Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and the risk of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine has been widely used as part of the standard treatment for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for related publications from inception to Dec 31, 2021, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing the risk of AKI and/or increased creatinine in COVID-19 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and other controls (active treatment and placebo). We conducted separate meta-analyses for RCTs and NRSIs based on fixed-effect model, with odds ratios (ORs) being considered as effect sizes.

Results

We included 21 studies in the analysis, with 12 were RCTs. Based on the RCTs, compared to placebo, the OR was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 1.64; p = .30, n = 4, moderate quality) for AKI and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.64, 1.56; p = .99, n = 5, moderate quality) for increased creatinine for patients received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine treatment; compared to active treatment, the odds was 1.28 (95%CI: 0.65, 2.53; p = .47, n = 2, low quality) for AKI and 0.64 (95%CI: 0.13, 3.20; p = .59, n = 1, low quality) for increased creatine. Evidence from NRSIs showed slightly increased odds of AKI, with low quality.

Conclusion

Based on current available studies which were graded as low to moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine use is associated with increased risk of AKI or raised creatinine. Abbreviations: AKI: acute kidney injury; COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019; RCT: randomized controlled trials; NRSI: non-randomized studies of interventions; OR: odds ratios; ROBIS-I: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions

Efficacy of lopinavir–ritonavir combination therapy for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir–ritonavir (LPV/r) therapy in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were length of stay, time for SARS-CoV-2 test conversion, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to body temperature normalization and incidence of adverse events. Results: Twenty-four studies (n = 10,718) were included. LPV/r demonstrated no significant benefit over the control groups in all efficacy outcomes. The use of LPV/r was associated with a significant increase in the odds of adverse events. Conclusion: Given the lack of efficacy and increased incidence of adverse events, the clinical use of LPV/r in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is not recommended.

Safety profile of COVID-19 drugs in a real clinical setting

PURPOSE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has affected millions all over the world and has been declared pandemic, as of 11 March 2020. In addition to the ongoing research and development of vaccines, there is still a dire need for safe and effective drugs for the control and treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Numerous repurposed drugs are under clinical investigations whose reported adverse events can raise worries about their safety. The aim of this review is to illuminate the associated adverse events related to the drugs used in a real COVID-19 setting along with their relevant mechanism(s).

METHOD

Through a literature search conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar database, various adverse events suspected to be induced by eight drugs, including dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin, and tocilizumab, administered in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice and studies were identified in 30 case reports, 3 case series, and 10 randomized clinical trials.

RESULTS

Mild, moderate, or severe adverse events of numerous repurposed and investigational drugs caused by various factors and mechanisms were observed. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most frequently followed by cardiovascular, cutaneous, and hepatic adverse events. Few other rare adverse drug reactions were also observed.

CONCLUSION

In light of their ineffectiveness against COVID-19 as evident in large clinical studies, drugs including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin should neither be used routinely nor in clinical studies. While lack of sufficient data, it creates doubt regarding the reliability of chloroquine and favipiravir use in COVID-19 patients. Hence, these two drugs can only be used in clinical studies. In contrast, ample well-conducted studies have approved the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone under certain conditions in COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is significant to establish a strong surveillance system in order to monitor the proper safety and toxicity profile of the potential anti-COVID-19 drugs with good clinical outcomes.

Effect of biochemical and biomechanical factors on vascularization of kidney organoid-on-a-chip

Kidney organoids derived from the human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) recapitulating human kidney are the attractive tool for kidney regeneration, disease modeling, and drug screening. However, the kidney organoids cultured by static conditions have the limited vascular networks and immature nephron-like structures unlike human kidney. Here, we developed a kidney organoid-on-a-chip system providing fluidic flow mimicking shear stress with optimized extracellular matrix (ECM) conditions. We demonstrated that the kidney organoids cultured in our microfluidic system showed more matured podocytes and vascular structures as compared to the static culture condition. Additionally, the kidney organoids cultured in microfluidic systems showed higher sensitivity to nephrotoxic drugs as compared with those cultured in static conditions. We also demonstrated that the physiological flow played an important role in maintaining a number of physiological functions of kidney organoids. Therefore, our kidney organoid-on-a-chip system could provide an organoid culture platform for in vitro vascularization in formation of functional three-dimensional (3D) tissues.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Drugs in the Extended Use against COVID-19: What We Know So Far

Human beings around the globe have been suffering from a devastating novel pandemic and public health emergency, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), for more than one and a half years due to the deadly and highly pathogenic severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection worldwide. Notably, no effective treatment strategy has been approved for the complete recovery of COVID-19 patients, though several vaccines have been rolled out around the world upon emergency use authorization. After the emergence of the COVID-19 outbreak globally, plenty of clinical investigations commenced to screen the safety and efficacy of several previously approved drugs to be repurposed against the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen. This concise review aims at exploring the current status of the clinical efficacy and safety profile of several antiviral medications for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory complications caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The paper covers all kinds of human studies (January 2020 to June 2021) except case reports/series to highlight the clear conclusion based on the current clinical evidence. Among the promising repositioned antivirals, remdesivir has been recommended in critical conditions to mitigate the fatality rate and improve clinical conditions. In addition, boosting the immune system is believed to be beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients, so interferon type I might exert immunomodulation through its antiviral effects by stimulating interferon-stimulated gene (ISG). However, more extensive clinical studies covering all ethnic groups globally are warranted based on current data to better understand the clinical efficacy of the currently proposed repurposed drugs against COVID-19.

Determination of Ligand Binding Modes in Hydrated Viral Ion Channels to Foster Drug Design and Repositioning

Target-based design and repositioning are mainstream strategies of drug discovery. Numerous drug design and repositioning projects have been launched to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting drug candidates have often failed due to the misprediction of their target-bound structures. The determination of water positions of such structures is particularly challenging due to the large number of possible drugs and the diversity of their hydration patterns. To answer this challenge and help correct predictions, we introduce a new protocol HydroDock, which can build hydrated drug-target complexes from scratch. HydroDock requires only the dry target and drug structures and produces their complexes with appropriately positioned water molecules. As a test application of the protocol, we built the structures of amantadine derivatives in complex with the influenza M2 transmembrane ion channel. The repositioning of amantadine derivatives from this influenza target to the SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein was also investigated. Excellent agreement was observed between experiments and the structures determined by HydroDock. The atomic resolution complex structures showed that water plays a similar role in the binding of amphipathic amantadine derivatives to transmembrane ion channels of both influenza A and SARS-CoV-2. While the hydrophobic regions of the channels capture the bulky hydrocarbon group of the ligand, the surrounding waters direct its orientation parallel with the axes of the channels via bridging interactions with the ionic ligand head. As HydroDock supplied otherwise undetermined structural details, it can be recommended to improve the reliability of future design and repositioning of antiviral drug candidates and many other ligands with an influence of water structure on their mechanism of action.

Statins in COVID-19 Therapy

Inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3methylgultaryl-coenzyme A reductase (statins) are one of the main groups of drugs used in preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases worldwide. They are widely available, cheap, and well-tolerated. Based on statins’ pleiotropic properties, including improvement of endothelial dysfunction, antioxidant properties, atherosclerotic plaque stabilization, and inhibition of inflammatory responses, it can be hypothesized that the use of statins, at least as an adjuvant in antiviral therapy, may be justified. All these effects might be especially beneficial in patients with COVID-19, suffering from endothelial dysfunction, microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis, and cytokine storm. Here, we review the recent data regarding the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 activity in host cells, proposed COVID-19 therapy, the pleiotropic activity of statins, and statins in clinical trials in respiratory infections. According to the guidelines of the European and American Cardiac Societies, in patients with cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk with concomitant COVID-19 it is recommended to continue statin treatment. However, the initiation of statin therapy de novo in COVID-19 treatment should only be done as part of a clinical trial.

Clinical and Virologic Effectiveness of Remdesivir Treatment for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea: a Nationwide Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values.

RESULTS

A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivir-treated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1-5 to 11-15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a Drug Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Azithromycin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Doxycycline, and Azithromycin-Hydroxychloroquine for Patients Diagnosed with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infections

Background

At the present time, COVID-19 vaccines are at the testing stage, and an effective treatment for COVID-19 incorporating appropriate safety measures remains the most significant obstacle to be overcome. A strategic countermeasure is, therefore, urgently required.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir-azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir-doxycycline, and azithromycin-hydroxychloroquine used to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections. Setting and Design. This study was conducted at four different clinical study sites in Indonesia. The subjects gave informed consent for their participation and were confirmed as being COVID-19-positive by means of an RT-PCR test. The present study constituted a randomized, double-blind, and multicenter clinical study of patients diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection.

Materials and Methods

Six treatment groups participated in this study: a Control group administered with a 500 mg dose of azithromycin; Group A which received a 200/50 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 500 mg of azithromycin; Group B treated with a 200/50 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 200 mg of doxycycline; Group C administered with 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine and 500 mg of azithromycin; Group D which received a 400/100 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 500 mg of azithromycin; and Group E treated with a 400/100 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 200 mg of doxycycline.

Results

754 subjects participated in this study: 694 patients (92.4%) who presented mild symptoms and 57 patients (7.6%) classified as suffering from a moderate case of COVID-19. On the third day after treatment, 91.7%–99.2% of the subjects in Groups A–E were confirmed negative by a PCR swab test compared to 26.9% in the Control group. Observation of all groups which experienced a significant decrease in virus load between day 1 and day 7 was undertaken. Other markers, such as CRP and IL-6, were significantly lower in all treatment groups (p < 0.05 and p < 0.0001) than in the Control group. Furthermore, IL-10 and TNF-α levels were significantly elevated in all treatment groups (p < 0.0001). The administration of azithromycin to the Control group increased CRP and IL-6 levels, while reduced IL-10 and TNF-α on day 7 (p < 0.0001) compared with day 1. Decreases in ALT and AST levels were observed in all groups (p < 0.0001). There was an increase in creatinine in the serum level of the Control, C, D, and E groups (p < 0.05), whereas the BUN level was elevated in all groups (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The study findings suggest that the administration of lopinavir/ritonavir-doxycycline, lopinavir/ritonavir-azithromycin, and azithromycin-hydroxychloroquine as a dual drug combination produced a significantly rapid PCR conversion rate to negative in three-day treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 cases. Further studies should involve observation of older patients with severe clinical symptoms in order to collate significant amounts of demographic data.

Safety of pharmacological options for the management of COVID-19 in pregnant women: An Indian perspective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2) presenting with pulmonary and extra-pulmonary manifestations. The first case was reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and it has rapidly progressed to the form of a pandemic. The presentation is mild in about 80 percent of the cases but the disease can also progress to a severe form of respiratory illness leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sometimes multi-organ failure, especially in people with other co-morbidities. Pregnant women also appear to be at a greater risk of acquiring a severe infection due to physiological changes during pregnancy. Many drugs with in vitro activity against the virus or an immunomodulatory effect have been considered for repurposing or have been tried as off-label drugs. The safety data regarding the use of newly approved or off-label or investigational drugs in pregnant women is limited and this poses a great challenge for clinicians. Therefore, it is important to know the utility and safety of the medications to avoid untoward adverse effects on pregnant women and fetuses. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the approved, off-label, unlicensed, new and some promising pharmacological options for their use in the treatment of COVID-19 and the safety profile in pregnancy in an Indian scenario.

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events.Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment.Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of early treatment of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with severe COVID-19: a case series

AIM

The inconsistent effects of lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) on COVID-19 seem to be caused by the therapeutic window. In the present study, we aim to present the effects of early LPV/r treatment on patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

The demographics, characteristics, treatments, SARS-CoV-2 test results and outcomes of 19 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with LPV/r within 12 days of onset of symptoms were retrospectively assessed.

RESULTS

Within 3 days of admission, three (15.79%) patients received noninvasive ventilation, and 16 (84.21%) patients received high-flow oxygen support. The median duration between the onset of symptoms and initiating LPV/r therapy was 9 (range 2-12) days. The median course of LPV/r treatment was 11 (range 7-17) days. One of the 19 patients (5.26%) died. Of the 18 patients discharged, the median hospital stay was 17 (range 11-45) days. At day 6 after LPV/r therapy was initiated, 68.42% of patients were virologically cured, increasing to 84.22% at day 12.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 who were treated with LPV/r within 12 days of the onset of symptoms, clinical improvement was observed in 18/19 patients (94.74%). Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to further evaluate this strategy.

Is there any potential management against COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A recent survey has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has culminated in dramatical and critical treatment particularly in acute infected patients. In fact, this systematic review-meta-analysis was directly pertained to estimation at the efficient value of some clinical managements to confront the COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Scholar databases were searched from inception to July 1, 2020, to identify studies reporting the current treatment process and medications (e.g. hydroxychloroquine, antiviral therapy, convalescent plasma, and immunomodulatory agents) for COVID-19. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of this study were the frequency of negative conversion cases, clinical improvements, mechanical ventilation demand, intensive care unit (ICU) entry, and mortality. The standard treatment refers to the published guidelines and specialist experience which varies in different articles, and the proposed treatment refers to the kind of interest suggested in the included studies.

RESULTS

A number of 45 articles met the eligibility criteria (out of 6793 articles). Among them, 26 articles involving 3263 patients were included in quantitative analysis. Anti-COVID-19 interventions could significantly increase clinical improvement (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27; I2 = 49.8%) and reduce the mortality rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; I2 = 74.8%). Although in terms of negative conversion, ICU entry, and mechanical ventilation demand, clinical intervention had no beneficial effect. The clinical effect of immunomodulatory agents (especially tocilizumab and anakinra) was noticeable compared to other medications with RR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.09-0.53; I2 = 40.9%) for mortality and 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.46; I2 = 45.4%) for clinical improvement. Moreover, Antivirals (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26; I2 = 47.0%) and convalescent plasma therapy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.98; I2 = 66.6%) had significant beneficial effects on clinical improvement.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, all the included interventions significantly declined the mortality and enhanced clinical improvements with no effect on negative conversion and mechanical ventilation demand. Especially, immunomodulators and plasma therapy showed favorable outcomes. An evaluation on the efficacy of proposed treatment against COVID-19.

Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and COVID-19: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of efficacy and safety

The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to urgently identify new treatment options or the re-purposing of existing drugs. Of particular interest are chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The aims of this systematic review are to systematically identify and collate 24 studies describing the use of CQ and HCQ in human clinical trials and to provide a detailed synthesis of evidence of its efficacy and safety. Of clinical trials, 100% showed no significant difference in the probability of viral transmission or clearance in prophylaxis or therapy, respectively, compared to the control group. Among observational studies employing an endpoint specific to efficacy, 58% concurred with the finding of no significant difference in the attainment of outcomes. Three-fifths of clinical trials and half of observational studies examining an indicator unique to drug safety discovered a higher probability of adverse events in those treated patients suspected of, and diagnosed with, COVID-19. Of the total papers focusing on cardiac side-effects, 44% found a greater incidence of QTc prolongation and/or arrhythmias, 44% found no evidence of a significant difference, and 11% mixed results. The strongest available evidence points towards the inefficacy of CQ and HCQ in prophylaxis or in the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.

Novel respiratory infectious diseases in Korea

Respiratory infections are very common and highly contagious. Respiratory infectious diseases affect not only the person infected but also the family members and the society. As medical sciences advance, several diseases have been conquered; however, the impact of novel infectious diseases on the society is enormous. As the clinical presentation of respiratory infections is similar regardless of the pathogen, the causative agent is not distinguishable by symptoms alone. Moreover, it is difficult to develop a cure because of the various viral mutations. Various respiratory infectious diseases ranging from influenza, which threaten the health of mankind globally, to the coronavirus disease 2019, which resulted in a pandemic, exist. Contrary to human expectations that development in health care and improvement in hygiene will conquer infectious diseases, humankind’s health and social systems are threatened by novel infectious diseases. Owing to the development of transport and trading activity, the rate of spread of new infectious diseases is increasing. As respiratory infections can threaten the members of the global community at any time, investigations on preventing the transmission of these diseases as well as development of effective antivirals and vaccines are of utmost importance and require a worldwide effort.

Directly Acting Antivirals for COVID-19: Where Do We Stand?

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China in December 2019 has now become a pandemic with no approved therapeutic agent. At the moment, the genomic structure, characteristics, and pathogenic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported. Based upon this information, several drugs including the directly acting antivirals have been proposed to treat people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This rapid review aims to describe the directly acting antivirals that have been examined for use in the management of COVID-19. Searches were conducted in three electronic databases, supplemented with a search on arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ChinaXiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for studies examining the use of antivirals in COVID-19 to identify for case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled studies describing the use of antivirals in COVID-19. Data were extracted independently and presented narratively. A total of 98 studies were included, comprising of 38 published studies and 60 registered clinical trials. These drugs include the broad spectrum antivirals such as umifenovir, protease inhibitors such as lopinavir/ritonavir as well as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors, remdesivir, and favipiravir. Other drugs that have been used include the nucleosidase inhibitors and polymerase acidic endonuclease inhibitors which are currently approved for prevention of influenza infections. While some of the drugs appear promising in small case series and reports, more clinical trials currently in progress are required to provide higher quality evidence.

Hydroxychloroquine and Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review of a Scientific Failure

INTRODUCTION

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) emerged early in the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a possible drug with potential therapeutic and prophylactic benefits. It was quickly adopted in China, Europe, and the USA. We systematically reviewed the existing clinical evidence of HCQ use for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

We screened for clinical studies describing HCQ administration to treat or prevent COVID-19 in PubMed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized comparative cohorts, and case series studies that had all undergone peer review.

RESULTS

A total of 623 studies were screened; 17 studies evaluating HCQ treatment were included. A total of 13 were observational studies, and 4 were RCTs. In terms of effect on mortality rates, observational studies provided conflicting results. As a whole, RCTs, including one large British RCT that has not yet been published, showed no significant effect of HCQ on mortality rates, clinical cure, and virologic response. The use of HCQ as a post-exposure prophylactic agent was found to be ineffective in one RCT.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence supporting HCQ for prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19. Many observational trials were methodologically flawed. Scientific efforts have been disappointingly fragmented, and well-conducted trials have only recently been completed, more than 7 months and 600,000 deaths into the pandemic.

Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Being protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

No discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC.

CONCLUSION

In our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).

Data and Text Mining Help Identify Key Proteins Involved in the Molecular Mechanisms Shared by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1

Viruses can be spread from one person to another; therefore, they may cause disorders in many people, sometimes leading to epidemics and even pandemics. New, previously unstudied viruses and some specific mutant or recombinant variants of known viruses constantly appear. An example is a variant of coronaviruses (CoV) causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), named SARS-CoV-2. Some antiviral drugs, such as remdesivir as well as antiretroviral drugs including darunavir, lopinavir, and ritonavir are suggested to be effective in treating disorders caused by SARS-CoV-2. There are data on the utilization of antiretroviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2. Since there are many studies aimed at the identification of the molecular mechanisms of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection and the development of novel therapeutic approaches against HIV-1, we used HIV-1 for our case study to identify possible molecular pathways shared by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1. We applied a text and data mining workflow and identified a list of 46 targets, which can be essential for the development of infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1. We show that SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 share some molecular pathways involved in inflammation, immune response, cell cycle regulation.

The protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, as treatment for COVID-19: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, has been used off-label to treat COVID-19. We aimed to synthesize the clinical evidence for lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment for COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a rapid review by searching databases including PubMed, GoogleScholar, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, for COVID-19 studies comparing outcomes between patients who did and did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

We identified five completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies. Two large RCTs of 5,040 and 2,771 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir influenced the primary outcome of mortality, or secondary outcomes including progression to mechanical ventilation or time to discharge. Results remained similar in all sub-group analyses including by age, gender, baseline ventilation and time since symptom onset. The three smaller RCTs (n=86-199) also found no evidence of a benefit in the primary outcomes of time to clinical improvement or time to viral clearance. The 14 observational studies included between 50 and 415 participants, and were limited by a lack of adjustment for potential confounding variables. The majority of these studies found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with improved mortality or other clinical outcomes, although results regarding viral clearance were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Good evidence from large clinical trials does not support using lopinavir/ritonavir to treat COVID-19 amongst hospitalized patients.