Povidone-Iodine Demonstrates Rapid In Vitro Virucidal Activity Against SARS-CoV-2, The Virus Causing COVID-19 Disease.

INTRODUCTION: As of 22 June 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-coronavirus (CoV)-2 has infected more than 8.95 million people worldwide, causing > 468,000 deaths. The virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets and physical contact from contaminated surfaces to the mucosa. Hand hygiene and oral decontamination among other measures are key to preventing the spread of the virus. We report the in vitro virucidal activity of topical and oral povidone-iodine (PVP-I) products against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Suspension assays were used to assess the virucidal activity of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2. Products were tested at a contact time of 30 s for virucidal activity. Viral titres were calculated using the Spearman-Kärber method and reported as median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/mL. RESULTS: All four products [antiseptic solution (PVP-I 10%), skin cleanser (PVP-I 7.5%), gargle and mouth wash (PVP-I 1%) and throat spray (PVP-I 0.45%)] achieved ≥ 99.99% virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2, corresponding to ≥ 4 log10 reduction of virus titre, within 30 s of contact. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of rapid and effective virucidal activity of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2. PVP-I-based products are widely available for medical and personal use for hand hygiene and oral decontamination, and could be readily integrated into coronavirus disease, COVID-19, infection control measures in hospital and community settings.

Effects of CYP3A4 inducers with and without CYP3A4 inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: To assess the potential of known CYP3A4 inducers, with and without CYP3A4 inhibitors, to alter the pharmacokinetic profile of maraviroc. METHODS: Two separate, open, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were conducted in healthy subjects. Study 1 was a 28-day parallel-group study with three treatment groups of 12 subjects each. On days 1-7, all subjects received maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d.; on days 8-21, subjects received maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. plus either rifampicin 600 mg q.d., efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg q.d., or placebo q.d. as assigned; on days 22-28, the maraviroc dose was increased to 200 mg b.i.d. for patients receiving either rifampicin or EFV. Study 2 was a 21-day, two-way crossover study with three cohorts (12 subjects per cohort). On days 1-21, subjects received maraviroc 300 mg b.i.d. and boosted lopinavir (LPV/r, lopinavir 400 mg + ritonavir 100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 1, maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. and boosted saquinavir (SQV/r, saquinavir 1000 mg + ritonavir 100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 2, and maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. and 1000 mg saquinavir + LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 3. On days 8-21, subjects in all three cohorts also received EFV 600 mg or placebo q.d. RESULTS: Maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.) exposure (AUC(12) and C(max)) was reduced in the presence of rifampicin and EFV by approximately 70% and 50%, respectively. Maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max) approached preinduction values when the maraviroc dose was increased to 200 mg b.i.d. for both the rifampicin-treated and EFV-treated groups. Co-administration of LPV/r with maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) resulted in geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 395% and 197% for maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max), respectively, compared with placebo; addition of EFV resulted in GMRs of 253% and 125% for AUC(12) and C(max), respectively. Co-administration of SQV/r with maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.) resulted in GMRs of 977% and 478% for maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max), respectively, compared with placebo; addition of EFV resulted in GMRs of 500% and 226% for AUC(12) and C(max), respectively. No pharmacokinetic data are reported for cohort 3 because all subjects were discontinued during period 1 due to poor toleration of the drug regimen. There were no serious adverse events reported in either study, and most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and resolved without intervention. CONCLUSION: As expected with a CYP3A4 substrate, maraviroc exposure (C(max) and AUC(12)) was significantly reduced by the known CYP3A4 inducers, rifampicin and EFV, by approximately 70% and 50%, respectively. Upward adjustment of the maraviroc dose during co-administration with rifampicin or EFV appears to compensate for this reduction. Protease inhibitors (PIs) significantly increased maraviroc exposure; however, the addition of EFV to the maraviroc + PI regimens reduced the magnitude of PI-mediated increase in maraviroc exposure (by approximately 50%), but the net effect was still CYP3A4 inhibition.

Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of CCR5 receptor occupancy by maraviroc in healthy subjects and HIV-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Maraviroc, a noncompetitive antagonist of the CCR5 coreceptor, was recently approved in the USA as a treatment of HIV infection. For antiretroviral agents that target the virus, antiviral effect can be related to some extent to plasma drug concentrations. For CCR5 antagonists that target the host cells, receptor occupancy in vivo might be a better predictor of efficacy. AIMS To develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) model that describes CCR5 receptor occupancy by maraviroc after oral administration at different doses in healthy volunteers and HIV-positive patients and to assess the relevance of receptor occupancy in predicting the decrease in viral load (HIV-1 RNA copies ml(-1)) in HIV-positive patients. METHODS: Receptor occupancy data from 88 individuals enrolled in two multiple dose trials were included in the population PK-receptor binding model. Out of the 88 individuals, 25 were HIV-1-infected patients and had viral load measurements, whereas the remaining 63 were healthy volunteers. Doses ranged from 3 mg b.i.d. to 600 mg q.d. A previously published PK-PD disease model describing the effect of maraviroc on the viral load was updated by replacing its PD module by the receptor occupancy model. Simulated viral load-time profiles with the updated model were compared with the profiles observed in patients. RESULTS: The majority of measured plasma concentrations were associated with receptor occupancy > or = 50% even at the lowest dose of 3 mg b.i.d. A simple direct E(max) model appeared to describe satisfactorily the PK-receptor occupancy relationship. The estimated K(D) was around 0.0894 ng ml(-1), far below the operational in vivo antiviral IC(50) of 8 ng ml(-1). Accordingly, simulations led to marked overprediction of the decrease in viral load-time profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Maraviroc receptor occupancy close to the maximum is required to induce a significant decrease in viral load, indicating that in vivo CCR5 receptor occupancy by maraviroc is not a direct measure of drug inhibitory activity. Considering the imprecision of the measurement in the upper flat part of the maraviroc concentration vs. percent CCR5 occupancy curve, it can reasonably be concluded that routine monitoring of receptor occupancy as a biomarker for maraviroc efficacy will not be helpful. Based on this analysis, it was decided not to use receptor occupancy as a biomarker of viral load inhibition during the development of CCR5 antagonist compounds.