for RCTS were conducted. RESULTS: The analyses included seven RCTS (2095 patients in experimental group and 2076 patients in control group) in the treatment of HZ with brivudine. It suggested that the brivudine group was superior to the control group in terms of efficacy (p = .0002) and incidence of postherpetic neuralgia (p = .04). But the incidence of adverse reactions has no significant difference between the brivudine and the control groups (p = .22). In addition, subgroup analysis of adverse events also showed that brivudine was about the same safety as other modalities in the treatment of HZ (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Brivudine is effective for HZ. However, the evidence on the safety of brivudine is insufficient.

Expanding indications for chronic hepatitis B treatment: Is it really desirable to treat everyone?

Chronic viral hepatitis causes an increased risk of progressive liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. On the wave of the World Health Organization's goal to reduce new cases and deaths from hepatitis B and C by 2030, there is an increasing call to expand the indications for treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Currently, the main goal of treatment is to achieve a functional cure due to the inability of current drugs to completely eradicate the virus. There are still many discrepancies between available guidelines in terms of eligibility for treatment as well as an uncertainty about the appropriate treatment duration. This editorial addresses key questions about the topic and whether indications for treatment should be expanded.

Safety of RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Inhibitors, Molnupiravir and VV116, for Oral Treatment of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) inhibitors, molnupiravir and VV116, have the potential to maximize clinical benefits in the oral treatment of COVID-19. Subjects who consume these drugs may experience an increased incidence of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of molnupiravir and VV116. Methods: A comprehensive search of scientific and medical databases, such as PubMed Central/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted to find relevant articles in English from January 2020 to June 2023. Any kind of adverse events reported in the study were pooled and analyzed in the drug group versus the control group. Estimates of risk effects were summarized through the random effects model using Review Manager version 5.2, and sensitivity analysis was performed by Stata 17.0 software. Results: Fifteen studies involving 32,796 subjects were included. Eleven studies were placebo-controlled, and four were Paxlovid-controlled. Twelve studies reported adverse events for molnupiravir, and three studies described adverse events for VV116. The total odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the placebo-controlled group was 1.01 (95% CI=0.84-1.22; I2=26%), P=0.88. The total OR for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the Paxlovid-controlled group was 0.32 (95% CI=0.16-0.65; I2=87%), P=0.002. Individual drug subgroup analysis in the placebo-controlled study showed that compared with the placebo group, a total OR for adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.10; I2=0%) in the molnupiravir group and 3.77 (95% CI=0.08-175.77; I2=85%) in the VV116 group. Conclusion: The RdRp inhibitors molnupiravir and VV116 are safe for oral treatment of COVID-19. Further evidence is necessary that RdRp inhibitors have a higher safety profile than Paxlovid.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause death in solid organ transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

Olgotrelvir as a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Olgotrelvir is an oral antiviral with dual mechanisms of action targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (i.e., Mpro) and human cathepsin L. It has potential to serve as a single-agent treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olgotrelvir in 1212 nonhospitalized adult participants with mild to moderate Covid-19, irrespective of risk factors, who were randomly assigned to receive orally either 600 mg of olgotrelvir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary and key secondary end points were time to sustained recovery of a panel of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms and the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) load. The safety end point was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of 1212 participants were similar in the two groups. In the modified intention-to-treat population (567 patients in the placebo group and 558 in the olgotrelvir group), the median time to symptom recovery was 205 hours in the olgotrelvir group versus 264 hours in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.46; P<0.001). The least squares mean (95% CI) changes of viral RNA load from baseline were -2.20 (-2.59 to -1.81) log10 copies/ml in olgotrelvir-treated participants and -1.40 (-1.79 to -1.01) in participants receiving placebo at day 4. Skin rash (3.3%) and nausea (1.5%) were more frequent in the olgotrelvir group than in the placebo group; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Olgotrelvir as a single-agent treatment significantly improved symptom recovery. Adverse effects were not dose limiting. (Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics, a parent company of ACEA Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05716425.).

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established. METHODS: In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28. RESULTS: Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in oncological patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: A case report and literature analysis.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) represents a severe and potentially life-threatening condition, and preventive measures are available through blood test screening or prophylactic therapy administration. The assessment of HBVr traditionally considers factors such as HBV profile, including hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen, along with type of medication (chemotherapy; immunomodulants). Nevertheless, consideration of possible patient's underlying tumor and the specific malignancy type (solid or hematologic) plays a crucial role and needs to be assessed for decision-making process.