Clinical efficacy of antiviral agents against coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuously spreading. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective antiviral agent. To date, considerable research has been conducted to develop different approaches to COVID-19 therapy. In addition to early observational studies, which could be limited by study design, small sample size, non-randomized design, or different timings of treatment, an increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of antiviral agents are being carried out. This study reviews the updated findings of RCTs regarding the clinical efficacy of eight antiviral agents against COVID-19, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, darunavir/cobicistat, and their combinations. Treatment with remdesivir could accelerate clinical improvement; however, it lacked additional survival benefits. Moreover, 5-day regimen of remdesivir might show adequate effectiveness in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Favipiravir was only marginally effective regarding clinical improvement and virological assessment based on the results of small RCTs. The present evidence suggests that sofosbuvir/daclatasvir may improve survival and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the sample sizes for analysis were relatively small, and all studies were exclusively conducted in Iran. Further larger RCTs in other countries are warranted to support these findings. In contrast, the present findings of limited RCTs did not indicate the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, and darunavir/cobicistat in the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Baloxavir treatment of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1pdm09 in two immunocompromised patients.

Few treatment options are available for oseltamivir-resistant influenza. It has been proposed that baloxavir can be effective in this setting due to its distinct mechanism of action but clinical experience is lacking for immunocompromised patients. We report two such cases treated with baloxavir after failure of oseltamivir and detection of oseltamivir resistance mutations. Baloxavir/zanamivir combination therapy was effective in one patient, but persistent viral shedding was noted with baloxavir monotherapy in the other patient.

Baloxavir for the treatment of Influenza in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients previously treated with oseltamivir.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality in allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients. In this population, influenza virus can replicate for prolonged periods, despite neuraminidase inhibitor treatment, leading to resistance and treatment failure. Baloxavir targets the influenza polymerase and may be an effective treatment option in these patients. METHODS: We used baloxavir to treat five allogeneic SCT recipients that were still symptomatic and shedding influenza virus after completing one or more treatment courses of oseltamivir and characterized the viral isolates before and during treatment. RESULTS: Two patients were infected with influenza A/H1pdm09 carrying a neuraminidase variant (H275Y) linked to oseltamivir resistance. Both these two patients were successfully treated with baloxavir. Of the three patients infected with wild-type influenza virus, two cleared the virus after baloxavir treatment, while the third patient developed the polymerase I38T variant linked to baloxavir resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that baloxavir treatment can be effective in treating neuraminidase inhibitor-resistant influenza in profoundly immunocompromised patients. Randomized clinical trials are needed to define the role of baloxavir alone and combined with oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in SCT recipients and other immunocompromised populations.

Early prediction of clinical response in schizophrenia patients receiving the atypical antipsychotic zotepine.

OBJECTIVE: Prior early prediction models for antipsychotic treatment response demonstrate good specificity but poor sensitivity (i.e., high false-negative rates). The purpose of this study was to refine the early prediction model in schizophrenia patients taking an atypical antipsychotic agent, zotepine. METHOD: 135 acutely ill inpatients with DSM-IV-defined schizophrenia received 4 weeks of 150 mg/day zotepine treatment. Psychopathology severity was assessed weekly with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and subscales for positive, negative, and general symptoms. Clinical response was defined as a reduction of 20% or more in the BPRS total score at week 4. A logistic regression model was used to obtain early predictors. The receiver operating characteristic curve was employed to determine the optimal cutoff points of the variables for predicting response. The study was conducted from June 2004 to April 2005. RESULTS: The most significant early predictors for ultimate response at week 4 were BPRS positive subscale score changes at week 1 and, better, at week 2 (p < .001 at both timepoints). At week 1, a BPRS positive score reduction of 4 appeared to be the optimal cutoff point for predicting eventual response, providing a sensitivity of 0.77 and specificity of 0.77. At week 2, a BPRS positive score reduction of 6 was the best for prediction, with a sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that using the first 2 weeks' improvement in positive symptoms to predict the fourth week's treatment response is favorable in terms of both specificity and sensitivity. Further studies are needed. Moreover, whether this model could be applied to establish a prediction system for other antipsychotics or other psychotropics also deserves research.

Double-blind study of dothiepin versus placebo in the treatment of primary fibromyalgia syndrome.

A double-blind study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of dothiepin with that of placebo in the treatment of primary fibromyalgia syndrome was carried out. Dothiepin was shown to improve significantly the condition of patients with primary fibromyalgia syndrome and there was a significant difference between dothiepin and placebo in all the clinical variables measured. Only mild and transient side-effects were reported. Further controlled studies are required to define the effects of dothiepin on fibromyalgia.

The anti-inflammatory and analgesic profile of 6,11-dihydrodibenzo-[b.e.]-thiepin-11-one-3-acetic acid (tiopinac).

Tiopinac displayed marked anti-inflammatory activity when given p.o. in rat models of acute and chronic inflammation. It inhibited carrageenan-induced paw edema (40 x phenylbutazone), and cotton-pellet-induced granuloma (0.8 x indomethacin). In an 18-day test, tiopinac prevented the development of adjuvant-induced arthritis (10-15 x naproxen) and had similar activity versus pre-induced arthritis. Tiopinac exhibited antiphlogistic activity in adrenalectomized rats. It did not have corticosteroid activity. Depending upon the type of analgesic test used, the potency of tiopinac varied. When given p.o. it inhibited phenylquinone-induced writhing in the mouse and rat (respectively 16 and 10 x aspirin). In contrast, tiopinac had approximately 10 times the potency of indomethacin in increasing the pain threshold when yeast-inflamed paws were compressed. The pain threshold of the noninflamed paw was not increased. Tiopinac was highly active versus pain induced by flexing the adjuvant arthritic-inflamed paw (greater than or equal to 1000 x aspirin). It was inactive in the mouse hot-plate test in which opiate-like agents are active. Tiopinac, p.o., lowered yeast-induced pyrexia (130 x aspirin). Tiopinac did not have significant cardiovascular or CNS activity. Whereas the Ed50 versus adjuvant arthritis in rats was 0.1 mg/kg/day p.o., rats tolerated up to 20 mg/kg/day p.o. in the 8-day cotton-pellet test. Lack of anorexia and emesis in dogs with up to 30 mg/kg p.o. and mild oral activity in producing gastric erosion in acute and subacute studies in rats suggests that tiopinac may have relatively little gastrointestinal irritating activity.