A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of nitazoxanide for treatment of mild or moderate COVID-19

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.

The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective antiviral drugs accelerate viral clearance in acute COVID-19 infections; the relationship between accelerating viral clearance and reducing severe clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral therapies in early symptomatic COVID-19, where viral clearance data were available. Treatment benefit was defined clinically as the relative risk of hospitalization/death during follow-up (≥14 days), and virologically as the SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate ratio (VCRR). The VCRR is the ratio of viral clearance rates between the intervention and control arms. The relationship between the clinical and virological treatment effects was assessed by mixed-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

From 57 potentially eligible RCTs, VCRRs were derived for 44 (52 384 participants); 32 had ≥1 clinical endpoint in each arm. Overall, 9.7% (R2) of the variation in clinical benefit was explained by variation in VCRRs with an estimated linear coefficient of -0.92 (95% CI: -1.99 to 0.13; P = 0.08). However, this estimate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of the recent very large PANORAMIC trial. Omitting this outlier, half the variation in clinical benefit (R2 = 50.4%) was explained by variation in VCRRs [slope -1.47 (95% CI -2.43 to -0.51); P = 0.003], i.e. higher VCRRs were associated with an increased clinical benefit.

CONCLUSION

Methods of determining viral clearance in COVID-19 studies and the relationship to clinical outcomes vary greatly. As prohibitively large sample sizes are now required to show clinical treatment benefit in antiviral therapeutic assessments, viral clearance is a reasonable surrogate endpoint.

Viral clearance as a surrogate of clinical efficacy for COVID-19 therapies in outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surrogates of antiviral efficacy are needed for COVID-19. We aimed to investigate the relationship between the virological effect of treatment and clinical efficacy as measured by progression to severe disease in outpatients treated for mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and medRxiv from database inception to Aug 16, 2023, for randomised placebo-controlled trials that tested virus-directed treatments (ie, any monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, or antivirals) in non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19. We only included studies that reported both clinical outcomes (ie, rate of disease progression to hospitalisation or death) and virological outcomes (ie, viral load within the first 7 days of treatment). We extracted summary data from eligible reports, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We used an established meta-regression model with random effects to assess the association between clinical efficacy and virological treatment effect, and calculated I2 to quantify residual study heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

We identified 1718 unique studies, of which 22 (with a total of 16 684 participants) met the inclusion criteria, and were in primarily unvaccinated individuals. Risk of bias was assessed as low in 19 of 22 studies for clinical outcomes, whereas for virological outcomes, a high risk of bias was assessed in 11 studies, some risk in ten studies, and a low risk in one study. The unadjusted relative risk of disease progression for each extra log10 copies per mL reduction in viral load in treated compared with placebo groups was 0·12 (95% CI 0·04-0·34; p<0·0001) on day 3, 0·20 (0·08-0·50; p=0·0006) on day 5, and 0·53 (0·30-0·94; p=0·030) on day 7. The residual heterogeneity in our meta-regression was estimated as low (I2=0% [0-53] on day 3, 0% [0-71] on day 5, and 0% [0-43] on day 7).

INTERPRETATION

Despite the aggregation of studies with differing designs, and evidence of risk of bias in some virological outcomes, this review provides evidence that treatment-induced acceleration of viral clearance within the first 5 days after treatment is a potential surrogate of clinical efficacy to prevent hospitalisation with COVID-19. This work supports the use of viral clearance as an early phase clinical trial endpoint of therapeutic efficacy.

FUNDING

Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Anthelmintic nitazoxanide protects against experimental pulmonary fibrosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Nitazoxanide is a therapeutic anthelmintic drug. Our previous studies found that nitazoxanide and its metabolite tizoxanide activated adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and inhibited signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) signals. As AMPK activation and/or STAT3 inhibition are targets for treating pulmonary fibrosis, we hypothesized that nitazoxanide would be effective in experimental pulmonary fibrosis.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The mitochondrial oxygen consumption rate of cells was measured by using the high-resolution respirometry system Oxygraph-2K. The mitochondrial membrane potential of cells was evaluated by tetramethyl rhodamine methyl ester (TMRM) staining. The target protein levels were measured by using western blotting. The mice pulmonary fibrosis model was established through intratracheal instillation of bleomycin. The examination of the lung tissues changes were carried out using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E), and Masson staining.

KEY RESULTS

Nitazoxanide and tizoxanide activated AMPK and inhibited STAT3 signalling in human lung fibroblast cells (MRC-5 cells). Nitazoxanide and tizoxanide inhibited transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1)-induced proliferation and migration of MRC-5 cells, collagen-I and α-smooth muscle cell actin (α-SMA) expression, and collagen-I secretion from MRC-5 cells. Nitazoxanide and tizoxanide inhibited epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and inhibited TGF-β1-induced Smad2/3 activation in mouse lung epithelial cells (MLE-12 cells). Oral administration of nitazoxanide reduced the bleomycin-induced mice pulmonary fibrosis and, in the established bleomycin-induced mice, pulmonary fibrosis. Delayed nitazoxanide treatment attenuated the fibrosis progression.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Nitazoxanide improves the bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in mice, suggesting a potential application of nitazoxanide for pulmonary fibrosis treatment in the clinic.

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.

The African Kelleni's roadmap using nitazoxanide and broad-spectrum antimicrobials to abort returning to COVID-19 square one

For over 3.5 years, SARS CoV-2 is continuing to evolve threatening to return all and any improvement the world has made into square one. In this clinically oriented systematic review and perspective, the author explains how the best current medical evidence is strongly supporting the use of the low cost, widely available and very safe nitazoxanide in early management of COVID-19, debates the relevant theoretical studies that negated or doubted this benefit, and suggests an African roadmap to preempt the worst-case scenario if or when a new SARS CoV-2 (sub) variant or even a new respiratory virus causes a new global surge of morbidity and mortality. Kelleni's protocol, including nitazoxanide as an integral component, is continuing to perfectly save lives of patients infected with many viruses, including SARS CoV-2 and the author stresses that respiratory RNA viruses are best managed with early pharmacological treatment. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials as nitazoxanide and azithromycin together with other therapeutics as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the antihistaminic loratadine should be considered first to personalize the clinical management of COVID-19 and selected other alarming viral infections.

Antiviral activity of nitazoxanide against Morbillivirus infections

The measles virus (MeV) and canine distemper virus (CDV) belong to the genus Morbillivirus of the Paramyxoviridae family. They are enveloped viruses harboring a non-segmented negative-sense RNA. Morbilliviruses are extremely contagious and transmitted through infectious aerosol droplets. Both MeV and CDV may cause respiratory infections and fatal encephalitis, although a high incidence of brain infections is unique to CDV. Despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine against these viruses, in recent years we are witnessing a strong resurgence of Morbillivirus infection. Measles still kills more than 100,000 people each year, and CDV causes widespread outbreaks, especially among wild animals, including non-human primates. No drugs are currently approved for MeV and CDV. Therefore, the identification of effective antiviral agents represents an unmet medical need. Here, we have investigated the potential antiviral properties of nitazoxanide (NTZ) against MeV and CDV. Antiviral activity was explored with live virus and cell-based assays. NTZ is a thiazolide that is approved by the FDA as an antiprotozoal agent for the treatment of Giardia intestinalis and Cryptosporidium parvum. Further, nitazoxanide and its metabolite tizoxanide have recently emerged as broad-spectrum antiviral agents. We found that NTZ blocks the MeV and CDV replication, acting at the post-entry level. Moreover, we showed that NTZ affects the function of the viral fusion protein (F), impairing viral spread. Our results indicate that NTZ should be further explored as a therapeutic option in measles and canine distemper virus treatment.

Can Nitazoxanide and/or other anti-viral medications be a solution to long COVID? Case report with a brief literature review

Key Clinical Message

Findings here imply lingering of virus, SARS-CoV-2, in the body for months. Thus, Nitazoxanide and/or other anti-viral medications might be potential options to combat long COVID. This could transform treatment for long COVID patients globally.

Abstract

Long COVID or post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) continues to affect many people even after a relatively mild acute illness. Underlying causes of PASC are poorly understood. There is no particular treatment or management program developed yet. Thus, the possibility of well-known, safe anti-viral medications use against PASC is proposed here.

What are the current anti-COVID-19 drugs? From traditional to smart molecular mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a highly infectious member of the coronavirus family, which emerged in December 2019 in "Wuhan, China". It induces respiratory illness ranging from mild symptoms to severe disease. It was declared a "pandemic" by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. Since then, a vast number of clinical and experimental studies have been conducted to identify effective approaches for its prevention and treatment.

MAIN BODY

The pathophysiology of COVID-19 represents an unprecedented challenge; it triggers a strong immune response, which may be exacerbated by "a cytokine storm syndrome". It also induces thrombogenesis and may trigger multi-organ injury. Therefore, different drug classes have been proposed for its treatment and prevention, such as antivirals, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody agents (monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, and immunoglobulins), anti-inflammatory drugs, immunomodulators, and anticoagulant drugs. To the best of our knowledge, this review is the first to present, discuss, and summarize the current knowledge about the different drug classes used for the treatment of COVID-19, with special emphasis on their targets, mechanisms of action, and important adverse effects and drug interactions. Additionally, we spotlight the latest "October 2023" important guidelines (NIH, IDSA, and NICE) and FDA approval or authorization regarding the use of these agents in the management of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Despite the wide array of therapeutic strategies introduced for the treatment of COVID-19, one of the most prominent therapeutic challenges is SARS-CoV-2 mutations and emerging new variants and subvariants. Currently, the anti-COVID-19 drug pipeline is continuously affording novel treatments to face this growing challenge.

The FDA-approved drug nitazoxanide is a potent inhibitor of human seasonal coronaviruses acting at postentry level: effect on the viral spike glycoprotein

Coronaviridae is recognized as one of the most rapidly evolving virus family as a consequence of the high genomic nucleotide substitution rates and recombination. The family comprises a large number of enveloped, positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses, causing an array of diseases of varying severity in animals and humans. To date, seven human coronaviruses (HCoV) have been identified, namely HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1, which are globally circulating in the human population (seasonal HCoV, sHCoV), and the highly pathogenic SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Seasonal HCoV are estimated to contribute to 15-30% of common cold cases in humans; although diseases are generally self-limiting, sHCoV can sometimes cause severe lower respiratory infections and life-threatening diseases in a subset of patients. No specific treatment is presently available for sHCoV infections. Herein we show that the anti-infective drug nitazoxanide has a potent antiviral activity against three human endemic coronaviruses, the Alpha-coronaviruses HCoV-229E and HCoV-NL63, and the Beta-coronavirus HCoV-OC43 in cell culture with IC50 ranging between 0.05 and 0.15 μg/mL and high selectivity indexes. We found that nitazoxanide does not affect HCoV adsorption, entry or uncoating, but acts at postentry level and interferes with the spike glycoprotein maturation, hampering its terminal glycosylation at an endoglycosidase H-sensitive stage. Altogether the results indicate that nitazoxanide, due to its broad-spectrum anti-coronavirus activity, may represent a readily available useful tool in the treatment of seasonal coronavirus infections.

Healing Treatments in COVID-19 Patients: A Narrative Review

Since December 2019, many drugs have been evaluated or advocated as potential treatments of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease (COVID-19), including many repositioned drugs and some others specifically developed for these diseases. They can be roughly classified into three categories according to their main mechanism of action (passive immunization, direct antivirals, and anti-inflammatory treatments), and their use depends on the stage of the disease. Despite often promising preclinical data, most of the treatments evaluated failed to show a significant clinical benefit. In addition, a few others have seen their effectiveness affected by the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants. Herein, the aim of this article is to take stock of the data available as of the 14th of July 2022, concerning the specific healing options evaluated for patients suffering from COVID-19. We focus particularly on healing treatments of COVID-19 and do not deal with preventive treatments such as vaccine. Associated therapies such as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are not detailed since they are covered in a specific chapter of this issue. Passive immunization, especially through monoclonal antibodies, showed a positive impact on the clinical evolution, whether in outpatients or inpatients without oxygen supply. However, their effectiveness strongly depends on the type of SARS-CoV-2 variant, and often decreases or even vanishes with the most recent variants. Among direct antiviral treatments, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir appears to currently be the cornerstone in the management of early infections, but its use may be limited by drug interactions. Remdesivir remains as an alternative in this situation, even though it is potentially less convenient. Anti-inflammatory treatments have often been shown to be the most effective in inpatients with oxygen supply. Dexamethasone is now a cornerstone of management of these patients. Added tocilizumab seems beneficial in the case of hyper inflammation. JAK inhibitors and anakinra have also gained an interest in some studies. As a conclusion of this narrative review, the best treatment strategy has yet to be defined and is likely to evolve in the future, not only because many other drugs are still under development and evaluation, but also because of the viral epidemics and epidemiology evolution.

Outpatient regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

During pandemics, early outpatient treatments reduce the health system burden. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19 outpatients have tested therapeutic agents, but no RCT or systematic review has been conducted comparing the efficacy of the main outpatient treatment classes to each other. We aimed in this systematic review of outpatient RCTs in COVID-19 to compare hospitalisation rate reductions with four classes of treatment: convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals and repurposed drugs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all COVID-19 outpatient RCTs that included the endpoint of progression to hospitalisation. We assembled, from multiple published and preprint databases, participant characteristics, hospitalisations, resolution of symptoms and mortality from January 2020 to May 21, 2023. The risk of bias from COVID-NMA was incorporated into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We measured heterogeneity with I 2 . Meta-analysis by a random or fixed effect model dependent on significant heterogeneity (I 2 >50%) was performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022369181.

Findings

The search identified 281 studies of which 54 RCTs for 30 diverse interventions were included in the final analysis. These trials, performed largely in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, focused on populations with at least one COVID-19 hospitalisation risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.31 [95% CI=0.24-0.40]) had highest efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.90]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.78 [95% CI=0.48-1.33]) for hospital reduction. Repurposed drugs (OR=0.82 [95% CI-0.72-0.93]) had lower efficacy.

Interpretation

Inasmuch as omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are now resistant to monoclonal antibodies, oral antivirals are the preferred treatment in outpatients 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.

Funding

US Department of Defense and National Institute of Health.

Research in context

Evidence before this study: We systematically searched the published and preprint data bases for outpatient randomized clinical trials of treatment of COVID-19 disease with hospitalisation as an endpoint. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confined the reviews to specific classes such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals or repurposed drugs. Few comparisons have been made between these therapeutic classes. The trials took place both in the pre-vaccination and the vaccination era, spanning periods with dominance of different COVID variants. We sought to compare efficacy between the four classes of treatments listed above when used in outpatient COVID-19 patients as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Added value of this study

This systematic review and meta-analysis brings together trials that assessed hospitalisation rates in diverse COVID-19 outpatient populations varying in age and comorbidities, permitting us to assess the efficacy of interventions both within and across therapeutic classes. While heterogeneity exists within and between these intervention classes, the meta-analysis can be placed in context of trial diverse populations over variant time periods of the pandemic. At present most of the world population has either had COVID-19 or been vaccinated with a high seropositivity rate, indicating that future placebo-controlled trials will be limited because of the sample sizes required to document hospitalisation outcomes.

Implications of all the available evidence

Numerous diverse therapeutic tools need to be ready for a resilient response to changing SARS-CoV-2 variants in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatient populations. To date few head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. This systematic review compares outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy between classes and amongst interventions within the four classes. Monoclonals have lost efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events, while intravenous interventions like convalescent plasma or remdesivir remain resilient options for the immunocompromised, and, in the case of CCP, in resource constrained settings with limited availability of oral drugs.

Protein structure-based in-silico approaches to drug discovery: Guide to COVID-19 therapeutics

With more than 5 million fatalities and close to 300 million reported cases, COVID-19 is the first documented pandemic due to a coronavirus that continues to be a major health challenge. Despite being rapid, uncontrollable, and highly infectious in its spread, it also created incentives for technology development and redefined public health needs and research agendas to fast-track innovations to be translated. Breakthroughs in computational biology peaked during the pandemic with renewed attention to making all cutting-edge technology deliver agents to combat the disease. The demand to develop effective treatments yielded surprising collaborations from previously segregated fields of science and technology. The long-standing pharmaceutical industry's aversion to repurposing existing drugs due to a lack of exponential financial gain was overrun by the health crisis and pressures created by front-line researchers and providers. Effective vaccine development even at an unprecedented pace took more than a year to develop and commence trials. Now the emergence of variants and waning protections during the booster shots is resulting in breakthrough infections that continue to strain health care systems. As of now, every protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been structurally characterized and related host pathways have been extensively mapped out. The research community has addressed the druggability of a multitude of possible targets. This has been made possible due to existing technology for virtual computer-assisted drug development as well as new tools and technologies such as artificial intelligence to deliver new leads. Here in this article, we are discussing advances in the drug discovery field related to target-based drug discovery and exploring the implications of known target-specific agents on COVID-19 therapeutic management. The current scenario calls for more personalized medicine efforts and stratifying patient populations early on for their need for different combinations of prognosis-specific therapeutics. We intend to highlight target hotspots and their potential agents, with the ultimate goal of using rational design of new therapeutics to not only end this pandemic but also uncover a generalizable platform for use in future pandemics.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)

DESCRIPTION

Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence.

PRACTICE POINT 1

Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 2

Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 3

Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 4

Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 5

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 6

Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 7

Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 8

Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 9

Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 10

Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 11

Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 12

Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 13

Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 14

Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

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.

The Effect of Nitazoxanide on the Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nitazoxanide, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved antiparasitic agent, was reported to be effective in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The lack of effective and precise treatments for COVID-19 infection earlier in the pandemic forced us to depend on symptomatic, empirical, and supportive therapy, which overburdened intensive care units and exhausted hospital resources. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was  to assess the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing relevant randomized controlled trials from six databases (MedRxiv, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL) until 17 May 2022 was conducted. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes was used and data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022334658.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials with 1412 patients were included in the analysis. Nitazoxanide was effective in accelerating viral clearance compared with placebo (RR: 1.30 with 95% CI 1.08, 1.56, p = 0.006) and reducing oxygen requirements (RR: 0.48 with 95% CI 0.39, 0.59, p = 0.00001), but we found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in improving clinical resolution (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI 0.94, 1.08, p = 0.88), reducing the mortality rate (RR: 0.88 with 95% CI 0.4, 1.91, p = 0.74), and intensive care unit admission (RR: 0.69 with 95% CI 0.43, 1.13, p = 0.14). Moreover, nitazoxanide was as safe as placebo (RR: 0.9 with 95% CI 0.72, 1.12, p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, nitazoxanide was effective in expediting viral clearance and decreasing oxygen requirements. However, there was no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo regarding clinical response, all-cause mortality, and intensive care unit admission. Therefore, more large-scale studies are still needed to ascertain the clinical applicability of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes, virological efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the clinical outcomes, virological efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles written before August 23, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the usefulness and safety of nitazoxanide in patients with COVID-19 were included.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included. The overall mortality of COVID-19 patients receiving nitazoxanide (study group) was 1.3% (9/670), which was lower than the control group (1.8%, 12/681), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (risk difference [RD], 0.00; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01; P =0.97). However, nitazoxanide was associated with a higher virological eradication rate than placebo or standard care (RD, 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.17; P = 0.03). Compared with the placebo or standard care, nitazoxanide were associated with a similar risk of any adverse event (RD, -0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03; P = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Although nitazoxanide can help virological eradication and is also tolerable, it does not provide additional clinical benefits. Based on these evidences, the use of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 is not recommended.

Cannabinoids as Immune System Modulators: Cannabidiol Potential Therapeutic Approaches and Limitations

Introduction: Cannabidiol (CBD) is the second most abundant Phytocannabinoid in Cannabis extracts. CBD has a binding affinity for several cannabinoid and cannabinoid-associated receptors. Epidiolex (oral CBD solution) has been lately licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of pediatric epileptic seizures. Methods: In this review, we discussed the most promising applications of CBD for chronic inflammatory conditions, namely CBD's anti-inflammatory effects during inflammatory bowel disease, coronavirus disease (antiviral effect), brain pathologies (neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties), as well as CBD immunomodulatory and antitumoral activities in the tumor microenvironment. Special focus was shed on the main therapeutic mechanisms of action of CBD, particularly in the control of the immune system and the endocannabinoid system. Results: Findings suggest that CBD is a potent immunomodulatory drug as it has manifested immunosuppressive properties in the context of sterile inflammation (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and neurodegenerative diseases), and immunoprotective effects during viral infections (e.g. COVID-19) Similarly, CBD has exhibited a selective response toward cancer types by engaging different targets and signaling pathways. These results are in favor of the primary function of the endocannabinoid system which is homeostatic maintenance. Conclusion: The presented evidence suggests that the endocannabinoid system is a prominent target for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid diseases, viral infections, neurological and psychological pathologies, and cancer. Moreover, the antitumoral activities of CBD have been suggested to be potentially used in combination with chemo- or immunotherapy during cancer. However, clinical results are still lacking, which raises a challenge to apply translational cannabis research to the human immune system.

Overview of Antiviral Drug Therapy for COVID-19: Where Do We Stand?

The vaccine weapon has resulted in being essential in fighting the COVID-19 outbreak, but it is not fully preventing infection due to an alarming spreading of several identified variants of concern. In fact, the recent emergence of variants has pointed out how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still represents a global health threat. Moreover, oral antivirals also develop resistance, supporting the need to find new targets as therapeutic tools. However, cocktail therapy is useful to reduce drug resistance and maximize vaccination efficacy. Natural products and metal-drug-based treatments have also shown interesting antiviral activity, representing a valid contribution to counter COVID-19 outbreak. This report summarizes the available evidence which supports the use of approved drugs and further focuses on significant clinical trials that have investigated the safety and efficacy of repurposing drugs and new molecules in different COVID-19 phenotypes. To date, there are many individuals vulnerable to COVID-19 exhibiting severe symptoms, thus characterizing valid therapeutic strategies for better management of the disease is still a challenge.

A computational study of potential therapeutics for COVID-19 invoking conceptual density functional theory

The pandemic, COVID-19, has caused social and economic disruption at a larger pace all over the world. Identification of an effective drug for the deadliest disease is still an exigency. One of the most promising approaches to combat the lethal disease is use of repurposed drugs. This study provides insights into some of the potential repurposed drugs viz. camostat mesylate, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide, and oseltamivir in terms of the computational quantum chemical method. Properties of these compounds have been elucidated in terms of Conceptual Density Functional Theory (CDFT)-based descriptors, IR spectra, and thermochemical properties. Computed results specify that hydroxychloroquine is the most reactive drug among them. Thermochemical data reveals that camostat mesylate has the utmost heat capacity, entropy, and thermal energy. Our findings indicate that camostat mesylate and hydroxychloroquine may be investigated further as potential COVID-19 therapeutics. We anticipate that the current study will aid the scientific community to design and develop viable therapeutics against COVID-19.

A randomized, open-label trial of combined nitazoxanide and atazanavir/ritonavir for mild to moderate COVID-19

Background

The nitazoxanide plus atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 (NACOVID) trial investigated the efficacy and safety of repurposed nitazoxanide combined with atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19.

Methods

This is a pilot, randomized, open-label multicenter trial conducted in Nigeria. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus a 14-day course of nitazoxanide (1,000 mg b.i.d.) and atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg od) and followed through day 28. Study endpoints included time to clinical improvement, SARS-CoV-2 viral load change, and time to complete symptom resolution. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04459286).

Results

There was no difference in time to clinical improvement between the SoC (n = 26) and SoC plus intervention arms (n = 31; Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.492-1.638, p = 0.725). No difference was observed in the pattern of saliva SARS-CoV-2 viral load changes from days 2-28 in the 35% of patients with detectable virus at baseline (20/57) (aHR = 0.948, 95% CI: 0.341-2.636, p = 0.919). There was no significant difference in time to complete symptom resolution (aHR = 0.535, 95% CI: 0.251-1.140, p = 0.105). Atazanavir/ritonavir increased tizoxanide plasma exposure by 68% and median trough plasma concentration was 1,546 ng/ml (95% CI: 797-2,557), above its putative EC90 in 54% of patients. Tizoxanide was undetectable in saliva.

Conclusion

Nitazoxanide co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir was safe but not better than standard of care in treating COVID-19. These findings should be interpreted in the context of incomplete enrollment (64%) and the limited number of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 in saliva at baseline in this trial.

Clinical trial registration

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459286], identifier [NCT04459286].

Efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

Purpose

Nitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that has been tested for COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects and in vitro antiviral activity. This study synthesized the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.

Methods

Searches for studies were performed in peer-reviewed and grey-literature from January 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: nitazoxanide; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: primary outcome was death, and secondary outcomes were viral load, positive RT-PCR status, serum biomarkers of inflammation, composite measure of disease progression (ICU admission or invasive mechanical ventilation), and any adverse events; (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Five blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included and enrolled individuals with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in reducing viral load (SMD =  − 0.16; 95% CI − 0.38 to 0.05) and the frequency of positive RTP-PCR results (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06). In addition, there was no decreased risk for disease progression (RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04) and death (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78) among patients receiving nitazoxanide. Patients with COVID-19 treated with nitazoxanide had decreased levels of white blood cells (SMD =  − 0.15; 95% − 0.29 to − 0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (SMD − 0.32; 95% − 0.52 to − 0.13), and D-dimer (SMD − 0.49; 95% CI − 0.68 to − 0.31) compared to placebo, but the magnitude of effect was considered small to moderate.

Conclusion

This systematic review showed no evidence of clinical benefits of the use of nitazoxanide to treat patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. In addition, we found a reduction in WBC, LDH, and D-dimer levels among nitazoxanide-treated patients, but the effect size was considered small to moderate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-022-03380-5.

Pre-clinical evaluation of antiviral activity of nitazoxanide against SARS-CoV-2

Background

To address the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, multiple clinical trials in humans were rapidly started, including those involving an oral treatment by nitazoxanide, despite no or limited pre-clinical evidence of antiviral efficacy.

Methods

In this work, we present a complete pre-clinical evaluation of the antiviral activity of nitazoxanide against SARS-CoV-2.

Findings

First, we confirmed the in vitro efficacy of nitazoxanide and tizoxanide (its active metabolite) against SARS-CoV-2. Then, we demonstrated nitazoxanide activity in a reconstructed bronchial human airway epithelium model. In a SARS-CoV-2 virus challenge model in hamsters, oral and intranasal treatment with nitazoxanide failed to impair viral replication in commonly affected organs. We hypothesized that this could be due to insufficient diffusion of the drug into organs of interest. Indeed, our pharmacokinetic study confirmed that concentrations of tizoxanide in organs of interest were always below the in vitro EC₅₀.

Interpretation

These preclinical results suggest, if directly applicable to humans, that the standard formulation and dosage of nitazoxanide is not effective in providing antiviral therapy for Covid-19.

Funding

This work was supported by the Fondation de France “call FLASH COVID-19”, project TAMAC, by “Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale” through the REACTing (REsearch and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases), by REACTING/ANRS MIE under the agreement No. 21180 (‘Activité des molécules antivirales dans le modèle hamster’), by European Virus Archive Global (EVA 213 GLOBAL) funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 871029 and DNDi under support by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 222489/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator”.

Comparison of Cell Fusions Induced by Influenza Virus and SARS-CoV-2

Virus–cell fusion is the key step for viral infection in host cells. Studies on virus binding and fusion with host cells are important for understanding the virus–host interaction and viral pathogenesis for the discovery of antiviral drugs. In this review, we focus on the virus–cell fusions induced by the two major pandemic viruses, including the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. We further compare the cell fusions induced by the influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, especially the pH-dependent fusion of the influenza virus and the fusion of SARS-CoV-2 in the type-II transmembrane serine protease 2 negative (TMPRSS2^-) cells with syncytia formation. Finally, we present the development of drugs used against SARA-CoV-2 and the influenza virus through the discovery of anti-fusion drugs and the prevention of pandemic respiratory viruses.

Antiparasitic Drugs against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Literature Survey

More than two years have passed since the viral outbreak that led to the novel infectious respiratory disease COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Since then, the urgency for effective treatments resulted in unprecedented efforts to develop new vaccines and to accelerate the drug discovery pipeline, mainly through the repurposing of well-known compounds with broad antiviral effects. In particular, antiparasitic drugs historically used against human infections due to protozoa or helminth parasites have entered the main stage as a miracle cure in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Despite having demonstrated promising anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in vitro, conflicting results have made their translation into clinical practice more difficult than expected. Since many studies involving antiparasitic drugs are currently under investigation, the window of opportunity might be not closed yet. Here, we will review the (controversial) journey of these old antiparasitic drugs to combat the human infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Nitazoxanide in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Nitazoxanide exerts antiviral activity in vitro and in vivo and anti-inflammatory effects, but its impact on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain.

Methods

A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 19 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen, with COVID-19 symptoms and a chest computed tomography scan suggestive of viral pneumonia or positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nitazoxanide (500 mg) or placebo, 3 times daily, for 5 days, and were followed for 14 days. The primary outcome was intensive care unit admission due to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement, hospital discharge, oxygen requirements, death, and adverse events within 14 days.

Results

Of the 498 patients, 405 (202 in the nitazoxanide group and 203 in the placebo group) were included in the analyses. Admission to the intensive care unit did not differ between the groups (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.68 [0.38–1.20], p = 0.179); death rates also did not differ. Nitazoxanide improved the clinical outcome (2.75 [2.21–3.43], p < 0.0001), time to hospital discharge (1.37 [1.11–1.71], p = 0.005), and reduced oxygen requirements (0.77 [0.64–0.94], p = 0.011). C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and ferritin levels were lower in the nitazoxanide group than the placebo group on day 7. No serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions

Nitazoxanide, compared with placebo, did not prevent admission to the intensive care unit for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Clinical Trial Registration

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC) RBR88bs9x; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04561219.

Impairment of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein maturation and fusion activity by nitazoxanide: an effect independent of spike variants emergence

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, has caused an unprecedented global health crisis. The SARS-CoV-2 spike, a surface-anchored trimeric class-I fusion glycoprotein essential for viral entry, represents a key target for developing vaccines and therapeutics capable of blocking virus invasion. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 spike variants that facilitate virus spread and may affect vaccine efficacy highlights the need to identify novel antiviral strategies for COVID-19 therapy. Here, we demonstrate that nitazoxanide, an antiprotozoal agent with recognized broad-spectrum antiviral activity, interferes with SARS-CoV-2 spike maturation, hampering its terminal glycosylation at an endoglycosidase H-sensitive stage. Engineering multiple SARS-CoV-2 variant-pseudoviruses and utilizing quantitative cell–cell fusion assays, we show that nitazoxanide-induced spike modifications hinder progeny virion infectivity as well as spike-driven pulmonary cell–cell fusion, a critical feature of COVID-19 pathology. Nitazoxanide, being equally effective against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-spike and different emerging variants, including the Delta variant of concern, may represent a useful tool in the fight against COVID-19 infections.