Azvudine versus Paxlovid in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.

Interferon Beta-1b and Lopinavir-Ritonavir for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.).

A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).

Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS: The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.

Safety profile of COVID-19 drugs in a real clinical setting.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has affected millions all over the world and has been declared pandemic, as of 11 March 2020. In addition to the ongoing research and development of vaccines, there is still a dire need for safe and effective drugs for the control and treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Numerous repurposed drugs are under clinical investigations whose reported adverse events can raise worries about their safety. The aim of this review is to illuminate the associated adverse events related to the drugs used in a real COVID-19 setting along with their relevant mechanism(s). METHOD: Through a literature search conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar database, various adverse events suspected to be induced by eight drugs, including dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin, and tocilizumab, administered in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice and studies were identified in 30 case reports, 3 case series, and 10 randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Mild, moderate, or severe adverse events of numerous repurposed and investigational drugs caused by various factors and mechanisms were observed. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most frequently followed by cardiovascular, cutaneous, and hepatic adverse events. Few other rare adverse drug reactions were also observed. CONCLUSION: In light of their ineffectiveness against COVID-19 as evident in large clinical studies, drugs including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin should neither be used routinely nor in clinical studies. While lack of sufficient data, it creates doubt regarding the reliability of chloroquine and favipiravir use in COVID-19 patients. Hence, these two drugs can only be used in clinical studies. In contrast, ample well-conducted studies have approved the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone under certain conditions in COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is significant to establish a strong surveillance system in order to monitor the proper safety and toxicity profile of the potential anti-COVID-19 drugs with good clinical outcomes.

Potential interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients with Covid-19 are exposed to treatment combinations that can potentially result in interactions that adversely affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify potential drug-drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19. METHODS: We conducted a search for potential interactions between 201 antineoplastic agents and 26 medicines used to treat Covid-19 on the Lexicomp® and Micromedex® databases. The following data were extracted: interaction severity ("major" and "contraindicated") and interaction effects (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic). We also sought to identify the therapeutic indication of the antineoplastic drugs involved in the potential drug-drug interactions. RESULTS: A total of 388 "major" or "contraindicated" drug-drug interactions were detected. Eight drugs or combinations (baricitinib, lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir, darunavir, azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and sirolimus) accounted for 91.5% of these interactions. The class of antineoplastic agents with the greatest potential for interaction was tyrosine kinase inhibitors (accounting for 46.4% of all interactions). The findings show that atazanavir, baricitinib, and lopinavir/ritonavir can affect the treatment of all common types of cancer. The most common pharmacokinetic effect of the potential drug-drug interactions was increased plasma concentration of the antineoplastic medicine (39.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 is a recent disease and pharmacological interventions are undergoing constant modification. This study identified a considerable number of potential drug-drug interactions. In view of the vulnerability of patients with cancer, it is vital that health professionals carefully assess the risks and benefits of drug combinations.

Comparison of the Ivermectin and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Treatment Outcomes among COVID-19 Mild to Moderate Cases in Kaduna State.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin has been a popular anti-parasitic drug since the late 1970s. The promising result of in-vitro studies on the antiviral activity of the drug has led clinicians in many countries to use this drug to treat COVID-19 patients. This study determined and compared the mean number of days at clinical recovery for mild to moderate cases of COVID -19 treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Alluvia) and Ivermectin at the Kaduna State Infectious Disease Control Centres. METHODS: This was a comparative cross-sectional study conducted among 300 mild to moderate COVID- 19 cases enrolled for the study. The outcome variables were the time required for the resolution of symptoms from the onset and at commencement of the treatment regimens. Data were collected from patient folders using a questionnaire. Data were analysed with the IBM SPSS Version 25.0 and STATA/SE 13. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The mean recovery time (MRT) from symptom onset was significantly lower for Covid-19 patients treated with ivermectin (7.15±4.18 days) compared to lopinavir/ritonavir (9.7±5.3 days), 95%CI=7.37-9.62. Multivariate logistic regression showed that there was no significant relationship between the patients age (AOR=0.36, 95%CI=0.09-1.49), sex (AOR=0.34,95%CI=0.54-5.93), educational status (AOR=1.04, 95%CI=0.3-3.57), marital status (AOR=0.55,95%CI=0.14-2.11) place of treatment (AOR=1.66, 95%CI=0.54-5.11) and MRT. There was also no significant relationship between patients' comorbid chronic illness (AOR=0.83, 95%CI=0.27-2.61) and MRT. CONCLUSION: The mean recovery time for COVID-19 patients managed with ivermectin was slightly lower than for the lopinavir/ ritonavir regimen. RECOMMENDATION: Clinical trials to further prove the efficacy of Ivermectin as a supportive therapy in clinical management of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in this setting should be carried out.

CONTEXTE: L'ivermectine a été un médicament antiparasitaire populaire depuis la fin des années 1970. Le résultat prometteur d'études in vitro sur l'activité antivirale du médicament a conduit les cliniciens de nombreux pays à utiliser ce médicament pour traiter les patients atteints de COVID-19. Cette étude a déterminé et comparé le nombre moyen de jours de récupération clinique pour les jours légers à cas modérés de COVID-19 traités par Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Alluvions) et ivermectine à la maladie infectieuse de l'État de Kaduna Centres de contrôle. MÉTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude comparative transversale menée auprès de 300 cas légers à modérés de COVID-19 inscrits pour l'étude. Les variables de résultat étaient le temps requis pour la résolution des symptômes dès le début et au début de la schémas thérapeutiques. Les données ont été recueillies à partir des dossiers des patients à l'aide d'un questionnaire. Les données ont été analysées avec version 25.0 du IBM SPSS et STATA/SE 13. La signification statistique a été fixée à p<0.05. RÉSULTATS: Le temps moyen de récupération (TRM) à partir de l'apparition des symptômes était significativement plus faible chez les patients Covid-19 traités par l'ivermectine(7.15±4.18 jours) par rapport au lopinavir/ritonavir (9.7±5.3 jours), IC à 95 % = 7.37 à 9.62. La régression logistique multivariée a montré qu'iln'avait pas de relation significative entre l'âge des patients (AOR = 0.36, IC à 95 % = 0.09 à 1.49), sexe (AOR = 0.34, 95 % IC = 0.54 à 5.93), education statut (AOR =1.04, IC à 95 % = 0.3­3.57), état matrimonial(AOR = 0.55, 95% IC = 0.14­2.11) lieu de traitement (AOR = 1.66, IC à 95 % = 0.54 à 5.11) et TRM. Il n'y avait pas non plus de relation entre la maladie chronique comorbide des patients (AOR = 0.83, IC à 95 % = 0.27 à 2.61) et TRM. CONCLUSION: Le temps de récupération moyen pour les patients atteints de COVID-19 gérés avec de l'ivermectine était légèrement inférieur à celui du lopinavir/régime de ritonavir. RECOMMANDATION: Essais cliniques pour prouver l'efficacité de l'ivermectine comme traitement de soutien dans la prise en charge clinique des cas lègers à modérés de COVID-19 dans ce contexte devraient être effectués. Mot-clés: Ivermectine, Alluvie, Traitement, MRT, Essai clinique, COVID-19.

Liver injury is independently associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Data on serial liver biochemistries of patients infected by different human coronaviruses (HCoVs) are lacking. The impact of liver injury on adverse clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains unclear. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from a territory-wide database in Hong Kong. COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and other HCoV patients were identified by diagnosis codes and/or virological results. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation was defined as ALT/AST ≥2 × upper limit of normal (ie, 80 U/L). The primary end point was a composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation and/or death. RESULTS: We identified 1040 COVID-19 patients (mean age 38 years, 54% men), 1670 SARS patients (mean age 44 years, 44% men) and 675 other HCoV patients (mean age 20 years, 57% men). ALT/AST elevation occurred in 50.3% SARS patients, 22.5% COVID-19 patients and 36.0% other HCoV patients. For COVID-19 patients, 53 (5.1%) were admitted to ICU, 22 (2.1%) received invasive mechanical ventilation and 4 (0.4%) died. ALT/AST elevation was independently associated with primary end point (adjusted OR (aOR) 7.92, 95% CI 4.14 to 15.14, p<0.001) after adjusted for albumin, diabetes and hypertension. Use of lopinavir-ritonavir ±ribavirin + interferon beta (aOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.13, p=0.006) and corticosteroids (aOR 3.92, 95% CI 2.14 to 7.16, p<0.001) was independently associated with ALT/AST elevation. CONCLUSION: ALT/AST elevation was common and independently associated with adverse clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Use of lopinavir-ritonavir, with or without ribavirin, interferon beta and/or corticosteroids was independently associated with ALT/AST elevation.

Birth Outcomes for Pregnant Women with HIV Using Tenofovir-Emtricitabine.

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial of antiretroviral therapy (ART) involving pregnant women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, those randomly assigned to receive tenofovir, emtricitabine, and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (TDF-FTC-LPV/r) had infants at greater risk for very premature birth and death within 14 days after delivery than those assigned to receive zidovudine, lamivudine, and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (ZDV-3TC-LPV/r). METHODS: Using data from two U.S.-based cohort studies, we compared the risk of adverse birth outcomes among infants with in utero exposure to ZDV-3TC-LPV/r, TDF-FTC-LPV/r, or TDF-FTC with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r). We evaluated the risk of preterm birth (<37 completed weeks of gestation), very preterm birth (<34 completed weeks), low birth weight (<2500 g), and very low birth weight (<1500 g). Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with the use of modified Poisson models to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: There were 4646 birth outcomes. Few infants or fetuses were exposed to TDF-FTC-LPV/r (128 [2.8%]) as the initial ART regimen during gestation, in contrast with TDF-FTC-ATV/r (539 [11.6%]) and ZDV-3TC-LPV/r (954 [20.5%]). As compared with women receiving ZDV-3TC-LPV/r, women receiving TDF-FTC-LPV/r had a similar risk of preterm birth (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.33) and low birth weight (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.64). As compared to women receiving TDF-FTC-ATV/r, women receiving TDF-FTC-LPV/r had a similar or slightly higher risk of preterm birth (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.72) and low birth weight (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.17). There were no significant differences between regimens in the risk of very preterm birth or very low birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of adverse birth outcomes was not higher with TDF-FTC-LPV/r than with ZDV-3TC-LPV/r or TDF-FTC-ATV/r among HIV-infected women and their infants in the United States, although power was limited for some comparisons. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Rifabutin pharmacokinetics and safety among TB/HIV-coinfected children receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-containing second-line ART.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for TB/HIV-coinfected children who require PI-based ART. Rifabutin is the preferred rifamycin for adults on PIs, but the one study evaluating rifabutin with PIs among children was stopped early due to severe neutropenia. METHODS: We evaluated rifabutin safety and plasma pharmacokinetics among coinfected children 3-15 years of age receiving rifabutin 2.5 mg/kg daily with standard doses of lopinavir/ritonavir. The AUC0-24 at 2, 4 and 8 weeks after rifabutin initiation was described using intensive sampling and non-compartmental analysis. Clinical and laboratory toxicities were intensively monitored at 12 visits throughout the study. RESULTS: Among 15 children with median (IQR) age 13.1 (10.9-14.0) years and weight 25.5 (22.3-30.5) kg, the median (IQR) rifabutin AUC0-24 was 5.21 (4.38-6.60) µg·h/mL. Four participants had AUC0-24 below 3.8 µg·h/mL (a target for the population average exposure) at week 2 and all had AUC0-24 higher than 3.8 µg·h/mL at the 4 and 8 week visits. Of 506 laboratory evaluations during rifabutin, grade 3 and grade 4 abnormalities occurred in 16 (3%) and 2 (0.4%) instances, respectively, involving 9 (60%) children. Specifically, grade 3 (n = 4) and grade 4 (n = 1) neutropenia resolved without treatment interruption or clinical sequelae in all patients. One child died at week 4 of HIV-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: In children, rifabutin 2.5 mg/kg daily achieved AUC0-24 comparable to adults and favourable HIV and TB treatment outcomes were observed. Severe neutropenia was relatively uncommon and improved with ongoing rifabutin therapy. These data support the use of rifabutin for TB/HIV-coinfected children who require lopinavir/ritonavir.

Safety of hydroxychloroquine and darunavir or lopinavir in COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with hydroxychloroquine and darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir has been suggested as an approach to improve the outcome of patients with moderate/severe COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety of combination therapy with hydroxychloroquine and darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia treated with hydroxychloroquine and darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir. Clinical evaluations, electrocardiograms and the pharmacokinetics of hydroxychloroquine, darunavir and lopinavir were examined according to clinical practice and guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received hydroxychloroquine with lopinavir/ritonavir (median age 68 years; 10 males) and 25 received hydroxychloroquine with darunavir/ritonavir (median age 71 years; 15 males). During treatment, eight patients (17.4%) developed ECG abnormalities. Ten patients discontinued treatment, including seven for ECG abnormalities a median of 5 (range 2-6) days after starting treatment. All ECG abnormalities reversed 1-2 days after interrupting treatment. Four patients died within 14 days. ECG abnormalities were significantly associated with age over 70 years, coexisting conditions (such as hypertension, chronic cardiovascular disease and kidney failure) and initial potential drug interactions, but not with the hydroxychloroquine concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients with COVID-19 who received hydroxychloroquine with lopinavir or darunavir, 17% had ECG abnormalities, mainly related to age or in those with a history of cardiovascular disease.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all-cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1%-17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ subgroup (OR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.60-9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well-designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options.

Abnormal laboratory findings and plasma concentration monitoring of lopinavir and ritonavir in COVID-19.

It is not known whether the adverse events (AEs) associated with the administration of lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of COVID-19 are concentration-dependent. In a retrospective study of 65 patients treated with LPV/r and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for severe forms of COVID-19 (median age: 67; males: 41 [63.1%]), 33 (50.8%) displayed a grade ≥2 increase in plasma levels of hepatobiliary markers, lipase and/or triglycerides. A causal relationship between LPV/r and the AE was suspected in 9 of the 65 patients (13.8%). At 400 mg b.i.d., the plasma trough concentrations of LPV/r were high and showed marked interindividual variability (median [interquartile range]: 16,600 [11,430-20,842] ng/ml for lopinavir and 501 [247-891] ng/ml for ritonavir). The trough lopinavir concentration was negatively correlated with body mass index, while the trough ritonavir concentration was positively correlated with age and negatively correlated with prothrombin activity. However, the occurrence of abnormal laboratory values was not associated with higher trough plasma concentrations of LPV/r. Further studies will be needed to determine the value of TDM in LPV/r-treated patients with COVID-19.

Plasma Concentrations and Safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir has not been proven, it has been proposed as an off-label treatment for COVID-19. Previously, it has been reported that the plasma concentrations of lopinavir significantly increase in inflammatory settings. As COVID-19 may be associated with major inflammation, assessing the plasma concentrations and safety of lopinavir in COVID-19 patients is essential. METHODS: Real-world COVID-19 data based on a retrospective study. RESULTS: Among the 31 COVID-19 patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir between March 18, 2020 and April 1, 2020, higher lopinavir plasma concentrations were observed, which increased by 4.6-fold (interquartile range: 3.6-6.2), compared with the average plasma concentrations in HIV. Lopinavir concentrations in all except one patient were above the upper limit of the concentration range of HIV treatment. Approximately one to 5 patients prematurely stopped treatment mainly because of an ADR related to hepatic or gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Lopinavir plasma concentrations in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 were higher than expected, and they were associated with the occurrence of hepatic or gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions. However, a high plasma concentration may be required for in vivo antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, as suggested by previous studies. Therefore, in the absence of adverse drug reaction, lopinavir dosage should not be reduced. Caution is essential because off-label use can be associated with a new drug safety profile.

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early pandemic period. It is well-known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients treated with these drugs. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%-18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%-14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56-4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16-9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

Real-world prevalence and consequences of potential drug-drug interactions in the first-wave COVID-19 treatments.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Initial treatment recommendations of COVID-19 were based on the use of antimicrobial drugs and immunomodulators. Although information on drug interactions was available for other pathologies, there was little evidence in the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this study was to analyse the potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) derived from the medication used in COVID-19 patients in the first pandemic wave and to evaluate the real consequences of such interactions in clinical practice. METHODS: Cohort, retrospective and single-centre study carried out in a third-level hospital. Adult patients, admitted with suspected COVID-19, that received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon beta 1-b or tocilizumab and with any pDDIs according to "Liverpool Drug Interaction Group" between March and May 2020 were included. The possible consequences of pDDIs at the QTc interval level or any other adverse event according to the patient's medical record were analysed. A descriptive analysis was carried out to assess possible factors that may affect the QTc interval prolongation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two hundred and eighteen (62.3%) patients of a total of 350 patients admitted with COVID-19 had at least one pDDI. There were 598 pDDIs. Thirty-eight pDDIs (6.3%) were categorized as not recommended or contraindicated. The mean value difference between baseline and pDDI posterior ECG was 412.3 ms ± 25.8 ms vs. 426.3 ms ± 26.7 ms; p < 0.001. Seven patients (5.7%) had a clinically significant alteration of QTc. A total of 44 non-cardiological events (7.3%) with a possible connection to a pDDI were detected. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The number of pDDIs in patients admitted for COVID-19 in the first pandemic wave was remarkably high. However, clinical consequences occurred in a low percentage of patients. Interactions involving medications that would be contraindicated for concomitant administration are rare. Knowledge of these pDDIs and their consequences could help to establish appropriate therapeutic strategies in patients with COVID-19 or other diseases with these treatments.

Observational study of the effects of Favipiravir vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir on clinical outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: In November 2019, several patients were diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. So far, there are no specific treatments with proven high efficacy in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Presently, several drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, ribavirin, favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), remdesivir and oseltamivir, have been suggested as effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical experience with FPV and LPV/r in critically ill patients with COVID-19 at Sakarya University Education and Research Hospital. METHODS: The study included 107 consecutive patients who had a laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 19 March and 19 May 2020. Follow-up continued through 30 May 2020 when the last observed patients were discharged. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the 107 patients, 65 received FPV (Group FPV) and 42 received LPV/r (Group LPV/r). The two groups were similar in terms of demographic data and clinical findings. 43 (66.2%) of the 65 patients in the FPV group and 23 (54.8%) of the 42 patients in the LPV/r group died (p = 0.237). The median ICU stay was 6.6 (IQR, 3-10) days in the FPV group and 9 (IQR, 6-16) days in the LPV/r group, which was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.010). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the FVP group compared to the LPV/r group among patients who were discharged from the ICU. Although the analysis was done with a limited number of patients and the observed difference in mortality rate is of some concern, FVP treatment may be more beneficial than LPV/r in terms of effective use in the ICU.

COVID-19 and the burning issue of drug interaction: never forget the ECG.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), has been rapidly escalating, becoming a relevant threat to global health. Being a recent virus outbreak, there are still no available therapeutic regimens that have been approved in large randomised trials and so patients are currently being treated with multiple drugs. This raises concerns regarding drug interaction and their implication in arrhythmic burden. In fact, two of the actually used drugs against SARS-CoV2, such as chloroquine and the combination lopinavir/ritonavir, might determine a QT (the time from the start of the Q wave to the end of the T wave) interval prolongation and they show several interactions with antiarrhythmic drugs and antipsychotic medications, making them prone to an increased risk of developing arrhythmias. This brief review focuses the attention on the most relevant drug interactions involving the currently used COVID-19 medications and their possible association with cardiac rhythm disorders, taking into account also pre-existing condition and precipitating factors that might additionally increase this risk. Furthermore, based on the available evidence and based on the knowledge of drug interaction, we propose a quick and simple algorithm that might help both cardiologists and non-cardiologists in the management of the arrhythmic risk before and during the treatment with the specific drugs used against SARS-CoV2.

Protease Inhibitor Anti-HIV, Lopinavir, Impairs Placental Endocrine Function.

Protease Inhibitors (PI e.g., ritonavir (RTV) and lopinavir (LPV)) used to treat pregnant mothers infected by HIV induce prematurity and endocrine dysfunctions. The maintenance of pregnancy relies on placental hormone production (human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) and progesterone (P4)). Those functions are ensured by the villous trophoblast and are mainly regulated by the Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) pathway and mitochondria. We investigated, in vitro, if PI impair hCG and P4 production and the potential intracellular mechanisms involved. Term villous cytotrophoblast (VCT) were cultured with or without RTV or LPV from 6 to 48 h. VCT differentiation into syncytiotrophoblast (ST) was followed measuring hCG and P4 secretion. We evaluated the expression of P4 synthesis partners (Metastatic Lymph Node 64 (MLN64), cholesterol side-chain cleavage (P450SCC), Hydroxy-delta-5-Steroid Dehydrogenase and 3 Beta-and steroid delta-isomerase 1 (HSD3B1)), of mitochondrial pro-fusion factors (Mitofusin 2 (Mfn2), Optic Atrophy 1 (OPA1)) and of UPR factors (Glucose-Regulated Protein 78 (GRP78), Activating Transcription Factor 4 (ATF4), Activating Transcription Factor 6 (ATF6), spliced X-box Binding Protein 1 (sXBP1)). RTV had no significant effect on hCG and P4 secretion, whereas lopinavir significantly decreased both secretions. LPV also decreased P450SCC and HSD3B1 expression, whereas it increased Mfn2, GRP78 and sXBP1 expression in ST. RTV has no effect on the endocrine placenta. LPV impairs both villous trophoblast differentiation and P4 production. It is likely to act via mitochondrial fusion and UPR pathway activation. These trophoblastic alterations may end in decreased P4 levels in maternal circulation, inducing prematurity.

Caution With the Use of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Severely Ill Patients for the Treatment of SARS-CoV-2: A Report of Severe Jaundice.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential hepatotoxicity of lopinavir/ritonavir recently used in the treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of critical patients in a teaching hospital: 12 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir and 30 in the standard-of-care group. RESULTS: Elevation occurred more frequently in patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (33% vs 6.7%). DISCUSSION: Caution is advised regarding the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in the most severe cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.