BACKGROUND: Effective antiviral drugs for COVID-19 are still lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations of baloxavir acid 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 acid showed antiviral activity in vitro with the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 5.48 μM comparable to arbidol and lopinavir, but favipiravir didn't demonstrate significant antiviral activity up to 100 μM. Thirty patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients who turned viral negative after 14-day treatment was 70%, 77%, and 100% in the baloxavir marboxil, 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. One of the limitations of this study is the time from symptom onset to randomization, especially in the baloxavir marboxil and control groups, which is higher than the favipiravir group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could not prove a benefit of addition of either baloxavir marboxil or favipiravir under the trial dosages to the existing standard treatment.
In May 2020 the Russian Ministry of Health granted fast-track marketing authorization to RNA polymerase inhibitor AVIFAVIR (favipiravir) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In the pilot stage of Phase II/III clinical trial, AVIFAVIR enabled SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in 62.5% of patients within 4 days, and was safe and well-tolerated.
ABSTRACT: Coronaviruses are enveloped RNA viruses that are widely detected in mammals and birds, and commonly denoted in etiologies of upper respiratory tract infections in humans.Two potentially dangerous zoonotic coronaviruses have emerged in the past two decades. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), originating from China, was responsible for the first outbreak that extended from 2002 to 2003. The second outbreak occurred in 2012 in the Middle East and was caused by the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).
A new strain of coronavirus, designated as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), emerged during the third outbreak in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019. Symptoms of pneumonia with unknown etiology were reported in several patients. The infection was epidemiologically linked to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.6 Similar to the SARS-CoV and the MERS-CoV, bats have been denoted as the likely primary reservoirs of the 2019-nCoV based on its similarity to bat coronaviruses.7 The intermediary reservoir is yet to be denoted.
The pertinent and critical factor for an emerging virus is its pandemic potential. Efficient human-to-human transmission is a requirement for large-scale spread of a new virus. The proportion of patients with mild symptoms of illness is another important factor that determines our ability to identify infected individuals and to prevent the spread of virus. Identification of transmission chains and subsequent contact tracing are further complicated when several infected individuals remain asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.
A key factor for efficient human-to-human transmission is the ability of the virus to attach to human cells. Coronaviruses use a spike protein for attachment to host cells.8 Apparently, the 2019-nCoV uses the same human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor as the SARS-CoV,5 whereas the MERS-CoV used dipeptidyl peptidase (also known as CD26).
An efficient human-to-human transmission involves multiples routes of transmission, including droplet transfer, direct contact, and indirect contact. A limited human-to-human transmission may require a high infective dose and a significantly close contact with an infected person as prerequisites
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of patients with moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 30 treatment-naïve patients with confirmed COVID-19 after informed consent at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. The patients were randomized 1：1 to HCQ group and the control group. Patients in HCQ group were given HCQ 400 mg per day for 5 days plus conventional treatments, while those in the control group were given conventional treatment only. The primary endpoint was negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in respiratory pharyngeal swab on days 7 after randomization. This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and registered online (NCT04261517).
RESULTS: One patient in HCQ group developed to severe during the treatment. On day 7, nucleic acid of throat swabs was negative in 13 (86.7%) cases in the HCQ group and 14 (93.3%) cases in the control group (P>0.05). The median duration from hospitalization to virus nucleic acid negative conservation was 4 (1,9) days in HCQ group, which is comparable to that in the control group [2 (1,4) days, Z=1.27, P>0.05]. The median time for body temperature normalization in HCQ group was 1 (0,2) day after hospitalization, which was also comparable to that in the control group [1 (0,3) day]. Radiological progression was shown on CT images in 5 cases (33.3%) of the HCQ group and 7 cases (46.7%) of the control group, and all patients showed improvement in follow-up examinations. Four cases (26.7%) of the HCQ group and 3 cases (20%) of the control group had transient diarrhea and abnormal liver function (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of COVID-19 moderate patients is good. Larger sample size study are needed to investigate the effects of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19. Subsequent research should determine better endpoint and fully consider the feasibility of experiments such as sample size.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2.<b>METHODS: </b>We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).
AimsStudies have indicated that chloroquine (CQ) shows antagonism against COVID-19 in vitro. However, evidence regarding its effects in patients is limited. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.
Main methodsFrom February 4 to February 28, 2020, 62 patients suffering from COVID-19 were diagnosed and admitted to Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. All participants were randomized in a parallel-group trial, 31 patients were assigned to receive an additional 5-day HCQ (400 mg/d) treatment, Time to clinical recovery (TTCR), clinical characteristics, and radiological results were assessed at baseline and 5 days after treatment to evaluate the effect of HCQ.
Key findingsFor the 62 COVID-19 patients, 46.8% (29 of 62) were male and 53.2% (33 of 62) were female, the mean age was 44.7 (15.3) years. No difference in the age and sex distribution between the control group and the HCQ group. But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 31) compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 31). Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control group. However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group. Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.
SignificanceAmong patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.
Trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. The unique identifier: ChiCTR2000029559.
The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan, China has posed a serious threat to global public health. To develop specific anti-coronavirus therapeutics and prophylactics, the molecular mechanism that underlies viral infection must first be defined. Therefore, we herein established a SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein-mediated cell-cell fusion assay and found that SARS-CoV-2 showed a superior plasma membrane fusion capacity compared to that of SARS-CoV. We solved the X-ray crystal structure of six-helical bundle (6-HB) core of the HR1 and HR2 domains in the SARS-CoV-2 S protein S2 subunit, revealing that several mutated amino acid residues in the HR1 domain may be associated with enhanced interactions with the HR2 domain. We previously developed a pan-coronavirus fusion inhibitor, EK1, which targeted the HR1 domain and could inhibit infection by divergent human coronaviruses tested, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Here we generated a series of lipopeptides derived from EK1 and found that EK1C4 was the most potent fusion inhibitor against SARS-CoV-2 S protein-mediated membrane fusion and pseudovirus infection with IC50s of 1.3 and 15.8 nM, about 241- and 149-fold more potent than the original EK1 peptide, respectively. EK1C4 was also highly effective against membrane fusion and infection of other human coronavirus pseudoviruses tested, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, as well as SARSr-CoVs, and potently inhibited the replication of 5 live human coronaviruses examined, including SARS-CoV-2. Intranasal application of EK1C4 before or after challenge with HCoV-OC43 protected mice from infection, suggesting that EK1C4 could be used for prevention and treatment of infection by the currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging SARSr-CoVs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: 16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.
PARTICIPANTS: 150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).
INTERVENTIONS: Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.
RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000029868.
Effective antiviral drugs for COVID-19 are still lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations of baloxavir acid 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 acid showed antiviral activity in vitro with the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 5.48 μM comparable to arbidol and lopinavir, but favipiravir didn't demonstrate significant antiviral activity up to 100 μM. Thirty patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients who turned viral negative after 14-day treatment was 70%, 77%, and 100% in the baloxavir marboxil, 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. One of the limitations of this study is the time from symptom onset to randomization, especially in the baloxavir marboxil and control groups, which is higher than the favipiravir group.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings could not prove a benefit of addition of either baloxavir marboxil or favipiravir under the trial dosages to the existing standard treatment.
