Efficacy of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Comparative Preclinical Pharmacokinetics and Disposition of Favipiravir Following Pulmonary and Oral Administration as Potential Adjunct Therapy Against Airborne RNA Viruses

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir is administered orally, even against airborne RNA viruses, in a loading-dose/maintenance dose regimen. We investigated whether-(a) pulmonary delivery of favipiravir would generate high concentrations in the luminal side of the respiratory tract; and (b) avoiding first-pass metabolism by the liver by inhaled drug would generate comparable pharmacokinetics (PK) with doses significantly smaller than the oral maintenance dose.

METHODS

A dry powder inhalation (DPI) of favipiravir formulated by mixing with Inhalac 400® was prepared and characterized. Inhalations of ~ 120 µg dose strength, with or without a prior oral loading dose were administered to mice. Comparator mice received human-equivalent oral doses (3 mg). Three mice per sampling time point were sacrificed and favipiravir concentrations in the blood plasma, bronchio-alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and lung tissue homogenate determined by HPLC.

RESULTS

One-compartment PK modeling of concentration-time data indicated that the area under the curve (AUC0-24 h) generated in the BALF recovered from mice receiving inhalations of ~ 1/25th of the oral dose subsequent to an oral loading dose was 86.72 ± 4.48 µg⋅mL-1⋅h. This was consistently higher than the AUC observed in the BALF of orally-dosed mice (56.71 ± 53.89 µg mL-1⋅h). In blood serum, the respective values of AUC were 321.55 ± 124.91 and 354.71 ± 99.60 µg⋅mL-1⋅h.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary delivery of significantly smaller doses of favipiravir generates meaningful drug disposition and pharmacokinetics at the site of respiratory viral infections. We provide the rationale for designing a self-administered, non-invasive, low-cost, targeted drug delivery system against airborne RNA virus infection.

A deep drug prediction framework for viral infectious diseases using an optimizer-based ensemble of convolutional neural network: COVID-19 as a case study

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak highlights the persistent vulnerability of humanity to epidemics and emerging microbial threats, emphasizing the lack of time to develop disease-specific treatments. Therefore, it appears beneficial to utilize existing resources and therapies. Computational drug repositioning is an effective strategy that redirects authorized drugs to new therapeutic purposes. This strategy holds significant promise for newly emerging diseases, as drug discovery is a lengthy and expensive process. Through this study, we present an ensemble method based on the convolutional neural network integrated with genetic algorithm and deep forest classifier for virus-drug association prediction (CGDVDA). We generated feature vectors by combining drug chemical structure and virus genomic sequence-based similarities, and extracted prominent deep features by applying the convolutional neural network. The convoluted features are optimized using the genetic algorithm and classified using the ensemble deep forest classifier to predict novel virus-drug associations. The proposed method predicts drugs for COVID-19 and other viral diseases in the dataset. The model could achieve ROC-AUC scores of 0.9159 on fivefold cross-validation. We compared the performance of the model with state-of-the-art approaches and classifiers. The experimental results and case studies illustrate the efficacy of CGDVDA in predicting drugs against viral infectious diseases.

Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited.

METHODS

In this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600 mg in divided doses on day one, then 800 mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n = 1829), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [-0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]).

INTERPRETATION

In this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.

Unveiling therapeutic dynamics: An in-depth comparative analysis of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies and favipiravir in alleviating COVID-19 outpatients impacts among middle-aged and special populations (MA-FAST)

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NMabs) are recognized for their efficacy against non-severe COVID-19. However, spike protein mutations may confer resistance. This study evaluates the effectiveness of favipiravir (FPV) versus NMabs in preventing severe COVID-19 in special populations.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was conducted on middle-aged, elderly, diabetic, or obese patients with COVID-19 treated with either FPV or NMabs. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The study included 1410 patients, resulting in four cohorts: middle-aged (36), elderly (48), diabetic (46), and obese (28) post-PSM. No significant differences were noted in 28-day emergency department (ED) visits across all groups between NMabs and FPV treatments, despite lower immunity in the FPV group. However, the diabetic group treated with FPV had higher 28-day hospitalization and oxygen supplemental, with no differences in the other groups. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were similar between the two treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Early dose-adjusted FPV showed no difference from NMabs in preventing ED visits, ICU admissions, ventilator needs, or mortality among patients with major comorbidities. Diabetic patients on FPV experienced higher hospitalizations and oxygen needs, with no observed differences in other groups. FPV may be a viable alternative, especially in settings with limited resources.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Molnupiravir versus favipiravir in at-risk outpatients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial in Thailand

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir and favipiravir in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial in Thailand, participants with moderate COVID-19 and at least one factor associated with severe COVID-19 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral molnupiravir or oral favipiravir (standard of care). Phone calls for remote symptom assessment were made on Days 6, 15, and 29. Participants with worsening symptoms were instructed to return to the hospital. The primary endpoint was pulmonary involvement by Day 29, as evidenced by ≥2 of the following: dyspnea, oxygen saturation <92% or imaging.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-seven participants (487 molnupiravir, 490 favipiravir) were enrolled from 8 July 2022 to 19 January 2023. 98% had received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 83% ≥3 doses. By Day 29, pulmonary involvement occurred in 0% (0/483) in molnupiravir arm versus 1% (5/482) in favipiravir arm (-1.0%; Newcombe 95.2% CI: -2.4% to -0.0%; P = 0.021); all-cause death in 0% (0/483) and <1% (1/482); COVID-19 related hospitalization in <1% (1/483) and 1% (3/482); treatment-related adverse event in 1% (5/483) and 1% (4/486); and serious adverse event in 1% (4/483) and 1% (4/486).

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir and molnupiravir had a similar efficacy and safety profile. Whether either of the two reduced the risk of complications during the omicron era in this population with a low risk of pulmonary involvement and a high vaccine coverage remains unclear. There were no differences in any of the safety endpoints.

THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY ID

TCTR20230111009.

Favipiravir does not improve viral clearance in mild to moderate COVID-19 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Favipiravir has been used in the therapy of COVID-19, including patients with mild to moderate symptoms in certain countries. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate its efficacy and safety in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infections.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed for articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials published until January 6, 2023, resulting in the identification of 20 eligible studies.

Results

There were no significant differences in viral clearance time (HR = 1.20, p = 0.09) compared to those without favipiravir therapy. However, in the subgroup analyses, favipiravir treatment significantly increased viral clearance by 59 % (HR = 1.59, p < 0.01) and 42 % (HR = 1.42, p < 0.01], I2 = 20 %) compared to the comparator group in patients with moderate severity of COVID-19 and in the inpatient care setting, respectively. Favipiravir had no beneficial effects in the case of patients with mild symptoms and treated in ambulatory care.

Conclusions

The use of favipiravir is questionable in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 with mild symptoms. Moderate beneficial effects in the case of patients with moderate symptoms and inpatients should be treated with care due to the limitations of the analysed trials.

Lung as a target for COVID-19: Mechanistic insights and probable candidate molecules for cure

Novel coronavirus (SARS nCoV2), belonging to the family coronaviridae, remains a dreadful pathogen affecting the respiratory tract and lungs. COVID-19 declared a global pandemic by WHO, has become a serious cause of concern for clinicians and researchers, who need to understand the significant biology and pathogenicity of this virus to design better treatment modalities. Existing antiretroviral drugs remain partially ineffective in critical subjects with associated co-morbidities. This review provides an insight into the molecular mechanisms by which SARS-CoV2 targets the lungs leading to ARDS in severe cases. This also addresses the possible drug targets and certain anti-inflammatory natural compounds that can be looked upon as promising adjuvant therapeutics for COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of favipiravir in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (FAVID)

PURPOSE

To design a randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 disease with pneumonia.

METHODS

A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was conducted in three Spanish sites. Randomization 1:1 to favipiravir or placebo (in both groups added to the Standard of Care) was performed to treat the patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary endpoint was "time to clinical improvement," measured as an improvement for ≥ two categories on a 7-point WHO ordinal scale in an up to 28 days' time frame.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were randomized (23 in the favipiravir group and 21 in the placebo group). The median time to clinical improvement was not different between the favipiravir and the placebo arms (10 days for both groups) and none of the secondary endpoints showed significant differences between arms. The proportion of adverse events (both serious and non-serious) was statistically different between the favipiravir group (68.29%) and the placebo group (31.7%) (p = 0.019), but there was insufficient statistical evidence to correlate the degree of severity of the events with the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir administered for ten days to patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia did not improve outcomes compared with placebo. Although this is an underpowered negative study, efficacy results align with other randomized trials. However, in the present study, the non-serious adverse events were more frequent in the favipiravir group.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Clinical antiviral efficacy of favipiravir in early COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance.

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries.

METHODS

In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

Effects of antivirals on patients with COVID-19 breakthrough

BACKGROUND

Antivirals have been given widely for patients with COVID-19 breakthrough in Asian countries, creating a "black market" for unapproved and unprescribed medications. More evidence is needed to clarify the benefits of antivirals in these settings.

METHODS

We conducted a random-sampling retrospective cohort study at a general hospital in Vietnam. We recruited patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 breakthrough who were given either standard of care (SoC) alone or SoC + antiviral. Primary outcome was residual respiratory symptoms that lasted > 7 days. Secondary outcome was long COVID-19, diagnosed by specialized physicians. We used logistic regression to measure odds ratio (OR), in addition to a sensitivity and subgroup analyses to further explore the results.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients (mean age 36.2 ± 9.8) were followed. We recorded residual symptoms in 27.9% and 20.3% of the SoC and SoC + antiviral group, while the figures for long COVID-19 were 11.8% and 8.1%, respectively. Antiviral use was not significantly associated with lower the risks of residual symptoms (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.22-1.20, p = 0.12) or long COVID-19 (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.35). The sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not show any significant differences between the study groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Antivirals were not associated with faster resolution of respiratory symptoms or lower risks of long COVID-19. Further studies should focus on different antivirals to confirm their effects on different sub-populations. Meanwhile, antivirals should only be used in very high-risk patients to avoid excessive costs and harms.

A Comprehensive Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Drug Interactions of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir

Nirmatrelvir is a potent and selective inhibitor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease that is used as an oral antiviral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. To sustain unbound systemic trough concentrations above the antiviral in vitro 90% effective concentration value (EC90), nirmatrelvir is coadministered with 100 mg of ritonavir, a pharmacokinetic enhancer. Ritonavir inhibits nirmatrelvir's cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-mediated metabolism which results in renal elimination becoming the primary route of nirmatrelvir elimination when dosed concomitantly. Nirmatrelvir exhibits absorption-limited nonlinear pharmacokinetics. When coadministered with ritonavir in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, nirmatrelvir reaches a maximum concentration of 3.43 µg/mL (11.7× EC90) in approximately 3 h on day 5 of dosing, with a geometric mean day 5 trough concentration of 1.57 µg/mL (5.4× EC90). Drug interactions with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (PAXLOVIDTM) are primarily attributed to ritonavir-mediated CYP3A4 inhibition, and to a lesser extent CYP2D6 and P-glycoprotein inhibition. Population pharmacokinetics and quantitative systems pharmacology modeling support twice daily dosing of 300 mg/100 mg nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for 5 days, with a reduced 150 mg/100 mg dose for patients with moderate renal impairment. Rapid clinical development of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in response to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic was enabled by innovations in clinical pharmacology research, including an adaptive phase 1 trial design allowing direct to pivotal phase 3 development, fluorine nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to delineate absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion profiles, and innovative applications of model-informed drug development to accelerate development.

Clinical development of antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

The unceasing global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) calls for the development of novel therapeutics. Although many newly developed antivirals and repurposed antivirals have been applied to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antivirals showing satisfactory clinical efficacy are few in number. In addition, the loss of sensitivity to variants of concern (VOCs) and lack of oral bioavailability have also limited the clinical application of some antivirals. These facts remind us to develop more potent and broad-spectrum antivirals with better pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties to fight against infections from SARS-CoV-2, its variants, and other human coronaviruses (HCoVs). In this review, we summarize the latest advancements in the clinical development of antivirals against infections by SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Fangchinoline inhibits SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV entry

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, lead to mild to severe respiratory illness and resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. Although vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19, they may not be sufficient to protect immunocompromised individuals from this respiratory illness. Moreover, novel emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 pose a risk of new COVID-19 waves. Therefore, identification of effective antivirals is critical in controlling SARS and other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV. We show that Fangchinoline (Fcn), a bisbenzylisoquinoline alkaloid, inhibits replication of SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, and MERS-CoV in a range of in vitro assays, by blocking entry. Therapeutic use of Fcn inhibited viral loads in the lungs, and suppressed associated airway inflammation in hACE2. Tg mice and Syrian hamster infected with SARS-CoV-2. Combination of Fcn with remdesivir (RDV) or an anti-leprosy drug, Clofazimine, exhibited synergistic antiviral activity. Compared to Fcn, its synthetic derivative, MK-04-003, more effectively inhibited SARS-CoV-2 and its variants B.1.617.2 and BA.5 in mice. Taken together these data demonstrate that Fcn is a pan beta coronavirus inhibitor, which possibly can be used to combat novel emerging coronavirus diseases.

Longitudinal study of disease severity and external factors in cognitive failure after COVID-19 among Indonesian population

The COVID-19 infection is assumed to induce cognitive failure. Identifying the relationship between COVID-19, the effect of vaccination and medication, and accommodating non-COVID-19 factors to cognitive failure is essential. This study was conducted in Indonesia from September 2021 to January 2023. Demographic information, clinical data, comorbidities, vaccination, and medication during COVID-19 were obtained, as well as a 6-month cognitive assessment with Cognitive Failures Questionnaire/CFQ, Fatigue Severity Score, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7). A Structural Equation Model explains the relationship between potential predictors and cognitive failure. The average score of CFQ after 6 months was 45.6 ± 23.1 out of 100. The severity of the disease, which was associated with vaccination status, age, previous infection, and unit of treatment (p < 0.05), was not related to cognitive failure (p = 0.519), although there is a significant direct impact of worst vaccination status to cognitive failure(p < 0.001). However, age, fatigue, and current anxiety were associated with higher cognitive failure (p < 0.001), although comorbidities and recent headaches were not significant in other models (p > 0.05). This study concludes that cognitive failure after COVID-19 is a multifactorial event and does not solely depend on COVID-19 severity. It is crucial to re-address the factors related to the long-term efficacy of vaccination and medication and focus on non-health factors affecting cognitive failure.Trial Registration: NCT05060562.

Favipiravir treatment in non-severe COVID-19: promising results from multicenter propensity score-matched study (FAVICOV)

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of favipiravir (FPV) in preventing the development of severe COVID-19 in patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms. The study evaluated 1037 COVID-19 patients treated with FPV or standard treatment between April and September 2021, analyzed by propensity score matching. 149 patients were included in each arm after propensity score matching. The clinical outcomes showed no deterioration of the WHO clinical progression scale in the FPV group compared to the standard treatment group on day 5 (83.2% vs. 69.1%, p < 0.001). The WHO clinical progression scale also showed improvements on day 14 in the FPV group compared to the standard treatment group (66.4% vs. 46.3%, p < 0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation and hospitalization were significantly lower in the FPV group compared to the standard treatment group (0% vs. 12.1% and 0.7% vs. 17.4%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). There were no differences in adverse events between the two groups. The study highlights the effectiveness of FPV in preventing severe COVID-19 and hospitalization in patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms. The findings emphasize the importance of personalized treatment plans for COVID-19 patients, starting FPV treatment early, and adjusting dosages based on ethnicity and body weight.

What we learned from steroid therapy in the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has become the greatest worldwide public health threat. Although different treatment recommendations are offered for COVID-19 infection, steroid treatment remains important.

Aim

We aimed to demonstrate the effect of pulse steroid therapy (PST) on inflammatory markers and patient outcomes in moderate/severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the patients 18 years and older hospitalized in our hospital's COVID-19 clinics between April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, and July 1, 2021, to November 30, 2021. Patients in the moderate/severe COVID-19 pneumonia category, according to the World Health Organization COVID-19 guidelines, were included in the study. The demographic characteristics of the patients, treatments, inflammatory markers, and patient outcomes (need for intensive care, length of hospital stay, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) requirement, mechanical ventilation (MV), and mortality rates) were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Patients who received PST had more advanced age (P < 0.01), more comorbidities (P < 0.001), and more HFNO need (P < 001) compared with the patients who did not receive PST. There was no statistically significant difference between clinical outcomes: the need for intensive care, length of hospital stay, need for MV, and mortality rates (P = 0.54, P = 0.3, P = 0.14, and P = 0.09, respectively). When we evaluated the unvaccinated patients, there was a statistically significant difference in the MV need and mortality rates between those who received PST and those who did not (P = 0.017, P = 0.014, respectively).

Conclusion

It was observed that PST provided similar mortality, ICU, and MV requirements in patients with older age and comorbidities. Lower MV requirements and mortality were observed in the unvaccinated group receiving PST compared with the unvaccinated group not receiving steroids. PST is still promising in COVID-19 infection, and more studies are needed for standard doses and applications.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Clinical and inflammation marker features of cancer patients with COVID-19: data of Istanbul, Turkey multicenter cancer patients (2020-2022)

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify a rapid, accurate, and accessible biomarker in the early stages of COVID-19 that can determine the prognosis of the disease in cancer patients.

METHODS

A total number of 241 patients with solid cancers who had a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 2020 and February 2022 were included in the study. Factors and ten different markers of inflammation were analyzed by year of diagnosis of COVID-19 and grouped by severity of infection.

RESULTS

Hospitalization, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and death were more frequent in 2020 than in 2021 and 2022 (mortality rates, respectively, were 18.8%, 3.8%, and 2.5%). Bilateral lung involvement and chronic lung disease were independent risk factors for severe disease in 2020. In 2021-2022, only bilateral lung involvement was found as an independent risk factor for severe disease. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte platelet ratio (NLPR) with the highest area under the curve (AUC) value in 2020 had a sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 73.3% in detecting severe disease (cut-off > 0.0241, Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.842, p <.001). In 2021-2022, the sensitivity of the C-reactive protein-to-lymphocyte ratio (CRP/L) with the highest AUC value was 70.0%, and the specificity was 73.3% (cut-off > 36.7, AUC = 0.829, p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to investigate the distribution and characteristics of cancer patients, with a focus on the years of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Based on the data from our study, bilateral lung involvement is an independent factor for severe disease, and the CRP/L inflammation index appears to be the most reliable prognostic marker.

The Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Favipiravir Treatment with Telemedicine Monitoring in Preventing Disease Progression in Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Patients; A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Favipiravir has complex pharmacokinetics, and varied efficacy has been reported in treating COVID-19. Telehealth and telemonitoring are disruptive challenges used for COVID-19 care during pandemics. Objective: This study aimed to assess the outcome of favipiravir treatment to prevent clinical deterioration in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases with adjunctive telemonitoring during the COVID-19 surge. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of PCR-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 cases subjected to home isolation. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed in all cases, and favipiravir was administrated. Results: This study involved 88 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases. In addition, 42/42 (100%) cases were Alpha variants. COVID-19 pneumonia was found in 71.5% of the cases, according to chest X-rays and chest CT on the first visit. Favipiravir started 4 days after symptoms, which was part of the standard of care. The 12.5% of the patients required supplemental oxygen and intensive care unit admission rate was 1.1%; 1.1% required mechanical ventilation, and the rate of all-cause mortality was 1.1%, with a value of 0% of severe COVID-19 deaths. All mild illness cases showed no clinical deterioration or requirement for supplemental oxygen. No significant deterioration in either obesity or diabetes mellitus was observed. Conclusions: Favipiravir treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings, coupled with telemonitoring, was both safe and effective in preventing clinical deterioration, including the need for oxygen supplementation. This approach proved valuable during surges of COVID-19 cases.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Preparing for the next viral threat with broad-spectrum antivirals

There is a large global unmet need for the development of countermeasures to combat hundreds of viruses known to cause human disease and for the establishment of a therapeutic portfolio for future pandemic preparedness. Most approved antiviral therapeutics target proteins encoded by a single virus, providing a narrow spectrum of coverage. This, combined with the slow pace and high cost of drug development, limits the scalability of this direct-acting antiviral (DAA) approach. Here, we summarize progress and challenges in the development of broad-spectrum antivirals that target either viral elements (proteins, genome structures, and lipid envelopes) or cellular proviral factors co-opted by multiple viruses via newly discovered compounds or repurposing of approved drugs. These strategies offer new means for developing therapeutics against both existing and emerging viral threats that complement DAAs.

Therapeutic strategies for COVID-19: progress and lessons learned

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stimulated tremendous efforts to develop therapeutic strategies that target severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and/or human proteins to control viral infection, encompassing hundreds of potential drugs and thousands of patients in clinical trials. So far, a few small-molecule antiviral drugs (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir and molnupiravir) and 11 monoclonal antibodies have been marketed for the treatment of COVID-19, mostly requiring administration within 10 days of symptom onset. In addition, hospitalized patients with severe or critical COVID-19 may benefit from treatment with previously approved immunomodulatory drugs, including glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone, cytokine antagonists such as tocilizumab and Janus kinase inhibitors such as baricitinib. Here, we summarize progress with COVID-19 drug discovery, based on accumulated findings since the pandemic began and a comprehensive list of clinical and preclinical inhibitors with anti-coronavirus activities. We also discuss the lessons learned from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with regard to drug repurposing strategies, pan-coronavirus drug targets, in vitro assays and animal models, and platform trial design for the development of therapeutics to tackle COVID-19, long COVID and pathogenic coronaviruses in future outbreaks.

Phase II, Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Investigating the Efficacy of Mebendazole in the Management of Symptomatic COVID-19 Patients

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world, affecting almost all nations and territories. The current double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mebendazole as an adjuvant therapy for outpatients with COVID-19. The patients were recruited and divided into two groups: a Mebendazole-treated group and placebo group. The mebendazole and placebo groups were matched for age, sex, and complete blood count (CBC) with differential and liver and kidney function tests at baseline. On the third day, the C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were lower (2.03 ± 1.45 vs. 5.45 ± 3.95, p < 0.001) and the cycle threshold (CT) levels were higher (27.21 ± 3.81 vs. 24.40 ± 3.09, p = 0.046) significantly in the mebendazole group than in the placebo group on the third day. Furthermore, CRP decreased and CT dramatically increased on day three compared to the baseline day in the mebendazole group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant inverse correlation between lymphocytes and CT levels in the mebendazole group (r = -0.491, p = 0.039) but not in the placebo group (r = 0.051, p = 0.888). Mebendazole therapy increased innate immunity and returned inflammation to normal levels in COVID-19 outpatients faster than it did in the placebo group in this clinical trial. Our findings add to the growing body of research on the clinical and microbiological benefits of repurposing antiparasitic therapy, specifically mebendazole, for SARS-CoV-2 infection and other viral infections.

Development and validation of an LC-MS/MS method for quantification of favipiravir in human plasma

Favipiravir (FVP) is a broad-spectrum antiviral that selectively inhibits viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, first trialled for the treatment of influenza infection. It has been shown to be effective against a number of RNA virus families including arenaviruses, flaviviruses and enteroviruses. Most recently, FVP has been investigated as a potential therapeutic for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. A liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the quantification of FVP in human plasma has been developed and validated for use in clinical trials investigating favipiravir as treatment for coronavirus disease-2019. Samples were extracted by protein precipitation using acetonitrile, using ¹³C, ¹⁵N- Favipiravir as internal standard. Elution was performed on a Synergi Polar-RP 150 × 2.1 mm 4 µm column using a gradient mobile phase programme consisting of 0.2% formic acid in water and 0.2% formic acid in methanol. The assay was validated over the range 500-50,000 ng/mL; this method was found to be precise and accurate and recovery of FVP from the matrix was high. Stability experiments confirmed and expanded on the known stability of FVP, including under heat treatment and for a period of 10 months at - 80 °C.

Therapeutics for COVID-19

Vaccines and monoclonal antibody treatments to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness were available within a year of the pandemic being declared but there remained an urgent need for therapeutics to treat patients who were not vaccinated, were immunocompromised or whose vaccine immunity had waned. Initial results for investigational therapies were mixed. AT-527, a repurposed nucleoside inhibitor for hepatitis C virus, enabled viral load reduction in a hospitalized cohort but did not reduce viral load in outpatients. The nucleoside inhibitor molnupiravir prevented death but failed to prevent hospitalization. Nirmatrelvir, an inhibitor of the main protease (Mpro), co-dosed with the pharmacokinetic booster ritonavir, reduced hospitalization and death. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir received an Emergency Use Authorization in the United States at the end of 2021. Immunomodulatory drugs such as baricitinib, tocilizumab and corticosteroid, which target host-driven COVID-19 symptoms, are also in use. We highlight the development of COVID-19 therapies and the challenges that remain for anticoronavirals.

Does the Ethnic Difference Affect the Pharmacokinetics of Favipiravir? A Pharmacokinetic Study in Healthy Egyptian Volunteers and Development of Level C In-vitro In-vivo Correlation

Favipiravir is an antiviral drug used to treat influenza and is also being investigated for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Its pharmacokinetic profile varies depending on ethnic group. The present research examines the pharmacokinetic features of favipiravir in healthy male Egyptian volunteers. Another goal of this research is to determine the optimum dissolution testing conditions for immediate release tablets. In vitro dissolution testing was investigated for favipiravir tablets in three different pH media. The pharmacokinetic features of favipiravir were examined in 27 healthy male Egyptian volunteers. The parameter "AUC0-t" vs. percent dissolved was used to develop level C in vitro in vivo correlation (IVIVC) to set the optimum dissolution medium to achieve accurate dissolution profile for favipiravir (IR) tablets. The in vitro release results revealed significant difference among the three different dissolution media. The Pk parameters of twenty-seven human subjects showed mean value of Cpmax of 5966.45 ng/mL at median tmax of 0.75 h with AUC0-∞ equals 13325.54 ng.h/mL, showing half-life of 1.25 h. Level C IVIVC was developed successfully. It was concluded that Egyptian volunteers had comparable Pk values to American and Caucasian volunteers, however they were considerably different from Japanese subjects. AUC0-t vs. % dissolved was used to develop level C IVIVC to set the optimum dissolution medium. Phosphate buffer medium (pH 6.8) was found to be the optimum dissolution medium for in vitro dissolution testing for Favipiravir IR tablets.

Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.

Patients and methods

A secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥ 18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model.

Results

The mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes.

Conclusion

Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.

How to use COVID-19 antiviral drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease

Antiviral drugs such as Remdesivir (Veklury), Nirmatrelvir with Ritonavir (Paxlovid), Azvudine, and Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) can reduce the risk for severe and fatal Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19. Although chronic kidney disease is a highly prevalent risk factor for severe and fatal COVID-19, most clinical trials with these drugs excluded patients with impaired kidney function. Advanced CKD is associated with a state of secondary immunodeficiency (SIDKD), which increases the susceptibility to severe COVID-19, COVID-19 complications, and the risk of hospitalization and mortality among COVID-19 patients. The risk to develop COVID-19 related acute kidney injury is higher in patients with precedent CKD. Selecting appropriate therapies for COVID-19 patients with impaired kidney function is a challenge for healthcare professionals. Here, we discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of COVID-19-related antiviral drugs with a focus on their potential use and dosing in COVID-19 patients with different stages of CKD. Additionally, we describe the adverse effects and precautions to be taken into account when using these antivirals in COVID-19 patients with CKD. Lastly, we also discuss about the use of monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 patients with kidney disease and related complications.

Favipiravir for symptomatic COVID-19: A nationwide observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Favipiravir, an antiviral agent with activity against SARS-CoV-2, was made available to hospitals in Japan for off-label use among COVID-19 patients between 2020 and 2021.

METHODS

A nationwide observational cohort study was conducted on patients who received favipiravir as part of clinical care between February 2020 and December 2021. Information was collected on demographics, comorbidities, severity of illness, use of favipiravir and other medications targeting COVID-19, adverse events, clinical status at 7 and 14 days and clinical outcome one month after admission to the hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 17,508 hospitalized patients who received favipiravir were registered from 884 hospitals. In terms of demographics, 55.9% were age ≥60 years, and 62.3% were male. At least one of the four surveyed comorbidities was present in 45.5% of the patients. The rates of clinical improvement at 7 and 14 days were 72.4％ and 87.5%, 61.4% and 76.6%, and 45.4% and 59.5% for mild, moderate, and severe diseases, respectively. The case fatality rates within a month from hospitalization were 3.3%, 12.6%, and 29.1% for mild, moderate, and severe diseases, respectively. Significant correlations were observed between death and advanced age, male sex, moderate or severe disease, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and immunosuppression. Commonly reported adverse events included uric acid level increase or hyperuricemia (16.8%), liver function abnormalities (6.9%), and rash (1.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir was well tolerated among COVID-19 patients. The study provides insights into the use of this agent at hospitals across Japan in the early phase of the pandemic.

Regional trends in the use of steroids and favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases are treated based on clinical guidelines, which usually require a large amount of data and time to formulate. Therefore, various treatments are tried and used in the early stages of epidemics of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. In this study, we focused on two drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, i.e., steroids and favipiravir, and analyzed the changes in treatment trends by region.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of cases from the COVID-19 Registry Japan. The proportion of patients who received steroids and favipiravir was calculated on a monthly and pandemic wave basis, and the trend of drug administration by region was estimated using logistic curves.

RESULTS

The effect of wave on steroid administration was as high as 2.75 [2.60, 2.90], indicating a rapid increase in the proportion of steroid administration. The odds ratios for Hokuriku and Hokkaido were 0.49 [0.35, 0.68] and 0.55 [0.43, 0.71], respectively, indicating that steroids were less likely administered in these regions. For favipiravir, the effect of timing was 0.43 [0.41, 0.46], denoting a decreasing trend. On the other hand, the odds ratio was very high in some regions, such as Hokkaido (6.66 [5.24, 8.48]), indicating that the administration trend varied by region.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in the proportion of steroid use showed the same trend nationwide, although the rate of increase differed, confirming that the use of drugs with proven efficacy was spreading rapidly and that effective treatment was available nationwide. However, the results suggest that drugs such as favipiravir, which were initially expected to be effective, may continue to be administered. Registry studies include larger populations than clinical trials and enable real-time monitoring of medication status and trends. Further use of registry studies for treatment standardization is expected in the future.

Use of Antiviral Agents and other Therapies for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a remarkably rapid development of a range of effective prophylactic vaccines, including new technologies that had not previously been approved for human use. In contrast, the development of new small molecule antiviral therapeutics has taken years to produce the first approved drugs specifically targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the intervening years filled with attempts to repurpose existing drugs and the development of biological therapeutics. This review will discuss the reasons behind this variation in timescale and provide a survey of the many new treatments that are progressing through the clinical pipeline.

Favipiravir in the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19: A Multicenter, Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Finding effective outpatient treatments to prevent COVID-19 progression and hospitalization is necessary and is helpful in managing limited hospital resources. Repurposing previously existing treatments is highly desirable. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of Favipiravir in the prevention of hospitalization in symptomatic COVID-19 patients who were not eligible for hospitalization.

METHODS

This study was a triple-blind randomized controlled trial conducted between 5 December 2020 and 31 March 2021 in three outpatient centers in Isfahan, Iran. Patients in the intervention group received Favipiravir 1600 mg daily for five days, and the control group received a placebo. Our primary outcome was the proportion of hospitalized participants from day 0 to day 28. The outcome was assessed on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 through phone calls.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly allocated to Favipiravir and placebo groups. There was no significant difference between groups considering baseline characteristics. During the study period, 10.5% of patients in the Favipiravir group and 5.1% of patients in the placebo group were hospitalized, but there was no significant difference between them (p-value = 0.3). No adverse event was reported in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that Favipiravir did not reduce the hospitalization rate of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients in outpatient settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Favipiravir in Treating COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

This meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to assess the safety and efficacy of favipiravir in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a thorough search of online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inceptions to November 30, 2022, using the following search terms: "Favipiravir" AND "COVID-19". We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that were conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for COVID-19. Efficacy outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included time to viral clearance in days, time to clinical improvement in days, need for supplementary oxygen, and requirement of ICU admission. For safety outcomes, we compared overall adverse events and serious adverse events that had occurred during the treatment between the patients in the treatment group and the control group. Eight studies involving 1,448 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time to viral clearance, time to clinical improvement, and the need for supplementary oxygen and ICU admission. In terms of safety, no significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to adverse events and serious adverse events. The current study found that favipiravir did not exert any beneficial impact on reducing ICU admission, the need for oxygen therapy, and time to viral clearance. However, a slight benefit was reported with regard to the time for clinical improvement, but it was insignificant between the two study groups.

Profiles of Independent-Comorbidity Groups in Senior COVID-19 Patients Reveal Low Fatality Associated with Standard Care and Low-Dose Hydroxychloroquine over Antivirals

Introduction

The lack of feasible therapies and comorbidities aggravate the COVID-19 case-fatality rate (CFR). However, reports examining CFR associations with diabetes, concomitant cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and chronic liver disease (CLD) are limited. More studies assessing hydroxychloroquine (Hcq) and antivirals are needed.

Purpose

To examine associations of COVID-19 CFR in comorbid patient groups each with single comorbidities and after treatment with Hcq, favipiravir, and dexamethasone (Dex), either alone or in combination versus standard care.

Methods

Using statistical analysis, we descriptively determined these associations among 750 COVID-19 patient groups during the last quarter of 2021.

Results

A diabetes comorbidity (40%, n=299) showed twice the fatality (CFR 14%) of the others (CFR 7%; P=0.001). Hypertension (Htn) was the second-commonest comorbidity (29.5%, n=221), with similar CFR to diabetes (15% and 7% for Htn and non-Htn, respectively), but with higher significance (P=0.0006167). Although only 4% (n=30) heart failure (HF) was reported, the CFR (40%) was much higher than in those without it (8%). A similar rate (4%) for chronic kidney disease was reported, with CFRs of 33% and 9% among those with and without it, respectively (P=0.00048). Ischemic heart disease was 11% (n=74), followed by chronic liver disease (0.4%) and history of smoking (1%); however, these were not significant due to the sample sizes. Treatment indicated standard care and Hcq alone or in combination were superior (CFR of 4% and 0.5%, respectively) compared to favipiravir (25%) or Dex (38.5%) independently or in combination (35.4%). Furthermore, Hcq performed well (CFR 9%) when combined with Dex (9%; P=4.28-²⁶).

Conclusion

The dominance of diabetes and other comorbidities with significant association with CFR implied existence of a common virulence mechanism. The superiority of low-dose Hcq and standard care over antivirals warrants further studies.

Small molecules in the treatment of COVID-19

The outbreak of COVID-19 has become a global crisis, and brought severe disruptions to societies and economies. Until now, effective therapeutics against COVID-19 are in high demand. Along with our improved understanding of the structure, function, and pathogenic process of SARS-CoV-2, many small molecules with potential anti-COVID-19 effects have been developed. So far, several antiviral strategies were explored. Besides directly inhibition of viral proteins such as RdRp and Mpro, interference of host enzymes including ACE2 and proteases, and blocking relevant immunoregulatory pathways represented by JAK/STAT, BTK, NF-κB, and NLRP3 pathways, are regarded feasible in drug development. The development of small molecules to treat COVID-19 has been achieved by several strategies, including computer-aided lead compound design and screening, natural product discovery, drug repurposing, and combination therapy. Several small molecules representative by remdesivir and paxlovid have been proved or authorized emergency use in many countries. And many candidates have entered clinical-trial stage. Nevertheless, due to the epidemiological features and variability issues of SARS-CoV-2, it is necessary to continue exploring novel strategies against COVID-19. This review discusses the current findings in the development of small molecules for COVID-19 treatment. Moreover, their detailed mechanism of action, chemical structures, and preclinical and clinical efficacies are discussed.

Sotrovimab Lowers the Risk of COVID-19 Related Hospitalization or Death in a Large Population Cohort in the United Arab Emirates

Sotrovimab, an anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibody is being utilized to prevent progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, to understand its benefits, we have conducted a retrospective analysis of all non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 who received a single infusion of sotrovimab and/or oral favipiravir at any Dubai COVID-19 related healthcare center between July 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. The main outcome was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization for patients with COVID-19 or all-cause death within 28 days of treatment initiation. In this analysis, which included 10,882 patients (1,135 in the sotrovimab group, 2,653 in the sotrovimab/favipiravir group, and 7,094 in the favipiravir group), sotrovimab or sotrovimab/favipiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization (13 patients (1.5%) in the sotrovimab group and 71 patients (2.9%) in the sotrovimab/favipiravir group vs. 251 patients (4%) in the favipiravir group; hazard ratio (HR) for sotrovimab: 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.28, P < 0.001; and for sotrovimab/favipiravir, HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32-0.56, P < 0.001), or death by day 28 from the start of treatment (no death in the sotrovimab group and 2 deaths in the the sotrovimab/favipiravir group vs. 10 deaths in the favipiravir group; odds ratio: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.81, P = 026). Safety was assessed in all the 3,788 patients in the sotrovimab and sotrovimab/favipiravir groups, and the reported adverse events were by 34 patients (<1%). In conclusion, sotrovimab was found to reduce the risk of progression of COVID-19 when administrated early to non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19. No safety concern was detected.

The preclinical discovery and development of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

INTRODUCTION

Molnupiravir (MOV) is a broad-spectrum oral antiviral agent approved for the treatment of COVID-19. The results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggested MOV activity against many RNA viruses such as influenza virus and some alphaviruses agents of epidemic encephalitis. MOV is a prodrug metabolized into the ribonucleoside analog β-D-N⁴-hydroxycytidine. It is incorporated into the viral RNA chain causing mutations impairing coding activity of the virus, thereby inhibiting viral replication.

AREAS COVERED

This review analyzes the in vitro and in vivo studies that have highlighted the efficacy of MOV and the main pre-authorization randomized controlled trials evaluating its safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics, as well as its antiviral efficacy against SARS-COV-2 infection.

EXPERT OPINION

MOV is an antiviral agent with an excellent tolerability profile with few drug-drug interactions. Treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can benefit from MOV administration in the precocious phases of the disease, prior to the trigger of an aberrant immune response responsible for the parenchymal damage to pulmonary and extrapulmonary tissues. However, its suspected mutagenic effect can be a factor limiting its use at least in selected populations and studies on its teratogen effects should be planned before it is authorized for use in the pediatric population or in pregnant women.

Corticosteroids: A boon or bane for COVID-19 patients?

Several drugs and antibodies have been repurposed to treat COVID-19. Since the outcome of the drugs and antibodies clinical studies have been mostly inconclusive or with lesser effects, therefore the need for alternative treatments has become unavoidable. However, corticosteroids, which have a history of therapeutic efficacy against coronaviruses (SARS and MERS), might emerge into one of the pandemic's heroic characters. Corticosteroids serve an immunomodulatory function in the post-viral hyper-inflammatory condition (the cytokine storm, or release syndrome), suppressing the excessive immunological response and preventing multi-organ failure and death. Therefore, corticosteroids have been used to treat COVID-19 patients for more than last two years. According to recent clinical trials and the results of observational studies, corticosteroids can be administered to patients with severe and critical COVID-19 symptoms with a favorable risk-benefit ratio. Corticosteroids like Hydrocortisone, dexamethasone, Prednisolone and Methylprednisolone has been reported to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 virus in comparison to that of non-steroid drugs, by using non-genomic and genomic effects to prevent and reduce inflammation in tissues and the circulation. Clinical trials also show that inhaled budesonide (a synthetic corticosteroid) increases time to recovery and has the potential to reduce hospitalizations or fatalities in persons with COVID-19. There is also a brief overview of the industrial preparation of common glucocorticoids.

Safety and efficacy of four drug regimens versus standard-of-care for the treatment of symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19: A randomised, open-label, multi-arm, phase 2 clinical trial

Background

This exploratory study investigated four repurposed anti-infective drug regimens in outpatients with COVID-19.

Methods

This phase 2, single centre, randomised, open-label, clinical trial was conducted in South Africa between 3rd September 2020 and 23rd August 2021. Symptomatic outpatients aged 18–65 years, with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were computer randomised (1:1:1:1:1) to standard-of-care (SOC) with paracetamol, or SOC plus artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ), pyronaridine-artesunate (PA), favipiravir plus nitazoxanide (FPV + NTZ), or sofosbuvir-daclatasvir (SOF-DCV). The primary endpoint was the incidence of viral clearance, i.e., the proportion of patients with a negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on day 7, compared to SOC using a log-binomial model in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population.

Findings

The mITT population included 186 patients: mean age (SD) 34.9 (10.3) years, body weight 78.2 (17.1) kg. Day 7 SARS-CoV-2 clearance rates (n/N; risk ratio [95% CI]) were: SOC 34.2% (13/38), ASAQ 38.5% (15/39; 0.80 [0.44, 1.47]), PA 30.3% (10/33; 0.69 [0.37, 1.29]), FPV + NTZ 27.0% (10/37; 0.60 [0.31, 1.18]) and SOF-DCV 23.5% (8/34; 0.47 [0.22, 1.00]). Three lower respiratory tract infections occurred (PA 6.1% [2/33]; SOF-DCV 2.9% [1/34]); two required hospitalisation (PA, SOF-DCV). There were no deaths. Adverse events occurred in 55.3% (105/190) of patients, including one serious adverse event (pancytopenia; FPV + NTZ).

Interpretation

There was no statistical difference in viral clearance for any regimen compared to SOC. All treatments were well tolerated.

Funding

10.13039/501100004167Medicines for Malaria Venture, with funding from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, within the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator in partnership with 10.13039/100004440Wellcome, the 10.13039/100000865Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Mastercard.

Favipiravir in early symptomatic COVID-19, a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Well tolerated antivirals administered early in the course of COVID-19 infection when the viremia is highest could prevent progression to severe disease. Favipiravir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in vitro with evidence of clinical benefit in open label trials. Placebo controlled studies of people with early symptomatic COVID-19 with regular assessments of SARS-CoV-2 viral load can determine if it has an antiviral effect and improves clinical outcomes.

METHODS

People with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and 5 days or less of symptoms were randomised 1:1 to favipiravir 1800 mg on day 1, then 800 mg twice daily or matched placebo for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was quantitated from second daily self-collected nose-throat swabs while receiving study drug. The primary endpoint was time to virological cure defined as 2 successive swabs negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and secondary outcomes were progression of disease severity, symptom resolution and safety.

FINDINGS

Between 31 July 2020 and 19 September 2021, 200 people were enrolled (199 in the community, 1 in hospital) with 190 receiving one or more doses of drug (modified intention to treat [mITT] population). There was no difference in time to virological cure (Log-rank p=0.6 comparing Kaplan Meier curves), progression to hospitalisation (14 favipiravir, 9 placebo; p=0.38), time to symptom resolution (cough, fever, sore throat) and there were no deaths. 51 people related an adverse event that was possibly drug related, but these were evenly distributed (n=24 favipiravir, n=27 placebo). Sensitivity analyses where the definition of virological cure was changed to: a single negative PCR, exclude datapoints based on the presence or absence of human DNA in the swab, a SARS-CoV-2 viral load < 300 copies/mL being considered negative all demonstrated no difference between arms.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not improve the time to virological cure or clinical outcomes and shows no evidence of an antiviral effect when treating early symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

FUNDING

The study was supported in part by grants from the Commonwealth Bank Australia, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation, Melbourne Australia and the Orloff Family Charitable Trust, Melbourne, Australia. JHM is supported by the Medical Research Future Fund, AYP, JT are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Progress, pitfalls, and path forward of drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment

On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic a public health emergency of international concern. The viral outbreak led in turn to an exponential growth of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, that is, a multiorgan disease that has led to more than 6.3 million deaths worldwide, as of June 2022. There are currently few effective drugs approved for treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 patients. Many of the compounds tested so far have been selected through a drug repurposing approach, that is, by identifying novel indications for drugs already approved for other conditions. We here present an up-to-date review of the main Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs repurposed against SARS-CoV-2 infection, discussing their mechanism of action and their most important preclinical and clinical results. Reviewed compounds were chosen to privilege those that have been approved for use in SARS-CoV-2 patients or that have completed phase III clinical trials. Moreover, we also summarize the evidence on some novel and promising repurposed drugs in the pipeline. Finally, we discuss the current stage and possible steps toward the development of broadly effective drug combinations to suppress the onset or progression of COVID-19.

Health economic burden of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has added a massive economic burden on health care systems worldwide. Saudi Arabia is one of the numerous countries that have been economically affected by this pandemic. The objective of this study was to provide real-world data on the health economic burden of COVID-19 on the Saudi health sector and assess the direct medical costs associated with the management of COVID-19.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on data collected from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 10 institutions in eight different regions in Saudi Arabia. The study calculated the direct medical costs of all cases during the study period by using SAS statistical analysis software. These costs included costs directly related to medical services, such as the health care treatment, hospital stays, laboratory investigations, treatment, outcome, and other related care.

Results

A total of 5,286 adult patients admitted with COVID-19 during the study period were included in the study. The average age of the patients was 54 years, and the majority were male (79%). Among the COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a general ward, the median hospital length of stay was 5.5 days (mean: 9.18 days), while the ICU stay was 4.2 days (mean: 7.94 days). The total medical costs for general ward and ICU patients were US$ 38,895 and US$ 24,207,296.9, respectively. The total laboratory investigations ranked as the highest-cost services US$ 588,975 followed by treatment US$ 3,886,509.8. Overall, the total cost of all medical services for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was US$ 51,572,393.4.

Conclusion

This national study found that COVID-19 was not only a serious concern for patients but also a serious economic burden on the health care system in Saudi Arabia.

Effects of Vitamin C on the Oral-Nasal Mucosal Damage Caused by Favipiravir in Old and Young Rats

Background

Favipiravir was widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. Later, many reports began to be published about the side effects of favipiravir on different tissues. However, the side effects of favipiravir on the oral and nasal mucosa remain unknown. This experimental study aimed to evaluate the pathological effects of favipiravir on the oral-nasal mucosa and investigate whether vitamin C (Vit C) reduces these lesions in old and young rats.

Methodology

A total of 100 rats were used for this study. The rats were administered favipiravir (20 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg) and Vit C (150 mg/kg/day) for 14 days. At the end of the study, rats were euthanatized, and oral-nasal mucosal histopathological changes were evaluated. Nuclear factor kappa-ligand (RANKL) and caspase-3 expressions were immunohistochemically examined.

Results

Favipiravir caused severe lesions in old rats compared to young, and the severity of the lesions increased with the dosage. Severe hyperemia and erosive-ulcerative lesions were observed in the oral-nasal mucosa. In addition, increased RANKL and caspase-3 expressions were observed in a dose-dependent manner. In both young and old groups, Vit C treatment showed decreased caspase-3 and RANKL expression; a more prominent decrease was seen in young rats.

Conclusions

This study showed that favipiravir could cause histopathological lesions in the oral and nasal mucosa. However, the administration of Vit C with favipiravir can provide a protective effect against this damage. The curative effect of Vit C was more pronounced in young rats and at low doses.

Antiviral efficacy of favipiravir against Zika and SARS-CoV-2 viruses in non-human primates

The COVID-19 pandemic has exemplified that rigorous evaluation in large animal models is key for translation from promising in vitro results to successful clinical implementation. Among the drugs that have been largely tested in clinical trials but failed so far to bring clear evidence of clinical efficacy is favipiravir, a nucleoside analogue with large spectrum activity against several RNA viruses in vitro and in small animal models. Here, we evaluate the antiviral activity of favipiravir against Zika or SARS-CoV-2 virus in cynomolgus macaques. In both models, high doses of favipiravir are initiated before infection and viral kinetics are evaluated during 7 to 15 days after infection. Favipiravir leads to a statistically significant reduction in plasma Zika viral load compared to untreated animals. However, favipiravir has no effects on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics, and 4 treated animals have to be euthanized due to rapid clinical deterioration, suggesting a potential role of favipiravir in disease worsening in SARS-CoV-2 infected animals. To summarize, favipiravir has an antiviral activity against Zika virus but not against SARS-CoV-2 infection in the cynomolgus macaque model. Our results support the clinical evaluation of favipiravir against Zika virus but they advocate against its use against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Repurposed antiviral drugs present as a valuable resource in the defence during outbreaks, with rigorous evaluation in large animal models keys for translation to clinical implementation. Here, the authors explore the antiviral activity of favipiravir against Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 in cynomolgus macaques, in order to support future clinical investigations into this RNA polymerase inhibitor.

Early diagnosis by antigen test kit and early treatment by antiviral therapy: An ambulatory management strategy during COVID-19 crisis in Thailand

This study aimed to assess the clinical characteristics of patients who registered at the Siriraj Favipiravir Clinic and to share our experiences in this comparatively unique clinical setting. This retrospective study included patients who registered at the Siriraj Favipiravir Clinic during August 11, 2021 to September 14, 2021. Included adult patients were those with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) infection confirmed by antigen test kit (ATK) or real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, no favipiravir contraindication, no prior COVID-19 treatment, and not receiving care from another medical facility. Demographic data and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Of the 1168 patients (mean age: 44.8 ± 16.4 years, 55.7% female) who registered at the clinic, 117 (10%) did not meet the treatment criteria, and 141 (12%) patients did not pick up their medication. One-third of patients had at least 1 symptom that indicated severe disease. Higher proportion of unvaccinated status (56.7% vs 47.5%, P = .005), higher proportion of persons with risk factors for disease progression (37.7% vs 31.3%, P = .028), and longer duration between the date of clinic registration and the date of positive diagnostic test (3 vs 2 days, P = .004) were significantly more commonly observed in the severe disease group compared to the nonsevere disease group. The duration between symptom onset and the date of clinic registration was significantly longer in the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction group than in the ATK group (6 vs 4 days, P < .001). Most patients (90.0%) had completed favipiravir treatment regimen. The improvement and mortality rates were 86.7% and 1.2%, respectively. COVID-19 severity is associated with vaccination status, baseline risk factors, and timing between disease detection and treatment. The use of ATK influences patients to seek treatment significantly earlier in ambulatory setting. Our early diagnosis and antiviral treatment strategy yielded favorable results in an outpatient setting during a COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand.