Oral antiviral treatments for COVID-19: opportunities and challenges

Lectibodies as antivirals

Growing concerns regarding the emergence of highly transmissible viral diseases highlight the urgent need to expand the repertoire of antiviral therapeutics. For this reason, new strategies for neutralizing and inhibiting these viruses are necessary. A promising approach involves targeting the glycans present on the surfaces of enveloped viruses. Lectins, known for their ability to recognize specific carbohydrate molecules, offer the potential for glycan-targeted antiviral strategies. Indeed, numerous studies have reported the antiviral effects of various lectins of both endogenous and exogenous origins. However, many lectins in their natural forms, are not suitable for use as antiviral therapeutics due to toxicity, other unfavorable pharmacological effects, and/or unreliable manufacturing sources. Therefore, improvements are crucial for employing lectins as effective antiviral therapeutics. A novel approach to enhance lectins' suitability as pharmaceuticals could be the generation of recombinant lectin-Fc fusion proteins, termed "lectibodies." In this review, we discuss the scientific rationale behind lectin-based antiviral strategies and explore how lectibodies could facilitate the development of new antiviral therapeutics. We will also share our perspective on the potential of these molecules to transcend their potential use as antiviral agents.

Carrimycin inhibits coronavirus replication by decreasing the efficiency of programmed -1 ribosomal frameshifting through directly binding to the RNA pseudoknot of viral frameshift-stimulatory element

The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide with successive emerging variants urgently calls for small-molecule oral drugs with broad-spectrum antiviral activity. Here, we show that carrimycin, a new macrolide antibiotic in the clinic and an antiviral candidate for SARS-CoV-2 in phase III trials, decreases the efficiency of programmed -1 ribosomal frameshifting of coronaviruses and thus impedes viral replication in a broad-spectrum fashion. Carrimycin binds directly to the coronaviral frameshift-stimulatory element (FSE) RNA pseudoknot, interrupting the viral protein translation switch from ORF1a to ORF1b and thereby reducing the level of the core components of the viral replication and transcription complexes. Combined carrimycin with known viral replicase inhibitors yielded a synergistic inhibitory effect on coronaviruses. Because the FSE mechanism is essential in all coronaviruses, carrimycin could be a new broad-spectrum antiviral drug for human coronaviruses by directly targeting the conserved coronaviral FSE RNA. This finding may open a new direction in antiviral drug discovery for coronavirus variants.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Ropeginterferon Alfa-2b in Patients with Moderate COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Ropeginterferon alfa-2b is a novel mono-pegylated proline-interferon. This clinical study aimed to evaluate its antiviral efficacy of ropeginterferon alfa-2b against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with initial cycle threshold (Ct) value < 30 and symptom onset within 4 days were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single 250-µg dose of ropeginterferon alfa-2b subcutaneously plus standard of care (SOC) or to receive SOC alone. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a negative RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 or discharged from the hospital before Day 8. Change in clinical status based on the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale and pulmonary infiltrations through chest radiograph were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were enrolled and treated with study medication. Higher percentages of patients who achieved Ct ≥ 30 or were discharged from the hospital were observed on Day 8 and every other time point of assessment, i.e., Days 5, 11, 15, and 22, in the ropeginterferon alfa-2b group compared to the SOC alone group. However, the difference was statistically significant on Day 11 but not on Day 8. The primary endpoint was not met. The ropeginterferon alfa-2b group showed a higher improvement rate in lung infiltration on Day 5 (27.6% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0087) and a higher improvement rate in WHO clinical progression scores on Day 8 (69.4% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.03) than those in the SOC group. No ropeginterferon alfa-2b-related serious adverse event was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that ropeginterferon alfa-2b with SOC shortened the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding compared with SOC alone. In addition, ropeginterferon alfa-2b as an additional therapy could be beneficial by improving lung infiltration.

Differential Bioactivation Profiles of Different GS-441524 Prodrugs in Cell and Mouse Models: ProTide Prodrugs with High Cell Permeability and Susceptibility to Cathepsin A Are More Efficient in Delivering Antiviral Active Metabolites to the Lung

We assessed factors that determine the tissue-specific bioactivation of ProTide prodrugs by comparing the disposition and activation of remdesivir (RDV), its methylpropyl and isopropyl ester analogues (MeRDV and IsoRDV, respectively), the oral prodrug GS-621763, and the parent nucleotide GS-441524 (Nuc). RDV and MeRDV yielded more active metabolite remdesivir-triphosphate (RDV-TP) than IsoRDV, GS-621763, and Nuc in human lung cell models due to superior cell permeability and higher susceptivity to cathepsin A. Intravenous administration to mice showed that RDV and MeRDV delivered significantly more RDV-TP to the lung than other compounds. Nevertheless, all four ester prodrugs exhibited very low oral bioavailability (<2%), with Nuc being the predominant metabolite in blood. In conclusion, ProTides prodrugs, such as RDV and MeRDV, are more efficient in delivering active metabolites to the lung than Nuc, driven by high cell permeability and susceptivity to cathepsin A. Optimizing ProTides' ester structures is an effective strategy for enhancing prodrug activation in the lung.

Prevalence and association of oral manifestations with disease severity in patients diagnosed with COVID‑19: A cross‑sectional study

Systemic disorders may exhibit early signs when conducting an oral examination. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies have been published detailing the direct impact of the virus on the oral cavity. The present study aimed to determine whether indeed there are any significant disparities in oropharyngeal manifestations between individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and a control group, and whether the virus has the ability to invade and reproduce inside oral keratinocytes and fibroblasts, resulting in the development of oral ulcerations and superficial lesions. The present study provides an overview of the symptoms that occur at an early stage of the illness, and the most commonly affected regions of the oral cavity, including the tongue, lips, palate and oropharynx are examined. In the present retrospective study, 52 patients infected with COVID-19 were recruited between April, 2021 and October, 2022. In addition, 52 individuals who tested negative for the virus were recruited as the control group. The study was conducted through a thorough examination and questionnaire provided to all participants. The results revealed that among the cohort of patients from the COVID-19 group examined (n=52), a proportion (mean, 16.15) displayed oral manifestations. Specifically, 75% of the patients in the COVID-19 group described oral cavity pain, and 69% of these patients had changes in teeth color or dental caries. In summary, in relation to the control group, the prevalence of oropharyngeal symptoms was generally lower compared to the COVID-19 group, apart from oral cavity pain (30.8%), tonsillitis (17.3%), bleeding (34.6%), teeth color changes (36.5%), recurrence (15.4%) and abscesses (7.7%). Thus, on the whole, the patients without COVID-19 had fewer oral manifestations.

Assessing the Burden and Cost of COVID-19 Across Variants in Commercially Insured Immunocompromised Populations in the United States: Updated Results and Trends from the Ongoing EPOCH-US Study

INTRODUCTION/METHODS

EPOCH-US is an ongoing, retrospective, observational cohort study among individuals identified in the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD®) with ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment. Data were collected for the HIRD population (containing immunocompetent and immunocompromised [IC] individuals), individual IC cohorts (non-mutually exclusive cohorts based on immunocompromising condition and/or immunosuppressive [IS] treatment), and the composite IC population (all unique IC individuals). This study updates previous results with addition of the general population cohort and data specifically for the year of 2022 (i.e., Omicron wave period). To provide healthcare decision-makers the most recent trends, this study reports incidence rates (IR) and severity of first SARS-CoV-2 infection; and relative risk, healthcare utilization, and costs related to first COVID-19 hospitalizations in the full year of 2022 and overall between April 2020 and December 2022.

RESULTS

These updated results showed a 2.9% prevalence of immune compromise in the population. From April 2020 through December 2022, the overall IR of COVID-19 was 115.7 per 1000 patient-years in the composite IC cohort and 77.8 per 1000 patient-years in the HIRD cohort. The composite IC cohort had a 15.4% hospitalization rate with an average cost of $42,719 for first COVID-19 hospitalization. Comparatively, the HIRD cohort had a 3.7% hospitalization rate with an average cost of $28,848 for first COVID-19 hospitalization. Compared to the general population, IC individuals had 4.3 to 23 times greater risk of hospitalization with first diagnosis of COVID-19. Between January and December 2022, hospitalizations associated with first COVID-19 diagnosis cost over $1 billion, with IC individuals (~ 3% of the population) generating $310 million (31%) of these costs.

CONCLUSION

While only 2.9% of the population, IC individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and incurred higher healthcare costs across variants. They also disproportionately accounted for over 30% of total costs for first COVID-19 hospitalization in 2022, amounting to ~ $310 million. These data highlight the need for additional preventive measures to decrease the risk of developing severe COVID-19 outcomes in vulnerable IC populations.

A retrospective cohort study on early antibiotic use in vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients

The bacteriophage behavior of SARS-CoV-2 during the acute and post-COVID-19 phases appears to be an important factor in the development of the disease. The early use of antibiotics seems to be crucial to inhibit disease progression-to prevent viral replication in the gut microbiome, and control toxicological production from the human microbiome. To study the impact of specific antibiotics on recovery from COVID-19 and long COVID (LC) taking into account: vaccination status, comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2 wave, time of initiation of antibiotic therapy and concomitant use of corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). A total of 211 COVID-19 patients were included in the study: of which 59 were vaccinated with mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 while 152 were unvaccinated. Patients were enrolled in three waves: from September 2020 to October 2022, corresponding to the emergence of the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The three criteria for enrolling patients were: oropharyngeal swab positivity or fecal findings; moderate symptoms with antibiotic intake; and measurement of blood oxygen saturation during the period of illness. The use of antibiotic combinations, such as amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (875 + 125 mg tablets, every 12 h) plus rifaximin (400 mg tablets every 12 h), as first choice, as suggested from the previous data, or azithromycin (500 mg tablets every 24 h), plus rifaximin as above, allows healthcare professionals to focus on the gut microbiome and its implications in COVID-19 disease during patient care. The primary outcome measured in this study was the estimated average treatment effect, which quantified the difference in mean recovery between patients receiving antibiotics and those not receiving antibiotics at 3 and 9 days after the start of treatment. In the analysis, both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups had a median illness duration of 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] 6-9 days for each; recovery crude hazard ratio [HR] = 0.94, p = 0.700). The median illness duration for the pre-Delta and Delta waves was 8 days (IQR 7-10 days), while it was shorter, 6.5 days, for Omicron (IQR 6-8 days; recovery crude HR = 1.71, p < 0.001). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis. Patients with comorbidities had a significantly longer disease duration: median 8 days (IQR 7-10 days) compared to 7 days (IQR 6-8 days) for those without comorbidities (crude HR = 0.75, p = 0.038), but this result was not confirmed in multivariate analysis as statistical significance was lost. Early initiation of antibiotic therapy resulted in a significantly shorter recovery time (crude HR = 4.74, p < 0.001). Concomitant use of NSAIDs did not reduce disease duration and in multivariate analysis prolonged the disease (p = 0.041). A subgroup of 42 patients receiving corticosteroids for a median of 3 days (IQR 3-6 days) had a longer recovery time (median 9 days, IQR 8-10 days) compared to others (median 7 days, IQR 6-8 days; crude HR = 0.542, p < 0.001), as confirmed also by the adjusted HR. In this study, a statistically significant reduction in recovery time was observed among patients who received early antibiotic treatment. Early initiation of antibiotics played a crucial role in maintaining higher levels of blood oxygen saturation. In addition, it is worth noting that a significant number of patients who received antibiotics in the first 3 days and for a duration of 7 days, during the acute phase did not develop LC.

Is antiviral treatment at the acute phase of COVID-19 effective for decreasing the risk of long-COVID? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Preliminary evidence suggests a potential effect of antiviral medication used during the acute COVID-19 phase for preventing long-COVID. This review investigates if having received pharmacological treatment during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection may reduce the risk of long-COVID.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv/bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to July 15th, 2023. Articles comparing the presence of long-COVID symptoms between individuals who received or not a specific medication, particularly antivirals, during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane's Risk of Bias (Rob) tool.

RESULTS

From 517 studies identified, 6 peer-reviewed studies and one preprint met all inclusion criteria. The sample included 2683 (n = 4) hospitalized COVID-19 survivors and 307,409 (n = 3) non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality was high in 71% of studies (n = 5/7). Two studies investigating the effects of Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir and three studies the effect of Remdesivir reported conflicting results on effectiveness for preventing long-COVID. Three studies investigating the effects of other medication such as Dexamethasone (n = 2) or Metformin (n = 1) found positive results of these medications for preventing long-COVID.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence about the effect of medication treatment with antivirals during acute COVID-19 and reduced risk of developing long-COVID is conflicting. Heterogeneous evidence suggests that Remdesivir or Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir could have a potential protective effect for long-COVID. A limited number of studies demonstrated a potential benefit of other medications such as Dexamethasone or Metformin, but more studies are needed.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir co-administration inpatients with rheumatic disease infected with SARS-CoV-2: a real-world study

Background: The breakthrough development of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines and oral antivirals have played a critical role in curtailing the spread of the pandemic and dramatically reducing the morbidity and mortality rates among those infected. Among these oral antivirals, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) has been repurposed successfully for use against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and is now readily available on the market with promising therapeutic effects. The availability of convenient and effective NR treatments for COVID-19 greatly mitigates the severity of the epidemic and contributes to an early end to the pandemic. Furthermore, certain patient subgroups, specifically those with rheumatic disease (RD) who are currently undergoing intensive immunodeficiency and/or immunosuppressive treatments, continue to be vulnerable and at a higher risk of experiencing severe consequences from COVID-19. Additionally, it has also been observed that NR exhibited prevalent drug-drug interactions of clinical significance, and more instances of COVID-19 rebound were being recognized with increasing frequency. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a real-world RD population who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated with NR. The time of symptom resolution, length of hospitalization, and response rate were assessed. Results were compared among the standard regimen and non-standard regimen groups, early NR regimen and late NR regimen groups, and the NR indication regimen and NR non-indication regimen groups. During the course, all grades of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly associated with NR administration and associated with drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were also monitored. Results: A total of 32 patients with RD, who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and received NR, were retrospectively identified and divided into different groups. We found that the standard regimen group and the early NR regimen group had a shorter median time of symptom resolution compared to the control group [9.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 8.3-11.3) vs. 21.5 (IQR16.0-24.0) days, p < 0.001 and 9.0 (IQR 8.3-11.3) vs. 23.0 (IQR 18.0-24.0) days, p = 0.0]. We further found that even if the NR administration time exceeds 5 days, patients with RD who receive the NR indication regimen can still derive certain benefits from it. The proportion of patients who showed symptom improvement was higher in the NR indication regimen compared to the NR non-indication regimen group (n = 13/17 vs. 3/6, 76.5% vs. 50.0%) at the end of follow-up, and there was a statistical difference (p = 0.0) in the response rate of patients between the two groups. We also analyzed the effect of comorbidities on patient response rates and found that the percentage of patients who showed symptom improvement was higher in the group with <4 comorbidities compared to the group with ≥ 4 comorbidities (n = 7/7 vs. 16/25, 100.0% vs. 64.0%) at the end of follow-up. During the course, all grades of ADRs and grade ≥3ADRs directly associated with NR administration were not observed in any of the 32 cases. Despite discontinuing warfarin prior to NR application (using NR immediately on the first day of warfarin withdrawal), one patient still experienced an increased international normalized ratio [INR, 5.32(0.90-1.20)] and coagulation disorders (weak positive fecal occult blood test) on the second day after using NR. The INR levels decreased to nearly normal values, and coagulation disorders returned to normal after 2 days of discontinuing NR (the seventh day after the initial administration of NR). Conclusion: We showed NR therapy to be associated with a favorable outcome and an acceptable safety profile in an immunosuppressed population with RD during the Omicron surge. Early use of NR (within 5 days of symptom onset) could improve the prognosis of patients. NR administration for symptoms and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after >5 days may also mitigate progression to severe disease and is a viable strategy. Our results highlight the importance of early utilization and/or NR indication, which may yield clinical advantages for patients with RD infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of oral small molecule drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

At present, there are some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral small molecule drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral small molecule drug treatment for COVID-19.

METHODS

RCTs were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 1 April 2023. A total of nine RCTs were included, including 30,970 COVID-19 patients comparing five treatments (azvudine, molnupiravir, paxlovid, VV116, and placebo). The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB) was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. The direct and indirect evidence were combined using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42023397837).

RESULTS

Direct analysis showed that paxlovid was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.25) and hospitalization (OR = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00-0.67) compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis showed that paxlovid had the highest probability of being the best management strategy in patients with COVID-19, reducing mortality (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-1.99; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 0.77) and hospitalization (OR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00-1.03; SUCRA: 0.95). For prespecified safety outcomes, SUCRA values ranked VV116 (OR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-2.07: SUCRA 0.86) as the most beneficial intervention for the prevention of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to other antiviral medications, paxlovid can reduce the mortality and hospitalization of COVID-19 patients.

Molecular PET/CT mapping of rhACE2 distribution and quantification in organs to aid in SARS-CoV-2 targeted therapy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, poses a significant threat to public health. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a key receptor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recombinant human ACE2 (RhACE2), as a soluble supplement for human ACE2, can competitively block SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, a mouse organ in situ rhACE2 high aggregation model was constructed for the first time, and in vivo real-time positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of rhACE2 in the mouse model was performed using an ACE2-specific agent 68 Ga-HZ20. This radiotracer exhibits reliable radiochemical properties in vitro and maintains a high affinity for rhACE2 in vivo. In terms of probe uptake, 68 Ga-HZ20 showed a good target-to-nontarget ratio and was rapidly cleared from the circulatory system and excreted by the kidneys and urinary system. PET imaging with this radiotracer can noninvasively and accurately monitor the content and distribution of rhACE2 in the body, which clarifies that rhACE2 can aggregate in multiple organs, suggesting the preventive and therapeutic potential of rhACE2 for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Key Considerations during the Transition from the Acute Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has been met with an unprecedented response from the scientific community, leading to the development, investigation, and authorization of vaccines and antivirals, ultimately reducing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on global public health. However, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being eradicated, continues to evolve, and causes substantial health and economic burdens. In this narrative review, we posit essential points on SARS-CoV-2 and its responsible management during the transition from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed, despite Omicron (sub)variant(s) causing clinically milder infections, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being a negligible pathogen. It requires continued genomic surveillance, particularly if one considers that its future (sub)lineages do not necessarily have to be milder. Antivirals and vaccines remain the essential elements in COVID-19 management. However, the former could benefit from further development and improvements in dosing, while the seasonal administration of the latter requires simplification to increase interest and tackle vaccine hesitancy. It is also essential to ensure the accessibility of COVID-19 pharmaceuticals and vaccines in low-income countries and improve the understanding of their use in the context of the long-term goals of SARS-CoV-2 management. Regardless of location, the primary role of COVID-19 awareness and education must be played by healthcare workers, who directly communicate with patients and serve as role models for healthy behaviors.

Antiviral Effect of 5'-Arylchalcogeno-3-aminothymidine Derivatives in SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The understanding that zidovudine (ZDV or azidothymidine, AZT) inhibits the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of SARS-CoV-2 and that chalcogen atoms can increase the bioactivity and reduce the toxicity of AZT has directed our search for the discovery of novel potential anti-coronavirus compounds. Here, the antiviral activity of selenium and tellurium containing AZT derivatives in human type II pneumocytes cell model (Calu-3) and monkey kidney cells (Vero E6) infected with SARS-CoV-2, and their toxic effects on these cells, was evaluated. Cell viability analysis revealed that organoselenium (R3a-R3e) showed lower cytotoxicity than organotellurium (R3f, R3n-R3q), with CC50 ≥ 100 µM. The R3b and R3e were particularly noteworthy for inhibiting viral replication in both cell models and showed better selectivity index. In Vero E6, the EC50 values for R3b and R3e were 2.97 ± 0.62 µM and 1.99 ± 0.42 µM, respectively, while in Calu-3, concentrations of 3.82 ± 1.42 µM and 1.92 ± 0.43 µM (24 h treatment) and 1.33 ± 0.35 µM and 2.31 ± 0.54 µM (48 h) were observed, respectively. The molecular docking calculations were carried out to main protease (Mpro), papain-like protease (PLpro), and RdRp following non-competitive, competitive, and allosteric inhibitory approaches. The in silico results suggested that the organoselenium is a potential non-competitive inhibitor of RdRp, interacting in the allosteric cavity located in the palm region. Overall, the cell-based results indicated that the chalcogen-zidovudine derivatives were more potent than AZT in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication and that the compounds R3b and R3e play an important inhibitory role, expanding the knowledge about the promising therapeutic capacity of organoselenium against COVID-19.

Phytoconstituents as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19: a computational study on inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 main protease

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) has become a global health crisis, and the urgent need for effective treatments is evident. One potential target for COVID-19 therapeutics is the main protease (Mpro) of SARS‑CoV‑2, an essential enzyme for viral replication. Natural compounds have been explored as a source of potential inhibitors for Mpro due to their safety and availability. In this study, we employed a computational approach to screen a library of phytoconstituents and identified potential Mpro inhibitors based on their binding affinities and molecular interactions. The top-ranking compounds were further validated through molecular dynamics simulations (MDS) and free energy calculations. As a result of the above procedures, we identified two phytoconstituents, Khelmarin B and Neogitogenin, with appreciable binding affinity and specificity towards the Mpro binding pocket. Our results suggest that Khelmarin B and Neogitogenin could potentially serve as Mpro inhibitors and have the potential to be developed as COVID-19 therapeutics. Further experimental studies are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these compounds.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Assessing the risk and costs of COVID-19 in immunocompromised populations in a large United States commercial insurance health plan: the EPOCH-US Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of patients with an immunocompromising condition at risk for COVID-19, estimate COVID-19 prevalence rate (PR) and incidence rate (IR) by immunocompromising condition, and describe COVID-19-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

METHODS

Using the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD), patients with ≥1 claim for an immunocompromising condition of interest or ≥2 claims for an immunosuppressive (IS) treatment and COVID-19 diagnosis during the infection period (1 April 2020-31 March 2022) and had ≥12 months baseline data were included. Cohorts (other than the composite cohort) were not mutually exclusive and were defined by each immunocompromising condition. Analyses were descriptive in nature.

RESULTS

Of the 16,873,161 patients in the source population, 2.7% (n = 458,049) were immunocompromised (IC). The COVID-19 IR for the composite IC cohort during the study period was 101.3 per 1000 person-years and the PR was 13.5%. The highest IR (195.0 per 1000 person-years) and PR (20.1%) were seen in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) cohort; the lowest IR (68.3 per 1000 person-years) and PR (9.4%) were seen in the hematologic or solid tumor malignancy cohort. Mean costs for hospitalizations associated with the first COVID-19 diagnosis were estimated at nearly $1 billion (2021 United States dollars [USD]) for 14,516 IC patients, with a mean cost of $64,029 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunocompromised populations appear to be at substantial risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, leading to increased costs and HCRU. Effective prophylactic options are still needed for these high-risk populations as the COVID-19 landscape evolves.

Is Azvudine Comparable to Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Real-World Efficacy and Safety for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19? A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are more extensively used to treat COVID-19 in China due to their earlier approval by the National Medical Products Administration. However, there has been a scarcity of research directly comparing the clinical outcomes between azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir till now. We aimed to make a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected from Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province between December 2022 and January 2023. All-cause mortality, risk of progressing to a critical condition, proportion with nucleic-acid negative conversion (PNANC), time to first nucleic-acid negative conversion (TFNANC), length of hospital stay and incidence of adverse events were systematically assessed as outcomes. Multi-model regression analysis, propensity-score-matching analysis, subgroup analysis and several sensitivity analyses were applied to compare these outcomes.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 1571 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, among whom 272 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 156 received azvudine. We found no significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.56-3.56; P = 0.471), risk of progressing to critical COVID-19 (HR 1.67; 95% CI 0.78-3.60; P = 0.189), PNANC (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69-1.09; P = 0.220), length of stay (β - 0.82; 95% CI - 2.78 to 1.15; P = 0.414) and adverse event rate (3.21% vs. 4.41%, P = 0.538) between the two groups, although azvudine was slightly less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Meanwhile, the azvudine group exhibited a significantly longer TFNANC (β 2.53; 95% CI 0.76-4.29; P = 0.005) than the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. Results were similar for propensity-score matching and multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Azvudine probably possessed comparable efficacy and safety to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, although it was less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for some outcomes.

A novel scale based on biomarkers associated with COVID-19 severity can predict the need for hospitalization and intensive care, as well as enhanced probabilities for mortality

Prognostic scales may help to optimize the use of hospital resources, which may be of prime interest in the context of a fast spreading pandemics. Nonetheless, such tools are underdeveloped in the context of COVID-19. In the present article we asked whether accurate prognostic scales could be developed to optimize the use of hospital resources. We retrospectively studied 467 files of hospitalized patients after COVID-19. The odds ratios for 16 different biomarkers were calculated, those that were significantly associated were screened by a Pearson's correlation, and such index was used to establish the mathematical function for each marker. The scales to predict the need for hospitalization, intensive-care requirement and mortality had enhanced sensitivities (0.91 CI 0.87-0.94; 0.96 CI 0.94-0.98; 0.96 CI 0.94-0.98; all with p < 0.0001) and specificities (0.74 CI 0.62-0.83; 0.92 CI 0.87-0.96 and 0.91 CI 0.86-0.94; all with p < 0.0001). Interestingly, when a different population was assayed, these parameters did not change considerably. These results show a novel approach to establish the mathematical function of a marker in the development of highly sensitive prognostic tools, which in this case, may aid in the optimization of hospital resources. An online version of the three algorithms can be found at: http://benepachuca.no-ip.org/covid/index.php.

Drug treatment of COVID-19 infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 6.6 million deaths globally. Tremendous efforts have been committed for the development of new and repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Although different international and national guidelines share consensus in the management of COVID-19 disease with different levels of severity, new challenges have emerged, steering the need for ongoing research in advancing the clinical management of COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on recent data from randomized trials and postmarketing real-world evidence for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in the outpatient setting and patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with varying level of severity. Relevant data for treatment of the latest omicron sub-variants in people who received vaccination are presented. Challenges in special populations, including immunocompromised hosts, patients with renal failure and pregnant women, are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Treatment of COVID-19 should be personalized according to host characteristics, degree of severity and available treatment options.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

At present, there are some differences in the research results of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs and the impact of different antiviral drugs on the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched to identify relevant studies from inception to March 30, 2023. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and safety outcomes. The RoB1 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42023397816). Twelve studies were included, including 30 588 COVID-19 patients, of whom 13 402 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The meta-analysis results showed that the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group had a lower proportion of patients than the control group in terms of long-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.66), hospitalization (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37-0.53, short term; OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.77, long term), and disease progression (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.83, short term; OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.74, long term), and nirmatrelvir ritonavir showed little difference in safety compared to the control group. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can reduce the mortality and hospitalization of COVID-19 patients compared with other antiviral drugs. Further large-scale studies remain to validate these findings.

Retrospective Analysis of the Effectiveness of Remdesivir in COVID-19 Treatment during Periods Dominated by Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Clinical Settings

Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effectiveness of COVID-19 medicines is required due to the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and the possible emergence of resistance. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze, in a retrospective manner, the outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the pandemic waves dominated by Delta and Omicron variants and treated with remdesivir (RDV) (n = 762) in comparison to a demographically and clinically matched group not treated with any antivirals (n = 1060). A logistic regression analysis revealed that RDV treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of death during both Delta wave (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.29-0.60; p < 0.0001) and Omicron-dominated period (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02). Moreover, RDV-treated groups were characterized by a lower percentage of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, but the difference was not statistically significant. This study is the first real-world evidence that RDV remains effective during the dominance of more pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 variants and those that cause a milder course of the disease, and continues to be an essential element of COVID-19 therapy.

BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDY OF GENERIC MOLNUPIRAVIR IN HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS

Molnupiravir is one of the drugs for the etiotropic therapy of a new coronavirus infection COVID-19. It has confirmed its clinical efficacy in the treatment of patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, including those who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease.

The aim of the study was to evaluate bioequivalence of the generic drug molnupiravir ALARIO-TL and the original drug Lagevrio with a single oral administration in healthy volunteers.

Materials and methods. This bioequivalence study was an open, randomized, two-period crossover study. In each of the two periods, volunteers received a single dose of the test drug, or reference drug molnupiravir, in the form of capsules at the dose of 200 mg. The washout period between the doses was 3 days. To determine pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and bioequivalence, the concentration the concentration of N-hydrozycytidine (NHC), the main molnupiravir metabolit in the blood plasma of volunteers was evaluated. The blood plasma sampling was carried out in the range from 0 to 16 hours in each of the study periods. Bioequivalence was assessed by comparing 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means of AUC(0–16) and Cmax of the test drug and reference drugs with the established equivalence limits of 80.00 – 125.00%.

Results. A total of 28 healthy male volunteers were included in the study. According to the results of the statistical analysis, after the administration of the test and reference drugs, the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC (0–16) and Cmax were 96.31% – 113.64% and 91.37% – 114.8%, respectively. These intervals fit within the established limits of 80.00–125.00%, which confirms the bioequivalence of the drugs. When comparing the frequency of the individual adverse events registration, no significant differences were found out after the administration of the test and reference drugs.

Conclusion. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the test and reference drugs of molnupiravir are bioequivalent. In addition, the data obtained indicate that the drugs have similar safety profiles.

Drug interactions between common dermatological medications and the oral anti-COVID-19 agents nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir

Introduction: The oral antiviral agents nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir are used to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection in outpatients. However, the use of NMV/r is complicated by significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with frequently prescribed medications. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the possible risk of DDIs, given the emergence of COVID-19 variants and the widespread use of oral COVID-19 treatments. We reviewed available data on DDIs between NMV/r, molnupiravir and common dermatological medications; summarised the potential side effects; and suggest strategies for safe COVID-19 treatment. Method: A systematic review using PubMed was conducted on data published from inception to 18 July 2022 to find clinical outcomes of DDIs between NMV/r, molnupiravir and dermatological medications. We also searched the Lexicomp, Micromedex, Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions database and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines for interactions between NMV/r and molnupiravir, and commonly used dermatological medications. Results: NMV/r containing the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir has DDIs with other medications similarly dependent on CYP3A4 metabolism. Dermatological medications that have DDIs with NMV/r include rifampicin, clofazimine, clarithromycin, erythromycin, clindamycin, itraconazole, ketoconazole, fluconazole, bilastine, rupatadine, dutasteride, ciclosporin, cyclophosphamide, tofacitinib, upadacitinib, colchicine and systemic glucocorticoids. With no potential DDI identified yet in in vitro studies, molnupiravir may be an alternative COVID-19 therapy in patients taking medications that have complicated interactions with NMV/r, which cannot be stopped or dose adjusted. Conclusion: NMV/r has significant DDIs with many common dermatological medications, which may require temporary discontinuation, dosage adjustment or substitution with other anti-COVID-19 agents such as molnupiravir. Keywords: COVID-19, dermatology, drug interactions, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, pharmacology

Deuterated Drugs and Biomarkers in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Initially identified in Wuhan (China) in December 2019, COVID-19 rapidly spread globally, resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Carriers of the SARS-CoV-2 can experience symptoms ranging from mild to severe (or no symptoms whatsoever). Although vaccination provides extra immunity toward SARS-CoV-2, there has been an urgent need to develop treatments for COVID-19 to alleviate symptoms for carriers of the disease. In seeking a potential treatment, deuterated compounds have played a critical role either as therapeutic agents or as internal MS standards for studying the pharmacological properties of new drugs by quantifying the parent compounds and metabolites. We have identified >70 examples of deuterium-labeled compounds associated with treatment of COVID-19. Of these, we found 9 repurposed drugs and >20 novel drugs studied for potential therapeutic roles along with a total of 38 compounds (drugs, biomarkers, and lipids) explored as internal mass spectrometry standards. This review details the synthetic pathways and modes of action of these compounds (if known), and a brief analysis of each study.

Leveraging artificial intelligence to optimize COVID-19 robust spread and vaccination roll-out strategies in Southern Africa

The outbreak of coronavirus in the year 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prompted widespread illness, death, and extended economic devastation worldwide. In response, numerous countries, including Botswana and South Africa, instituted various clinical public health (CPH) strategies to mitigate and control the disease. However, the emergence of variants of concern (VOC), vaccine hesitancy, morbidity, inadequate and inequitable vaccine supply, and ineffective vaccine roll-out strategies caused continuous disruption of essential services. Based on Botswana and South Africa hospitalization and mortality data, we studied the impact of age and gender on disease severity. Comparative analysis was performed between the two countries to establish a vaccination strategy that could complement the existing CPH strategies. To optimize the vaccination roll-out strategy, artificial intelligence was used to identify the population groups in need of insufficient vaccines. We found that COVID-19 was associated with several comorbidities. However, hypertension and diabetes were more severe and common in both countries. The elderly population aged ≥60 years had 70% of major COVID-19 comorbidities; thus, they should be prioritized for vaccination. Moreover, we found that the Botswana and South Africa populations had similar COVID-19 mortality rates. Hence, our findings should be extended to the rest of Southern African countries since the population in this region have similar demographic and disease characteristics.

Relationship between Humoral Response in COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccination

There is evidence that vaccination against seasonal influenza can improve innate immune responses to COVID-19 and decrease disease severity. However, less is known about whether it could also impact the humoral immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The present study aimed to compare the SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral responses (IgG antibodies against nucleocapsid; anti-N, receptor binding domain; anti-RBD, subunit S2; anti-S2, and envelope protein; anti-E) between non-hospitalized, COVID-19 unvaccinated, and mild COVID-19 convalescent patients who were and were not vaccinated against influenza during the 2019/2020 epidemic season (n = 489 and n = 292, respectively). The influenza-vaccinated group had significantly higher frequency and titers of anti-N antibodies (75 vs. 66%; mean 559 vs. 520 U/mL) and anti-RBD antibodies (85 vs. 76%; mean 580 vs. 540 U/mL). The prevalence and concentrations of anti-S2 and anti-E antibodies did not differ between groups (40-43%; mean 370-375 U/mL and 1.4-1.7%; mean 261-294 U/mL) and were significantly lower compared to those of anti-RBD and anti-N. In both groups, age, comorbidities, and gender did not affect the prevalence and concentrations of studied antibodies. The results indicate that influenza vaccination can improve serum antibody levels produced in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Real-world experience with molnupiravir during the period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant dominance

BACKGROUND

The real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir (MOL) during the dominance of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 lineage is urgently needed since the available data relate to the period of circulation of other viral variants. Therefore, this study assessed the efficacy of MOL in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-world clinical practice during the wave of Omicron infections.

METHODS

Among 11,822 patients hospitalized after 1 March 2020 and included in the SARSTer national database, 590 were treated between 1 January and 30 April 2022, a period of dominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. MOL was administered to 203 patients, whereas 387 did not receive any antiviral regimen. Both groups were similar in terms of sex, BMI and age allowing for direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Patients who did not receive antiviral therapy significantly more often required the use of Dexamethasone and Baricitinib. Treatment with MOL resulted in a statistically significant reduction in mortality during the 28-day follow-up (9.9 vs. 16.3%), which was particularly evident in the population of patients over 80 years of age treated in the first 5 days of the disease (14.6 vs. 35.2%). MOL therapy did not affect the frequency of the need for mechanical ventilation, but patients treated with MOL required oxygen supplementation less frequently than those without antivirals (31.7 vs. 49.2%). The time of hospitalization did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of molnupiravir in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the dominance of Omicron variant reduced mortality. This effect is particularly evident in patients over 80 years of age.