Most downloaded biology preprints, all time
in category pharmacology and therapeutics
105 results found. For more information, click each entry to expand.
11,235 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Emilie Sbidian, Julie Josse, Guillaume Lemaitre, Imke Mayer, Melodie Bernaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Nathanael Lapidus, Nicolas Paris, Antoine Neuraz, Ivan Lerner, Nicolas Garcelon, Bastien Rance, Olivier Grisel, Thomas Moreau, Ali Bellamine, Pierre Wolkenstein, Gael Varoquaux, Eric Caumes, Marc Lavielle, Armand Mekontso Dessap, Etienne Audureau
Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness of oral hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZI) in preventing death or leading to hospital discharge. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting An analysis of data from electronic medical records and administrative claim data from the French Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP) data warehouse, in 39 public hospitals, Ile-de-France, France. Participants All adult inpatients with at least one PCR-documented SARS-CoV-2 RNA from a nasopharyngeal sample between February 1st, 2020 and April 6th, 2020 were eligible for analysis. The study population was restricted to patients who did not receive COVID-19 treatments assessed in ongoing trials, including antivirals and immunosuppressive drugs. End of follow-up was defined as the date of death, discharge home, day 28 after admission, whichever occurred first, or administrative censoring on May 4, 2020. Intervention Patients were further classified into 3 groups: (i) receiving HCQ alone, (ii) receiving HCQ together with AZI, and (iii) receiving neither HCQ nor AZI. Exposure to a HCQ/AZI combination was defined as a simultaneous prescription of the 2 treatments (more or less one day). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality as a time-to-event endpoint under a competing risks survival analysis framework. The secondary outcome was 28-day discharge home. Augmented inverse probability of treatment weighted (AIPTW) estimates of the average treatment effect (ATE) were computed to account for confounding. Results A total of 4,642 patients (mean age: 66.1 +/- 18; males: 2,738 (59%)) were included, of whom 623 (13.4%) received HCQ alone, 227 (5.9%) received HCQ plus AZI, and 3,792 (81.7%) neither drug. Patients receiving "HCQ alone" or "HCQ plus AZI" were more likely younger, males, current smokers and overall presented with slightly more co-morbidities (obesity, diabetes, any chronic pulmonary diseases, liver diseases), while no major difference was apparent in biological parameters. After accounting for confounding, no statistically significant difference was observed between the "HCQ" and "Neither drug" groups for 28-day mortality: AIPTW absolute difference in ATE was +1.24% (-5.63 to 8.12), ratio in ATE 1.05 (0.77 to 1.33). 28-day discharge rates were statistically significantly higher in the "HCQ" group: AIPTW absolute difference in ATE (+11.1% [3.30 to 18.9]), ratio in ATE (1.25 [1.07 to 1.42]). As for the "HCQ+AZI" vs neither drug, trends for significant differences and ratios in AIPTW ATE were found suggesting higher mortality rates in the former group (difference in ATE +9.83% [-0.51 to 20.17], ratio in ATE 1.40 [0.98 to 1.81];p=0.062). Conclusions Using a large non-selected population of inpatients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection in 39 hospitals in France and robust methodological approaches, we found no evidence for efficacy of HCQ or HCQ combined with AZI on 28-day mortality. Our results suggested a possible excess risk of mortality associated with HCQ combined with AZI, but not with HCQ alone. Significantly higher rates of discharge home were observed in patients treated by HCQ, a novel finding warranting further confirmation in replicative studies. Altogether, our findings further support the need to complete currently undergoing randomized clinical trials.
10,102 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
BackgroundOn March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared its assessment of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. Effective therapeutic drugs are urgently needed to improve the overall prognosis of patients, but currently no such drugs are available. MethodsPatients in the study were divided into a heparin and a control group based on whether low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was used. D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), peripheral blood lymphocyte percentage, interleukin-6, and other indices in 42 patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia were retrospectively analyzed to compare and evaluate the progress of patients before and after LMWH treatment. ResultsCompared to the control group, D-dimer levels in the heparin group significantly increased before treatment, and there was no significant difference after treatment. There was no significant difference in the change of CRP levels between the two groups of patients before and after LMWH treatment, and levels for both groups were significantly lower after, compared to before, treatment. Compared to the control group, patients in the heparin group had a higher percentage of lymphocytes after treatment and lower levels of interleukin-6; these differences were statistically significant. ConclusionsUnder conventional antiviral treatment regimens, LMWH can improve hypercoagulability, inhibit IL-6 release, and counteract IL-6 biological activity in patients. LMWH has potential antiviral effects and can help delay or block inflammatory cytokine storms. It can also increase the lymphocytes (LYM%)of patients and has the potential for treatment of COVID-19.
7,309 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
AimTo evaluate all-cause mortality risk in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Mexico City treated with repurposed antivirals and antibiotics. MethodsThis real-world retrospective cohort study contemplated 395,343 patients evaluated for suspected COVID-19 between February 24 and September 14, 2020 in 688 primary-to-tertiary medical units in Mexico City. Patients were included with a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2; those receiving unspecified antivirals, excluded; and antivirals prescribed in <30 patients, eliminated. Survival and mortality risks were determined for patients receiving antivirals, antibiotics, both, or none. Results136,855 patients were analyzed; mean age 44.2 (SD:16.8) years; 51.3% were men. 16.6% received antivirals (3%), antibiotics (10%), or both (3.6%). Antivirals studied were Oseltamivir (n=8414), Amantadine (n=319), Lopinavir-Ritonavir (n=100), Rimantadine (n=61), Zanamivir (n=39), and Acyclovir (n=36). Survival with antivirals (73.7%, p<0.0001) and antibiotics (85.8%, p<0.0001) was lower than no antiviral/antibiotic (93.6%). After multivariable adjustment, increased risk of death occurred with antivirals (HR=1.72, 95%CI:1.61-1.84) in ambulatory (HR=4.7, 95%CI:3.94-5.62) and non-critical (HR=2.03, 95%CI:1.86-2.21) patients. Oseltamivir increased mortality risk in the general population (HR=1.72, 95%CI:1.61-1.84), ambulatory (HR=4.79, 95%CI:4.01-5.75), non-critical (HR=2.05, 95%CI:1.88-2.23), and pregnancy (HR=8.35, 95%CI:1.77-39.30); as well as hospitalized (HR=1.13, 95%CI:1.01-1.26) and critical patients (HR:1.22, 95%CI:1.05-1.43) after propensity score-matching. Antibiotics were a risk factor in general population (HR=1.13, 95%CI:1.08-1.19) and pediatrics (HR=4.22, 95%CI:2.01-8.86), but a protective factor in hospitalized (HR=0.81, 95%CI:0.77-0.86) and critical patients (HR=0.67, 95%CI:0.63-0.72). ConclusionsNo significant benefit for repurposed antivirals was observed; oseltamivir was associated with increased mortality. Antibiotics increased mortality risk in the general population but may increase survival in hospitalized and critical patients. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWNO_LICurrent recommendations for using repurposed antivirals and antibiotics for COVID-19 are conflicting. C_LIO_LIFew antivirals (i.e. lopinavir-ritonavir) have been shown to provide no additional benefit for COVID-19 in clinical trials; other antivirals may be having widespread use in real-world settings without formal assessment in clinical trials. C_LIO_LIReal-world use of repurposed antivirals and antibiotics for COVID-19 in population-based studies have not been performed; important populations have been left largely understudied (ambulatory patients, pregnant women, and pediatrics). C_LI WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSO_LIThis is the first real-world observational study evaluating amantadine, rimantadine, zanamivir, and acyclovir for COVID-19; no registered studies to evaluate these drugs exist. Only one study has evaluated risk of death for oseltamivir. Lopinavir-ritonavir have been previously evaluated in clinical trials. C_LIO_LIRepurposed antivirals and antibiotics were commonly prescribed in 688 ambulatory units and hospitals of Mexico City despite unclear recommendations for their use out of clinical trials. C_LIO_LIOseltamivir was associated with increased mortality risk; other repurposed antivirals (zanamivir, amantadine, rimantadine, and acyclovir) had no significant and consistent impact on mortality. Antibiotics were associated with increased mortality risk in the general population but may increase survival in hospitalized and critical patients. C_LI
6,429 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
The novel corona virus disease -2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a massive global public health havoc. Recent clinical trials carried out in China has found a promising therapeutic application of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. This study meticulously evaluated the various dosages of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine utilized in clinical trials registered in Chinese and US clinical trial registries for the treatment of pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2.
5,653 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Abstract Background Since the start of the new Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in December 2019, pharmacists worldwide are playing a key role adopting innovative strategies to minimize the adverse impact of the pandemic. Objectives To identify and describe core services provided by the pharmacist during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and LILACS for studies published between December 1st, 2019 and May 20th, 2020 without language restriction. Studies that reported services provided by pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction with a consensus process. The pharmacist's intervention identified in the included studies were described based on key domains in the DEPICT v.2. Results A total of 1,189 records were identified, of which 11 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Most of them were conducted in the United States of America (n=4) and China (n=4). The most common type of publication were letters (n=4) describing the workplace of the pharmacist in hospitals (n=8). These findings showed the different roles of pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as disease prevention and infection control, adequate storage and drug supply, patient care and support for healthcare professionals. Pharmacists' interventions were mostly conducted for healthcare professionals and patients (n=7), through one-to-one contact (n=11), telephone (n=6) or video conference (n=5). The pharmacists' main responsibility was to provide drug information for healthcare professionals (n=7) as well as patient counseling (n=8). Conclusions A reasonable number of studies that described the role of the pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic were found. All studies reported actions taken by pharmacists, although without providing a satisfactory description. Thus, future research with more detailed description as well as an evaluation of the impact of pharmacist intervention is needed in order to guide future actions in this and-or other pandemic. Keywords: COVID-19; pharmacists; pharmaceutical services; review
5,456 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Introduction: Caly, Druce (1) reported that ivermectin inhibited SARS-CoV-2 in vitro for up to 48 h using ivermectin at 5 uM. The concentration resulting in 50% inhibition (IC50, 2 uM) was >35x higher than the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) after oral administration of the approved dose of ivermectin when given fasted. Method: Simulations were conducted using an available population pharmacokinetic model to predict total (bound and unbound) and unbound plasma concentration-time profiles after a single and repeat fasted administration of the approved dose of ivermectin (200 ug/kg), 60 mg, and 120 mg. Plasma total Cmax was determined and then multiplied by the lung:plasma ratio reported in cattle to predict the lung Cmax after administration of each single dose. Results: Plasma ivermectin concentrations of total (bound and unbound) and unbound concentrations do not reach the IC50, even for a dose level 10x higher than the approved dose. Even with higher exposure in lungs than plasma, ivermectin is unlikely to reach the IC50 in lungs after single oral administration of the approved dose (predicted lung: 0.0857 uM) or at doses 10x higher that the approved dose administered orally (predicted lung: 0.817 uM). Conclusions: The likelihood of a successful clinical trial using the approved dose of ivermectin is low. Combination therapy should be evaluated in vitro. Re-purposing drugs for use in COVID-19 treatment is an ideal strategy but is only feasible when product safety has been established and experiments of re-purposed drugs are conducted at clinically relevant concentrations.
4,156 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Usman Arshad, Henry Pertinez, Helen Box, Lee Tatham, Rajith KR Rajoli, Paul Curley, Megan Neary, Joanne Sharp, Neill J Liptrott, Anthony Valentijn, Christopher David, Steve P Rannard, Paul O'Neill, Ghaith Aljayyoussi, Shaun H Pennington, Stephen A Ward, David J Back, Saye H Khoo, Patrick G Bray, Giancarlo Biagini, Andrew Owen
Many papers are emerging that describe the in vitro antiviral activity of drugs that may be repurposed for therapy or chemoprophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2. However, no comprehensive evaluation of these molecules in the context of the achievable plasma pharmacokinetics after administration of approved doses and schedules to humans has been conducted. Moreover, most publications have focussed on 50% maximum effective concentrations (EC50), which may be an insufficiently robust indicator of antiviral activity because of marked differences in the slope of the concentration-response curve between drugs. Accordingly, in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity data was digitised from all available publications up to 13th April 2020 and used to recalculate an EC90 value for each drug. EC90 values were then expressed as a ratio to the achievable maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) reported for each drug after administration of the approved dose to humans (Cmax/EC90 ratio). Only 14 of the analysed drugs achieved a Cmax/EC90 ratio above 1 meaning that plasma Cmax concentrations exceeded those necessary to inhibit 90% of SARS-CoV-2 replication. A more in-depth assessment of these drugs demonstrated that only nitazoxanide, nelfinavir, tipranavir (boosted with ritonavir) and sulfadoxine achieved plasma concentrations above their anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity across their entire approved dosing interval at their approved human dose. For all drugs reported, the unbound lung to plasma tissue partition coefficient (KpUlung) was also simulated and used along with reported Cmax and fraction unbound in plasma to derive a lung Cmax/EC50 as a better indicator of potential human efficacy (lung Cmax/EC90 ratio was also calculable for a limited number of drugs). Using this parameter hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, mefloquine, atazanavir (boosted with ritonavir), tipranavir (boosted with ritonavir), ivermectin, azithromycin and lopinavir (boosted with ritonavir) were all predicted to achieve lung concentrations over 10-fold higher than their reported EC50. This analysis was not possible for nelfinavir because insufficient data were available to calculate KpUlung but nitozoxanide and sulfadoxine were also predicted to exceed their reported EC50 by 3.1- and 1.5-fold in lung, respectively. The antiviral activity data reported to date is of variable quality and conducted under different conditions by different investigators. However, this analysis has prioritised candidates with the best chance for success in therapy or chemoprevention of Covid-19 based upon the currently available in vitro activity and human plasma pharmacokinetic data. Future studies should focus on EC90 values and discuss findings in the context of achievable exposures in humans, especially within target compartments such as the lung, in order to maximise the potential for success of proposed human clinical trials.
3,819 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Importance: The COVID-19 Pandemic has literally left the world breathless in the chase for pharmacotherapy. With vaccine and novel drug development in early clinical trials, repurposing of existing drugs takes the center stage. Objective: A potential drug discussed in global scientific community is hydroxychloroquine. We intend to systematically explore, analyze, rate the existing evidence of hydroxychloroquine in the light of published, unpublished and clinical trial data. Evidence review: PubMed Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar databases, pre-proof article repositories, clinical trial registries were comprehensively searched with focused question of use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The literature was systematically explored as per PRISMA guidelines. Findings: Total 156 articles were available as of 7th May 2020; of which 11 articles of relevance were analyzed. Three in-vitro studies were reviewed. Two open label non-randomized trials, two open label randomized control trials, one large observational study, one follow-up study and two retrospective cohort studies were systematically analyzed and rated by oxford CEBM and GRADE framework for quality and strength of evidence. Also 27 clinical trials registered in three clinical trial registries were analyzed and summarized. Hydroxychloroquine seems to be efficient in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in in-vitro cell lines. However, there is lack of strong evidence from human studies. It was found that overall quality of available evidence ranges from "very low" to "low". Conclusions and relevance: The in-vitro cell culture based data of viral inhibition does not suffice for the use of hydroxychloroquine in the patients with COVID-19. Current literature shows inadequate, low level evidence in human studies. Scarcity of safety and efficacy data warrants medical communities, health care agencies and governments across the world against the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatment, until robust evidence becomes available.
3,664 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Background and Objective: Recently, in the scramble to find drugs to treat COVID-19, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have rapidly gained the public attention. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of viral diseases. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Clinical Trials Registries, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CQVIP, and Preprint Servers through April 4, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ against viral infection. We analyzed pooled data on the overall efficacy, the relative risks over the placebo, and the prevalence of adverse events. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also performed to evaluate the random errors in the meta-analysis. Potential moderators of drug-placebo efficacy differences were analyzed by meta-regression. Results: The analysis included 11 RCTs with 2613 adult patients. Both the plasma viral load (standard mean difference: 0.29, 95% CI: -1.19 - 1.76, P = 0.70) and the improvement of clinical symptoms (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81 - 6.92, P = 0.11) were not different between the intervention and placebo arm. There was significant heterogeneity for the efficacy assessment, which was primarily explained by the age of patients and the sample size. Compared to the placebo, CQ and HCQ had increased risk of mild adverse events (risk ratio: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.35 - 1.70, P < 0.05, TSA adjusted 95% CI: 1.31 - 2.19), which were statistically significant in nervous, integumentary, and gastrointestinal systems. The most common adverse events were observed in the nervous system, with the pooled prevalence of 31.4% (95% CI: 10.5% - 56.7%). Conclusions: Insufficient data were available to support the antiviral efficacy of CQ and HCQ due to the high heterogeneity caused by the age of patients. Mild side effects are expected for the current antiviral dose regimens of CQ and HCQ. Treatment outcomes may be enhanced by better-selected patients based on age and well-controlled adverse events.
3,636 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Background Novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infects human lung tissue cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2), and the body sodium is an important factor for regulating the expression of ACE2. Through a systematic review, meta-analysis and retrospective cohort study, we found that the low blood sodium population may significantly increase the risk and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We extracted the data of serum sodium concentrations of patients with COVID-19 on admission from the articles published between Jan 1 and April 28, 2020, and analyzed the relationship between the serum sodium concentrations and the illness severity of patients. Then we used a cohort of 244 patients with COVID-19 for a retrospective analysis. Results We identified 36 studies, one of which comprised 2736 patients.The mean serum sodium concentration in patients with COVID-19 was 138.6 mmol/L, which was much lower than the median level in population (142.0). The mean serum sodium concentration in severe/critical patients (137.0) was significantly lower than those in mild and moderate patients (140.8 and 138.7, respectively). Such findings were confirmed in a retrospective cohort study, of which the mean serum sodium concentration in all patients was 137.5 mmol/L, and the significant differences were found between the mild (139.2) and moderate (137.2) patients, and the mild and severe/critical (136.6) patients. Interestingly, such changes were not obvious in the serum chlorine and potassium concentrations. Conclusions The low sodium state of patients with COVID-19 may not be the consequence of virus infection, but could be a physiological state possibly caused by living habits such as low salt diet and during aging process, which may result in ACE2 overexpression, and increase the risk and severity of COVID-19. These findings may provide a new idea for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
3,395 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Recent reports of metformin drug products contaminated with unacceptable levels of the probable human carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) prompted a national sampling of post-market metformin drug products. To most broadly sample the market and minimize supply chain bias, metformin medication samples were crowdsourced directly from individuals across many states in the United States. 128 samples were received, and liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry tests for a panel of nitrosamines revealed significant levels of NDMA that trend with labeling company. 42% of all medication samples contained detectable levels of NDMA and, when scaled to maximum daily tablet dose, 36% of all medication samples contained NDMA levels exceeding the FDA daily acceptable intake limit. The highest NDMA detection from the tested samples was 1565 ng per tablet, which, when commonly taken four times a day, is 65 times the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acceptable daily intake limit. Results underscore the need for immediate product recalls of tainted medications and an overall investigation of metformin manufacturing practices.
3,219 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
The risk-benefit ratio associated with the use of repurposed drugs to treat 2019 SARS-CoV-2 related infectious disease (COVID-19) is complicated since benefits are awaited, not proven. A thorough literature search was conducted to source information on the pharmacological properties of 5 drugs and 1 combination (azithromycin, chloroquine, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and lopinavir/ritonavir) repurposed to treat COVID-19. A risk assessment of drug-induced Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) associated with COVID-19 repurposed drugs was performed and compared to 23 well-known torsadogenic and 10 low torsadogenic risk compounds. Computer calculations were performed using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, including affinity to block the rapid component of the delayed rectifier cardiac potassium current (IKr) encoded by the human ether-a-go-go gene (hERG), propensity to prolong cardiac repolarization (QT interval) and cause torsade de pointes (TdP). Seven different LQTS indices were calculated and compared. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was queried with specific key words relating to arrhythmogenic events. Estimators of LQTS risk levels indicated a very high or moderate risk for all COVID-19 repurposed drugs with the exception for azithromycin, although cases of TdP have been reported with this drug. There was excellent agreement among the various indices used to assess risk of drug-induced LQTS for the 6 repurposed medications and 23 torsadogenic compounds. Based on our results, monitoring of the QT interval shall be performed when some COVID-19 repurposed drugs are used, as such monitoring is possible for hospitalized patients or with the use of biodevices for outpatients.
3,050 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Background: Effective antiviral drugs for COVID-19 are still lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations of baloxavir marboxil and favipiravir in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Favipiravir and baloxavir acid were evaluated for their antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro before the trial initiation. We conducted an exploratory trial with 3 arms involving hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomized assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio into baloxavir marboxil group, favipiravir group, and control group. The primary outcome was the percentage of subjects with viral negative by Day 14 and the time from randomization to clinical improvement. Virus load reduction, blood drug concentration and clinical presentation were also observed. The trial was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 2000029544). Results: Baloxavir showed antiviral activity in vitro with the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 5.48 M comparable to arbidol and lopinavir, but favipiravir did not demonstrate significant antiviral activity up to 100 M. Thirty patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients who turned viral negative after 14-day treatment was 70%, 77%, and 100% in the baloxavir, favipiravir, and control group respectively, with the medians of time from randomization to clinical improvement was 14, 14 and 15 days, respectively. One reason for the lack of virological effect and clinical benefits may be due to insufficient concentrations of these drugs relative to their antiviral activities. Conclusions: Our findings do not support that adding either baloxavir or favipiravir under the trial dosages to the existing standard treatment.
2,919 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Object: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of -Lipoic acid (ALA) for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A randomized, single-blind, group sequential, active-controlled trial was performed at JinYinTan Hospital, Wuhan, China. Between February 2020 and March 2020, 17 patients with critically ill COVID-19 were enrolled in our study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either ALA (1200 mg/d, intravenous infusion) once daily plus standard care or standard care plus equal volume saline infusion (placebo) for 7 days. All patients were monitored within the 7 days therapy and followed up to day 30 after therapy. The primary outcome of this study was the Sequential Organ Failure Estimate (SOFA) score, and the secondary outcome was the all-cause mortality within 30 days. Result: Nine patients were randomized to placebo group and 8 patients were randomized to ALA group. SOFA score was similar at baseline, increased from 4.3 to 6.0 in the placebo group and increased from 3.8 to 4.0 in the ALA group (P=0.36) after 7 days. The 30-day all-cause mortality tended to be lower in the ALA group (3/8, 37.5%) compared to that in the placebo group (7/9, 77.8%, P=0.09). Conclusion: In our study, ALA use is associated with lower SOFA score increase and lower 30-day all-cause mortality as compared with the placebo group. Although the mortality rate was two-folds higher in placebo group than in ALA group, only borderline statistical difference was evidenced due to the limited patient number. Future studies with larger patient cohort are warranted to validate the role of ALA in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Keywords: Pneumonia; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 ; -Lipoic acid
2,810 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) is an international public health problem with a high rate of severe clinical cases. Several treatments are currently being tested worldwide. This paper focuses on anti-malarial drugs such as chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, which have been currently reviewed by a systematic study as a good potential candidate and that has been reported as the most used treatment by a recent survey of physicians. We compare the dynamics of COVID-19 death rates in countries using anti-malaria drugs as a treatment from the start of the epidemic versus countries that do not, the day of the 3rd death and the following 10 days. We show that the first group have a much slower dynamic in death rates that the second group. This univariate analysis is of course only one additional piece of evidence in the debate regarding the efficiency of anti-malaria drugs, and it is also limited as the two groups certainly have other systemic differences in the way they responded to the pandemic, in the way they report death or in their population that better explain differences in dynamics (systematic differences that may also explain their choice to rely on anti-malaria drugs in the first place). Nevertheless, the difference in dynamics is so striking that we believe that the urgency context commands presenting the univariate analysis before delving into further analysis. In the end, this data might ultimately be either a piece of evidence in favor or anti-malaria drugs or a stepping stone in understanding further what other ecological aspects place a role in the dynamics of COVID-19 deaths.
2,659 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) has been widely used to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection however HCQ pharmacokinetics in this condition have not been studied in non-critical care patient groups. Here we report the serum concentrations of HCQ in a small cohort of patients treated with HCQ as part of the RECOVERY trial.
2,446 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Mariano Duarte, Facundo G Pelorosso, Liliana Nicolosi, M. Victoria Salgado, Hector Vetulli, Analia Aquieri, Francisco Azzato, Mauro Basconcel, Marcela Castro, Javier Coyle, Ignacio Davolos, Eduardo Esparza, Ignacio Fernandez Criado, Rosana Gregori, Pedro Mastrodonato, Maria Rubio, Sergio Sarquis, Fernando Wahlmann, Rodolfo Pedro Rothlin
Background. Covid-19 is associated with respiratory-related morbidity and mortality. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) have been postulated as tentative pharmacological agents to treat Covid-19-induced inflammation. Methods. This is a randomized, two-arm, open, multicenter trial. Participants were 18 years or older and had been hospitalized with confirmed Covid-19 with 4 or fewer days since symptom onset. Exclusion criteria included intensive care unit admission prior to randomization and ARB or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors use. Treatment arm received telmisartan 80 mg bid during 14 days plus standard care; control arm received standard care. Primary outcome were differences in C-reactive protein levels at days 5 and 8. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge evaluated at 15 days and death at 30 days post randomization. Results. This interim analysis included 40 patients in telmisartan and 38 in control groups. CRP levels in the control and telmisartan groups were 51.1+/-44.8 mg/L vs 24.2+/-31.4 mg/L at day 5 (mean +/- SD; n=28 and n=32, p<0.05), and 41.6+/-47.6 mg/L vs 9.0+/-10.0 mg/L at day 8 (mean +/- SD; n=16 and n=13; p<0.05), respectively. Telmisartan treated patients had statistically significant lower time to discharge (log-rank test p=0.0124, median time: 15 days in control group vs 9 days in telmisartan group). Mortality at day 30 was 11.76% in control group vs 5.26% in telmisartan group (p=0.41). Conclusions. In this study, ARB telmisartan, a well-known inexpensive safe antihypertensive drug, administered in high doses, was superior to standard care demonstrating anti-inflammatory effects and improved morbidity in hospitalized patients infected with SARS -CoV-2 (NCT04355936).
2,024 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
BackgroundConcerns have been raised regarding the safety of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) in patients with COVID-19, based on the hypothesis that such medications may raise expression of ACE2, the receptor for SARS-CoV-2. MethodsWe conducted a literature review of studies (n=12) in experimental animals and human subjects (n=11) and evaluated the evidence regarding the impact of administration of ACEIs and ARBs on ACE2 expression. We prioritized studies that assessed ACE2 protein expression data, measured directly or inferred from ACE2 activity assays. ResultsThe findings in animals are inconsistent with respect to an increase in ACE2 expression in response to treatment with ACEIs or ARBs. Control/sham animals show little to no effect in the plurality of studies. Those studies that report increases in ACE2 expression tend to involve acute injury models and/or higher doses than typically administered to patients. Data from human studies overwhelmingly imply that administration of ACEIs/ARBs does not increase ACE2 expression. ConclusionAvailable evidence, in particular, data from human studies, does not support the hypothesis that ACEI/ARB use increases ACE2 expression and the risk of complications from COVID-19. We conclude that patients being treated with ACEIs and ARBs should continue their use for approved indications.
1,943 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are used extensively in malaria and rheumatological conditions, and now in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. Although generally safe they are potentially lethal in overdose. In-vitro data suggest that high concentrations and thus high doses are needed for COVID-19 infections, but as yet there is no convincing evidence they are clinically effective. Bayesian regression models were fitted to survival outcomes and electrocardiograph QRS durations from 302 prospectively studied French patients who had taken intentional chloroquine overdoses, of whom 33 died (11%), and 16 healthy volunteers who took 620 mg base chloroquine single doses. Whole blood concentrations of 13.5 umol/L (95% credible interval 10.1-17.7) were associated with 1% mortality. Prolongation of ventricular depolarisation is concentration-dependent with a QRS duration >150 msec independently highly predictive of mortality. Pharmacokinetic modelling combined with these lethality data predicts that the majority of chloroquine regimens trialled in COVID-19 should not cause serious cardiovascular toxicity.
1,573 downloads medRxiv pharmacology and therapeutics
Background: Recently, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have emerged as potential antiviral and immunomodulatory options for the treatment of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To examine the safety profiles of these medications, we systematically evaluated the adverse events (AEs) of these medications from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the ClinicalTrials.gov for all the RCTs comparing CQ or HCQ with placebo or other active agents, published before March 31, 2020. The random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk estimates relative ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes. Results: The literature search yielded 23 and 17 studies for CQ and HCQ, respectively, that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, we performed meta-analysis on the ones that were placebo-controlled, which included 6 studies for CQ and 14 studies for HCQ. We did not limit our analysis to published reports involving viral treatment alone; data also included the usage of either CQ or HCQ for the treatment of other diseases. The trials for the CQ consisted of a total of 2,137 participants (n=1,077 CQ, n=1,060 placebo), while the trials for HCQ involved 1,096 participants (n=558 HCQ and n=538 placebo). The overall mild or total AEs were statistically higher comparing CQ or HCQ to placebo. The AEs were further categorized into four groups and analyses revealed that neurologic, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and ophthalmic AEs were higher in participants taking CQ compared to placebo. Although this was not evident in HCQ treated groups, further analyses suggested that there were more AEs attributed to other organ system that were not included in the categorized meta-analyses. Additionally, meta-regression analyses revealed that total AEs was affected by dosage for the CQ group. Conclusions: Taken together, we found that participants taking either CQ or HCQ have more AEs than participants taking placebo. Precautionary measures should be taken when using these drugs to treat COVID-19.
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!