Use of Maribavir for Multidrug Resistant Cytomegaloviremia in a Pediatric Oncology Patient.

Resistant and refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia can limit the provision of chemotherapy due to myelosuppression and end-organ dysfunction. Few therapies are available for children with clinically significant CMV viremia. We successfully used maribavir for a 4-year-old patient with lymphoma to complete his chemotherapy course. Resistance to maribavir did result after many months of therapy.

Cytomegalovirus related hospitalization costs among hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant recipients treated with maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy: A US-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients impose a significant health care resource utilization (HCRU)-related economic burden. Maribavir (MBV), a novel anti-viral therapy (AVT), approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for post-transplant CMV infections refractory (with/without resistance) to conventional AVTs has demonstrated lower hospital length of stay (LOS) versus investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valgancilovir, ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir) in a phase 3 trial (SOLSTICE). This study estimated the HCRU costs of MBV versus IAT. METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate HCRU costs for patients treated with MBV or IAT. Mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HCRU costs were calculated using (i) annualized mean hospital LOS in SOLSTICE, and (ii) CMV-related direct costs from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte-Carlo simulations assessed model robustness. RESULTS: Of 352 randomized patients receiving MBV (n = 235) or IAT (n = 117) for 8 weeks in SOLSTICE, 40% had HSCT and 60% had SOT. Mean overall PPPY HCRU costs of overall hospital-LOS were $67,205 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $33,767, $231,275) versus $145,501 (95% CI: $62,064, $589,505) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. Mean PPPY ICU and non-ICU stay costs were: $32,231 (95% CI: $5,248, $184,524) versus $45,307 (95% CI: $3,957, $481,740) for MBV and IAT groups, and $82,237 (95% CI: $40,397, $156,945) MBV versus $228,329 (95% CI: $94,442, $517,476) for MBV and IAT groups, respectively. MBV demonstrated cost savings in over 99.99% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that Mean PPPY HCRU costs were 29%-64% lower with MBV versus other-AVTs.

Drug Resistance Assessed in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Maribavir Therapy for Refractory or Resistant Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: This drug resistance analysis of a randomized trial includes 234 patients receiving maribavir and 116 receiving investigator-assigned standard therapy (IAT), where 56% and 24%, respectively, cleared cytomegalovirus DNA at week 8 (treatment responders). METHODS: Baseline and posttreatment plasma samples were tested for mutations conferring drug resistance in viral genes UL97, UL54, and UL27. RESULTS: At baseline, genotypic testing revealed resistance to ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir in 56% of patients receiving maribavir and 68% receiving IAT, including 9 newly phenotyped mutations. Among them, 63% (maribavir) and 21% (IAT) were treatment responders. Detected baseline maribavir resistance mutations were UL27 L193F (n = 1) and UL97 F342Y (n = 3). Posttreatment, emergent maribavir resistance mutations were detected in 60 (26%) of those randomized to maribavir, including 49 (48%) of 103 nonresponders and 25 (86%) of the 29 nonresponders where viral DNA initially cleared then rebounded while on maribavir. The most common maribavir resistance mutations were UL97 T409M (n = 34), H411Y (n = 26), and C480F (n = 21), first detected 26 to 130 (median 56) days after starting maribavir. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline maribavir resistance was rare. Drug resistance to standard cytomegalovirus antivirals did not preclude treatment response to maribavir. Rebound in plasma cytomegalovirus DNA while on maribavir strongly suggests emerging drug resistance. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02931539.

Comparative Proteomic Analysis Identifies Key Metabolic Regulators of Gemcitabine Resistance in Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly refractory to treatment. Standard-of-care gemcitabine (Gem) provides only modest survival benefits, and development of Gem resistance (GemR) compromises its efficacy. Highly GemR clones of Gem-sensitive MIAPaCa-2 cells were developed to investigate the molecular mechanisms of GemR and implemented global quantitative differential proteomics analysis with a comprehensive, reproducible ion-current-based MS1 workflow to quantify ∼6000 proteins in all samples. In GemR clone MIA-GR8, cellular metabolism, proliferation, migration, and 'drug response' mechanisms were the predominant biological processes altered, consistent with cell phenotypic alterations in cell cycle and motility. S100 calcium binding protein A4 was the most downregulated protein, as were proteins associated with glycolytic and oxidative energy production. Both responses would reduce tumor proliferation. Upregulation of mesenchymal markers was prominent, and cellular invasiveness increased. Key enzymes in Gem metabolism pathways were altered such that intracellular utilization of Gem would decrease. Ribonucleoside-diphosphate reductase large subunit was the most elevated Gem metabolizing protein, supporting its critical role in GemR. Lower Ribonucleoside-diphosphate reductase large subunit expression is associated with better clinical outcomes in PDAC, and its downregulation paralleled reduced MIAPaCa-2 proliferation and migration and increased Gem sensitivity. Temporal protein-level Gem responses of MIAPaCa-2 versus GemR cell lines (intrinsically GemR PANC-1 and acquired GemR MIA-GR8) implicate adaptive changes in cellular response systems for cell proliferation and drug transport and metabolism, which reduce cytotoxic Gem metabolites, in DNA repair, and additional responses, as key contributors to the complexity of GemR in PDAC. These findings additionally suggest targetable therapeutic vulnerabilities for GemR PDAC patients.

Molnupiravir para pacientes infectados por SARS-CoV-2 não hospitalizados com alto risco de agravamento da doença / Molnupiravir for non-hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 infected patients at high risk of disease worsening

INTRODUÇÃO: Pacientes com Covid-19 que apresentam fatores de risco tais como idade avançada, imunodepressão, obesidade e doenças cardiovasculares têm risco aumentado de internação, intubação e morte. De acordo com dados brasileiros, o risco de morte por Covid-19 aumenta com o número de fatores de risco que o paciente apresenta, sendo igual a 17% em pacientes com 2 fatores de risco e 76% na presença de 8 fatores de risco. Além disso, mesmo aqueles pacientes que sobrevivem a uma internação em terapia intensiva frequentemente enfrentam sequelas e representam alto custo para o sistema de saúde. O medicamento molnupiravir tem o objetivo de prevenir internações, complicações e morte. Ele é indicado para pacientes com Covid-19 leve a moderada não hospitalizados, sem oxigenação suplementar, com até 5 dias do início dos sintomas. Apesar dos avanços da vacinação no Brasil, evidências sobre a falha vacinal em idosos e imunodeprimidos destacam a importância da disponibilidade de alternativas terapêuticas para essas populações. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: O medicamento molnupiravir é eficaz, seguro e custo-efetivo para pacientes com Covid-19 leve a moderada não hospitalizados que apresentam alto risco de agravamento da doença? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Foi identificado apenas um ensaio clínico de fase 3 sobre a eficácia e segurança do molnupiravir para o tratamento de pacientes adultos infectados com SARS-CoV-2 com doença leve à moderada cujos resultados estavam publicados. Este foi um ensaio randomizado, duplo cego e controlado por placebo em que a intervenção consistiu na administração de 800 mg de molnupiravir duas vezes ao dia por 5 dias. O estudo incluiu 1.433 pacientes com início dos sintomas há não mais que 5 dias, não hospitalizados e com pelo menos um fator de risco para agravamento da doença. Pacientes vacinados contra a Covid-19 foram excluídos. O desfecho primário analisado foi a ocorrência de hospitalização ou morte até o 29º dia após o início do tratamento. O risco de hospitalização ou morte no grupo molnupiravir foi de 6,8% versus 9,7% no grupo placebo, uma diferença de risco absoluta de -3% (IC95%: -5,9 a -0,1%) e hazard ratio de 0,69 (IC95% 0,48 a 1,01). Em relação à segurança, a incidência de eventos adversos foi similar entre os grupos. Os eventos adversos mais frequentes (incidência > 2%) foram pneumonia relacionada à Covid-19, diarreia e pneumonia bacteriana. Em março de 2022, a OMS publicou uma revisão sistemática com metanálise em rede que incluiu os resultados de 6 estudos (alguns ainda não publicados) que avaliaram o uso do molnupiravir para a mesma indicação deste parecer. Os estudos incluíram um total de 4.827 pacientes. A metanálise mostrou uma redução de 43 internações a cada 1.000 pacientes tratados com molnupiravir em comparação ao placebo, evidência que foi classificada como de certeza moderada. No caso da mortalidade, o molnupiravir evitaria 6 mortes em cada 1.000 pacientes, evidência classificada como de certeza baixa. AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: Foi realizada análise de custo-utilidade empregando-se um modelo de microssimulação comparando o molnupiravir ao cuidado padrão. A perspectiva adotada foi a SUS e o horizonte temporal de 1 ano. A razão de custo-efetividade incremental foi igual a R$ 7.613,57/QALY. Na análise de sensibilidade probabilística, todas as simulações resultaram abaixo de um limiar de R$ 40.000,00 (1 PIB per capita). ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: A incorporação do molnupiravir para uma população elegível composta por pacientes com idade igual ou superior a 65 anos e pacientes adultos imunodeprimidos independentemente da idade para os quais existe contraindicação absoluta de uso do nirmatrelvir/ritonavir resultaria em uma possível economia estimada em R$ R$ 50.969.814,96 em 5 anos considerando-se a incidência de casos observada em dezembro de 2021 e R$ R$ 526.179.820,11 se considerada a incidência observada em janeiro de 2022, quando ocorreu o pico de casos da doença devido à variante ômicron. Uma redução do risco de internação por Covid-19 poderia levar a um aumento de custos no horizonte temporal de 5 anos. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram detectadas três tecnologias para compor o esquema terapêutico da COVID-19 em adultos não-hospitalizados, que não necessitam de oxigênio suplementar e que apresentam risco aumentado de progressão para COVID-19 grave: bebtelovimab (anticorpo monoclonal neutralizante, totalmente humano, do tipo IgG1), remdesivir (antiviral, pró-droga do nucleotídeo adenosina) e amubarvimab + romlusevimab (Anticorpo monoclonal neutralizante, derivado de plasma convalescente de pacientes com COVID-19). CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: O molnupiravir provavelmente reduz o risco de hospitalização ou morte em pacientes com Covid19 leve à moderada e que apresentam risco de agravamento da doença. Porém, de acordo com as evidências disponíveis, o efeito relativo não foi estatisticamente significativo e o efeito absoluto é modesto e inferior ao de outro medicamento já incorporado para mesma indicação. O fato de o medicamento ter sido testado apenas em pacientes não vacinados contribui para a incerteza quanto à sua eficácia. O molnupiravir é embriotóxico e pode afetar o desenvolvimento de ossos e cartilagens e, por isso, é contraindicado para crianças, adolescentes, gestantes e lactantes e sendo necessário adotar medidas contraceptivas por até quatro dias após o fim do tratamento no caso de mulheres e três meses no caso de homens. Os riscos a longo prazo oriundos do uso do medicamento, em especial efeitos mutagênicos, ainda são incertos, porém provavelmente baixos nas condições de uso do medicamento. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Diante do exposto, a Conitec, em sua 109ª Reunião Ordinária, realizada no dia 09 de junho de 2022, deliberou que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar não favorável à incorporação no SUS do molnupiravir para tratamento de pacientes com Covid-19 leve à moderada, não hospitalizados, que não requerem oxigenação suplementar e que apresentam alto risco para agravamento da doença. Foi discutido em plenário que existe incerteza quanto ao potencial benefício do medicamento. Além disso, os dados sobre o efeito mutagênico do molnupiravir em células humanas ainda são escassos de forma que a segurança de seu uso ainda é incerta. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Das 128 contribuições recebidas, 27 contribuições foram de cunho técnico-científico e 101 contribuições de experiência ou opinião. Um total de 25 contribuições técnico-cientificas e 90 contribuições de experiência ou opinião discordaram da recomendação preliminar da Conitec de não incorporar o molnupiravir. As contribuições técnico-científicas a favor da incorporação do medicamento argumentaram que o molnupiravir é um medicamento seguro e eficaz para tratamento da Covid-19 e ressaltaram a importância da disponibilidade de mais uma opção terapêutica para tratamento da doença. As contribuições relacionadas à avaliação econômica e análise de impacto orçamentário foram analisadas e, como consequência, novas análises foram realizadas as quais são apresentadas neste relatório. As contribuições de experiência ou opinião ressaltaram a eficácia e segurança do medicamento para a população alvo. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Diante do exposto, os membros presentes do Plenário da Conitec, em sua 111ª Reunião Ordinária, realizada no dia 04 de agosto de 2022, deliberaram, por maioria simples, recomendar a não incorporação, no SUS, do molnupiravir para tratamento de pacientes com Covid-19 leve à moderada, não hospitalizados, que não requerem oxigenação suplementar e que apresentam alto risco para agravamento da doença. Para essa recomendação, a Conitec considerou que a consulta pública não trouxe elementos novos que alterassem a recomendação preliminar. Foi assinado o registro de deliberação nº 760/2022. DECISÃO: Não incorporar, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, o molnupiravir para tratamento de pacientes com Covid-19 leve a moderada, não hospitalizados, que não requerem oxigenação suplementar e que apresentam alto risco para agravamento da doença, conforme a Portaria nº 102, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 173, seção 1, página 129, em 12 de setembro de 2022.

Molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19: [2 de Julio de 2022] / Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: [July 2, 2022]

INTRODUCCIÓN El molnupiravir (EIDD-2801 o MK-4482-013) es un profármaco de un análogo de ribonucleósido antivírico, que se administra por vía oral, y tiene actividad contra el SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Actualmente la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, su sigla del inglés Food and Drug Administration) ha aprobado, bajo el esquema de autorización de uso de emergencia, la comercialización de molnupiravir en adultos con COVID-19 de leve a moderado, que tienen un alto riesgo de progresión a enfermedad grave, incluida la hospitalización o la muerte, y para quienes los tratamientos alternativos autorizados por la FDA no son accesibles o clínicamente apropiadas.(14) La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA, su sigla del inglés European Medicine Agency) y la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) aún no han autorizado su comercialización para ninguna indicación. El 4 de noviembre del 2021 la Agencia Reguladora de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios de Reino Unido se ha convertido en el primer país del Mundo en autorizar su comercialización en personas que tienen COVID-19 de leve a moderado y al menos un factor de riesgo para desarrollar una enfermedad grave (como obesidad, edad avanzada (> 60 años), diabetes mellitus o enfermedades cardíacas). OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del empleo de molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 en Argentina. MÉTODOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Implementación: Este dominio contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores en nuestro contexto para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Con el objetivo de emitir un juicio de valor sobre la magnitud de dichos costos, en pacientes hospitalizados se utilizó como comparador al tratamiento con dexametasona, que ha demostrado ser una intervención accesible y de beneficios importantes en el contexto analizado. Recomendaciones: Para la identificación de recomendaciones sustentadas en evidencia y actualizadas, se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe. Se identificaron seis ECA que incluyeron 3.653 pacientes con COVID-19, en los que se administró molnupiravir en comparación con el mejor estándar de atención. Se describen los efectos absolutos y la certeza en dichos efectos de molnupiravir para pacientes con COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de la evidencia muestra que existe incertidumbre en el efecto de molnupiravir sobre la mortalidade. Molnupiravir probablemente reduzca las hospitalizaciones en pacientes con enfermedad leve de reciente comienzo y factores de riesgo para progresión a enfermedad severa. Sin embargo, la magnitud de la reducción solo resulta importante (mayor a 1%) para pacientes sin esquema de vacunación completo o con riesgo de respuesta inmune inapropiada. La tecnología no está autorizada para su comercialización por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) de nuestro país al momento de la fecha de realización del presente informe y se encuentra disponible en forma limitada en una sola provincia. Asimismo, el costo estimado es elevado, más aún teniendo en cuenta la elevada población objetivo a ser tratada. Las guías de práctica clínica de alta calidad metodológica actualizadas sugieren a favor de usar molnupiravir en pacientes con alto riesgo de hospitalización, no vacunados y con factores de riesgo (edad e inmunocomprometidos).

Exploration of 6-methyl-7-(Hetero)Aryl-7-Deazapurine ribonucleosides as antileishmanial agents.

Leishmaniasis causes high mortality and morbidity in tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, Asia, the Americas and southern Europe, and is characterized by diverse clinical manifestations. As a neglected tropical disease, limited resources are allocated for antileishmanial drug discovery. The Leishmania parasite is deficient in de novo purine synthesis, and therefore acquires purines from the host and processes these using a purine salvage pathway. By making use of purine transport systems and interfering with this salvage pathway, purine (nucleoside) analogues might exert a selective detrimental impact on its growth and survival. In vitro screening of an in-house purine nucleoside library and analogue synthesis afforded the 6-methyl-7-(2-pyridyl)-7-deazapurine ribonucleoside analogue 18 as a promising hit. Optimization of the 7-substituent afforded 31 and 32 which displayed potent activity against wild-type and resistant L. infantum, intracellular amastigote and extracellular promastigote forms, and favorable selectivity versus primary mouse macrophages (Mφ) and MRC-5 cells. Encouraged by the favorable in vitro metabolic stability of 32, an in vivo study was performed using an early curative L. infantum hamster model. When orally administrated at 50 mg/kg once daily (s.i.d) for 10 days, 32 was devoid of side effects, however, it only poorly reduced amastigote burdens in the major target organs.

Molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19: 19 de abril de 2022 / Molnupiravir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: April 19, 2022

INTRODUCCIÓN: El molnupiravir (EIDD-2801 o MK-4482-013) es un profármaco de un análogo de ribonucleósido antivírico, que se administra por vía oral, tiene actividad contra el SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, y que se encuentra actualmente bajo investigación para su uso en COVID-19. Actualmente la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, su sigla del inglés Food and Drug Administration) ha aprobado, bajo el esquema de Autorización de Uso de Emergencia, la comercialización de molnupiravir en adultos con COVID-19 de leve a moderado, que tienen un alto riesgo de progresión a enfermedad grave, incluida la hospitalización o la muerte, y para quienes los tratamientos alternativos autorizados por la FDA no son accesibles o clínicamente apropiadas. (14) La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA, su sigla del inglés European Medicine Agency) y la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) aún no han autorizado su comercialización para ninguna indicación. (15) El 4 de noviembre del 2021 la Agencia Reguladora de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios de Reino Unido se ha convertido en el primer país del Mundo en autorizar su comercialización en personas que tienen COVID-19 de leve a moderado y al menos un factor de riesgo para desarrollar una enfermedad grave (como obesidad, edad avanzada (> 60 años), diabetes mellitus o enfermedades cardíacas). OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del empleo de molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 en Argentina. MÉTODOS: Efectos en la Salud: Teniendo en cuenta la velocidad con la que la información relacionada a la pandemia aparece y se modifica, se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma L- ove de Epistemonikos https://app.iloveevidence.com/topics para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente. (17) De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos y la certeza en dichos efectos. Para la priorización de los desenlaces se adoptó una perspectiva desde el paciente considerando sus potenciales preferencias. La selección se realizó por consenso entre los autores y supervisores del informe considerando los resultados de múltiples ejercicios de priorización publicados, realizados en el marco del desarrollo de distintas guías de práctica clínica. Se seleccionaron "mortalidad", "ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica", "tiempo hasta resolución de síntomas", "hospitalización", "eventos adversos graves" como desenlaces críticos. Adicionalmente, se extractaron datos relacionados con efectos de subgrupo potencialmente relevantes para la toma de decisión, con especial énfasis en el tiempo de evolución, la severidad de la enfermedad y el estado de vacunación. En los casos en que no fue reportado por las revisiones sistemáticas incluidas, se calculó el efecto absoluto de las intervenciones en pacientes vacunados, tomando el riesgo basal reportado para pacientes no vacunados multiplicado por un riesgo relativo de 0,1 según el efecto de la vacunación observado en distintos estudios y sistemas de vigilancia. (8,10,18,19) Para confeccionar las conclusiones en el efecto de las intervenciones evaluadas sobre los desenlaces priorizados, utilizamos lineamientos publicados, específicamente desarrollados a tal fin. Implementación: Este dominio contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores en nuestro contexto para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Con el objetivo de emitir un juicio de valor sobre la magnitud de dichos costos, en pacientes hospitalizados se utilizó como comparador al tratamiento con dexametasona, que ha demostrado ser una intervención accesible y de beneficios importantes en el contexto analizado. Recomendaciones: Para la identificación de recomendaciones sustentadas en evidencia y actualizadas, se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. Se seleccionaron aquellas guías con rigor metodológico apropiado según la herramienta AGREE II (> 70%) y se incorporaron sus recomendaciones al informe. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe. Se identificaron seis ECA que incluyeron 3.653 pacientes con COVID-19, en los que se administró molnupiravir en comparación con el mejor estándar de atención. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de la evidencia muestra que existe incertidumbre en el efecto de molnupiravir sobre la mortalidad (certeza muy baja ⨁◯◯◯). Molnupiravir probablemente reduzca las hospitalizaciones en pacientes con enfermedad leve de reciente comienzo y factores de riesgo para progresión a enfermedad severa. Sin embargo, la magnitud de la reducción solo resulta importante (mayor a 1%) para pacientes sin esquema de vacunación completo o con riesgo de respuesta inmune inapropriada. La tecnología no está autorizada para su comercialización por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) de nuestro país al momento de la fecha de realización del presente informe y se encuentra disponible en forma limitada en una sola provincia. Asimismo, el costo comparativo estimado es elevado, más aún teniendo en cuenta la elevada población objetivo a ser tratada. Las guías de práctica clínica de alta calidad metodológica actualizadas sugieren a favor de usar molnupiravir en pacientes con alto riesgo de hospitalización, no vacunados y con factores de riesgo (edad e inmunocomprometidos).

Maribavir: First Approval.

Maribavir (LIVTENCITYTM), a cytomegalovirus (CMV) enzyme pUL97 kinase inhibitor, is being developed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of CMV infections. Maribavir was recently approved in the USA for the treatment of post-transplant CMV infection/disease that is refractory to treatment (with or without genotypic resistance) with ganciclovir, valganciclovir, cidofovir or foscarnet in adults and paediatric (≥ 12 years of age and weighing ≥ 35 kg) patients. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of maribavir leading to this first approval for CMV infections.

Molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19: 19 de enero de 2022 / Molnupiravir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: January 19, 2022

INTRODUCCIÓN: El molnupiravir (EIDD-2801 o MK-4482-013) es un profármaco de un análogo de ribonucleósido antivírico, que se administra por vía oral, tiene actividad contra el SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, y que se encuentra actualmente bajo investigación para su uso en COVID-19. Actualmente la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, su sigla del inglés Food and Drug Administration) ha autorizado su comercialización de emergencia, mientras que la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA, su sigla del inglés European Medicine Agency) y Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) aún no la han autorizado.(17)(18) En Argentina, la provincia de Catamarca comenzó a utilizarlo, cuando gobierno de esta provincia aprobó el uso del molnupiravir en pacientes leves a moderados, con factores de riesgo, convirtiéndose en la primera provincia del país en tomar esta medida.(19) Primeramente, el 4 de noviembre del 2021 la Agencia Reguladora de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios de Reino Unido se había convertido en el primer país del Mundo en autorizar su comercialización en personas que tienen COVID-19 de leve a moderado y al menos un factor de riesgo para desarrollar una enfermedad grave (como obesidad, edad avanzada (> 60 años), diabetes mellitus o enfermedades cardíacas). Sin embargo, el Instituto Nacional de Salud y Cuidados de Excelencia del Reino Unido (NICE, su sigla del inglés National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) todavía no se ha expedido al respecto. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del empleo de molnupiravir para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 en Argentina. MÉTODOS: Las conclusiones del presente informe se sustentan en el análisis de los siguientes dominios: Efectos en la Salud: Teniendo en cuenta la velocidad con la que la información relacionada a la pandemia aparece y se modifica (link), se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma Love de Epistemonikos para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente. De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos y la certeza en dichos efectos. Para la priorización de los desenlaces se adoptó una perspectiva desde el paciente considerando sus potenciales preferencias. La selección se realizó por consenso entre los autores y supervisores del informe considerando los resultados de múltiples ejercicios de priorización publicados, realizados en el marco del desarrollo de distintas guías de práctica clínica. Implementación: Este dominio contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores en nuestro contexto para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Con el objetivo de emitir un juicio de valor sobre la magnitud de dichos costos, en pacientes hospitalizados se utilizó como comparador al tratamiento con dexametasona, que ha demostrado ser una intervención accesible y de beneficios importantes en el contexto analizado. Recomendaciones: Para la identificación de recomendaciones sustentadas en evidencia y actualizadas, se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. Se seleccionaron aquellas guías con rigor metodológico apropiado según la herramienta AGREE II (> 70%) y se incorporaron sus recomendaciones al informe. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe y reportaron resultados. Se identificaron 4 ECA que incluyeron 1.692 pacientes en los que molnupiravir se comparó con el tratamiento estándar en pacientes con COVID-19 o en voluntarios sanos. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de la evidencia muestra que existe incertidumbre en el efecto de molnupiravir sobre la mortalidad (certeza muy baja ⨁◯◯◯). Molnupiravir probablmente reduzca las hospitalizaciones en pacientes con enfermedad leve de reciente comienzo y factores de riesgo para progresión a enfermedad severa. Sin embargo, la magnitud de la reducción solo resulta importante (mayor a 1%) para pacientes sin esquema de vacunación completo o con riesgo de respuesta inmune inapropriada. La tecnología no está autorizada para su comercialización por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) de nuestro país al momento de la fecha de realización del presente informe y se encuentra disponible en forma limitada en una sola provincia. Asimismo, el costo comparativo estimado es elevado, más aún teniendo en cuenta la elevada población objetivo a ser tratada. Las guías de práctica clínica basadas en evidencia identificadas realizan recomendaciones condicionales con direcciones opuestas.

Effectiveness and safety of mizoribine for the treatment of IgG4-related disease: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with IgG4-related disease (IgG4RD) usually require steroid-sparing agents due to relapse with tapering glucocorticoids (GC). We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of mizoribine (MZR) among IgG4RD patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of IgG4RD patients at Immuno-Rheumatology Center in St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. Patients treated with MZR were classified into the MZR group, and those treated with GC alone or with other immunosuppressants were included in the control group. Disease exacerbation, GC dose, IgG-IgG4 titre and adverse events were evaluated using univariate analyses, including the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate risk factors for disease exacerbation. RESULTS: A total of 14 and 29 cases were included in the MZR and control group. Multiple organ involvement (three or more organs) was significantly more frequent in the MZR group [10 (71.4%) vs 9 (31.0%), P= 0.021]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant reduction inexacerbation in patients with multiple organ involvement (P< 0.001) but not in total (P= 0.42). The adjusted hazard ratios of MZR use and multiple organ involvement for exacerbation were 0.34 (95%CI 0.12-1.01; P = 0.052) and 3.51 (95%CI 1.29-9.51; P= 0.014). The cumulative GC dose (mg per year, interquartile range) tended to be lower in the MZR group [1448 (1003-1642) vs 2179 (1264-3425); P= 0.09]. CONCLUSION: MZR decreased disease exacerbation among IgG4RD patients with multi-organ involvement and showed a steroid-sparing effect. MZR could be a treatment option for IgG4RD.

Phenotype and Genotype Study of Novel C480F Maribavir-Ganciclovir Cross-Resistance Mutation Detected in Hematopoietic Stem Cell and Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Two transplant recipients (1 kidney and 1 hematopoietic stem cell) received maribavir (MBV) after cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection clinically resistant to standard therapy. Both patients achieved CMV DNA clearance within 30 and 18 days; however, the UL97 C480F variant emerged, causing recurrent CMV infection after a cumulative 2 months of MBV and 15 or 4 weeks of ganciclovir treatment, respectively. C480F was not detected under ganciclovir before MBV treatment. Recombinant phenotyping showed that C480F conferred the highest level of MBV resistance and ganciclovir cross-resistance, with impaired viral growth. Clinical follow-up and genotypic and phenotypic studies are essential for the assessment and optimization of patients with suspected MBV resistance.

Low-dose corticosteroid with mizoribine might be an effective therapy for elderly-onset ISKDC grade VI IgA vasculitis.

Both the diagnosis of elderly-onset IgA vasculitis (IgAV) and its prognosis can be difficult because of its rarity and the likely presence of comorbidities. Furthermore, the treatment of elderly-onset IgAV remains controversial: the ideal dosages of corticosteroid and/or immunosuppressants have not been determined. In the elderly, corticosteroid adverse effects can lead to severe outcomes, and a consensus regarding its benefit and risk balance has not been reached. We report a case of IgAV in an 89-year-old patient who was admitted to our hospital to investigate a 30-day history of palpable purpura and pitting edema on her leg. A renal biopsy showed membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with IgA deposits (The International Study of Kidney Disease in Children (ISKDC) grade VI), which is a predictor of a poor prognosis; these findings led to early intervention with low-dose corticosteroid (15 mg/day) and mizoribine. As a result, a complete remission without obvious adverse effects was obtained. Early intervention with low-dose corticosteroid and mizoribine based on renal histopathology results might be an effective treatment for elderly-onset ISKDC grade VI IgAV.

COVID-19 and hypertension: is the HSP60 culprit for the severe course and worse outcome?

The 60-kDa heat shock protein (HSP60) is a chaperone essential for mitochondrial proteostasis ensuring thus sufficient aerobic energy production. In pathological conditions, HSP60 can be translocated from the mitochondria and excreted from the cell. In turn, the extracellular HSP60 has a strong ability to trigger and enhance inflammatory response with marked proinflammatory cytokine induction, which is mainly mediated by Toll-like receptor binding. Previous studies have found increased circulating levels of HSP60 in hypertensive patients, as well as enhanced HSP60 expression and membrane translocation in the hypertrophic myocardium. These observations are of particular interest, since they could provide a possible pathophysiological explanation of the severe course and worse outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in hypertensive patients, repeatedly reported during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related to hyperinflammatory response and cytokine storm development during the third phase of the disease. In this regard, pharmacological inhibition of HSP60 could attract attention to potentially ameliorate inappropriate inflammatory reaction in severe COVID-19 patients. Among HSP60 antagonizing drugs, mizoribine is the most intriguing, since it is clinically approved and exerts antiviral activity. However, this topic requires to be further scrutinized.

Glucocorticoids improve severe or critical COVID-19 by activating ACE2 and reducing IL-6 levels.

COVID-19 is a public health emergency that has rapidly spread to over 200 countries and regions, and no effective treatment has been established to date. Severe and critical cases have been associated with higher mortality due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and cytokine storm. Based on the novelty and recent emergence of COVID-19, no effective treatment regimen has been identified, thus prompting clinicians to engage in drug repurposing to address the immediate therapeutic need. This study focused on the molecular target angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) of SARS-CoV-2 and screened a group of ACE2 agonists by bioinformatics. Glucocorticoids are a type of ACE2 activator. We verified the efficacy of nine chemicals on regulating ACE2 expression in human GES-1, an upper digestive tract epithelial cell line, and THP-1, a human monocyte cell line, and found that several glucocorticoids imparted activating effects on ACE2 in both cell lines. The drugs triciribine and kinetin riboside activate ACE2 expression or inhibit IL-6 production in macrophages to some extent. In addition, we compared the efficacies of several glucocorticoids. Hydrocortisone showed the strongest effect on ACE2 activation, followed by prednisolone, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone. We retrospectively analyzed the therapeutic efficacy of nine severe or critical patients from a cohort of 90 COVID-19 cases, who received medium to small doses of glucocorticoids from our integrated medical team in Wuhan. Seven out of nine patients revealed significant improvement in clinical parameters and chest CT images. This study provides experimental and clinical evidence that medium-to-low-dose glucocorticoids may play a protective role in the respiratory and digestive systems by activating ACE2 and suppressing cytokine storm.

Coronavirus RNA Proofreading: Molecular Basis and Therapeutic Targeting.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that is wreaking havoc on worldwide public health and economies has heightened awareness about the lack of effective antiviral treatments for human coronaviruses (CoVs). Many current antivirals, notably nucleoside analogs (NAs), exert their effect by incorporation into viral genomes and subsequent disruption of viral replication and fidelity. The development of anti-CoV drugs has long been hindered by the capacity of CoVs to proofread and remove mismatched nucleotides during genome replication and transcription. Here, we review the molecular basis of the CoV proofreading complex and evaluate its potential as a drug target. We also consider existing nucleoside analogs and novel genomic techniques as potential anti-CoV therapeutics that could be used individually or in combination to target the proofreading mechanism.

Nitazoxanide protects cats from feline calicivirus infection and acts synergistically with mizoribine in vitro.

Feline calicivirus (FCV) is a highly contagious pathogen that causes acute upper respiratory infections and oral disease in cats, thus seriously endangering feline health. Recently, there have been outbreaks of particularly virulent variant strains of FCV, which can cause both acute symptoms and fatal systemic disease. The discovery of effective antiviral agents to treat FCV infection is, therefore, gradually assuming increased importance. In this study, we showed that both nitazoxanide and mizoribine had antiviral activity in F81 cells infected with different strains of FCV and also demonstrated a synergistic effect between the two drugs. Experiments in cats challenged with FCV showed that nitazoxanide significantly reduced the clinical symptoms of FCV infection, reduced viral load in the trachea and lungs, and reduced viral shedding. Our results showed that nitazoxanide and mizoribine could potentially be used as therapeutic agents to treat FCV infection.

COVID-19: The Potential Role of Copper and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in a Combination of Candidate Antiviral Treatments Against SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a pandemic. Since then, thousands of people have suffered and died, making the need for a treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) more crucial than ever. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors carried out a search in PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for COVID-19 to provide information on the most promising treatments against SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Possible COVID-19 agents with promising efficacy and favorable safety profile were identified. The results support the combination of copper, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), colchicine and nitric oxide (NO) with candidate antiviral agents, remdesivir or EIDD-2801, as a treatment for patients positive for SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The authors propose to study the effects of the combination of copper, NAC, colchicine, NO and currently used experimental antiviral agents, remdesivir or EIDD-2801, as a potential treatment scheme for SARS-COV-2.

Non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications for steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in children.

BACKGROUND: About 80% of children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) have relapses. Of these children, half relapse frequently, and are at risk of adverse effects from corticosteroids. While non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications prolong periods of remission, they have significant potential adverse effects. Currently, there is no consensus about the most appropriate second-line agent in children who are steroid sensitive, but who continue to relapse. In addition, these medications could be used with corticosteroids in the initial episode of SSNS to prolong the period of remission. This is the fourth update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2005, 2008 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications in SSNS in children with a relapsing course of SSNS and in children with their first episode of nephrotic syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 March 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were included if they involved children with SSNS and compared non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisone or prednisolone) or no treatment; compared different non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications or different doses, durations or routes of administration of the same non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 43 studies (91 reports) and included data from 2428 children. Risk of bias assessment indicated that 21 and 24 studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment respectively. Nine studies were at low risk of performance bias and 10 were at low risk of detection bias. Thirty-seven and 27 studies were at low risk of incomplete and selective reporting respectively. Rituximab (in combination with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and prednisolone) versus CNI and prednisolone probably reduces the number of children who relapse at six months (5 studies, 269 children: RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.43) and 12 months (3 studies, 198 children: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) (moderate certainty evidence). At six months, rituximab resulted in 126 children/1000 relapsing compared with 548 children/1000 treated with conservative treatments. Rituximab may result in infusion reactions (4 studies, 252 children: RR 5.83, 95% CI 1.34 to 25.29). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and levamisole may have similar effects on the number of children who relapse at 12 months (1 study, 149 children: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). MMF may have a similar effect on the number of children relapsing compared to cyclosporin (2 studies, 82 children: RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.46) (low certainty evidence). MMF compared to cyclosporin is probably less likely to result in hypertrichosis (3 studies, 140 children: RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.50) and gum hypertrophy (3 studies, 144 children: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.42) (low certainty evidence). Levamisole compared with steroids or placebo may reduce the number of children with relapse during treatment (8 studies, 474 children: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82) (low certainty evidence). Levamisole compared to cyclophosphamide may make little or no difference to the risk for relapse after 6 to 9 months (2 studies, 97 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.81) (low certainty evidence). Cyclosporin compared with prednisolone may reduce the number of children who relapse (1 study, 104 children: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83) (low certainty evidence). Alkylating agents compared with cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the risk of relapse during cyclosporin treatment (2 studies, 95 children: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.48) (low certainty evidence) but may reduce the risk of relapse at 12 to 24 months (2 studies, 95 children: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74), suggesting that the benefit of the alkylating agents may be sustained beyond the on-treatment period (low certainty evidence). Alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil) compared with prednisone probably reduce the number of children, who experience relapse at six to 12 months (6 studies, 202 children: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60) and at 12 to 24 months (4 studies, 59 children: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.46) (moderate certainty evidence). IV cyclophosphamide may reduce the number of children with relapse compared with oral cyclophosphamide at 6 months (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88), but not at 12 to 24 months (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29) and may result in fewer infections (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.72) (low certainty evidence). Cyclophosphamide compared to chlorambucil may make little or no difference in the risk of relapse after 12 months (1 study, 50 children: RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.13) (low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: New studies incorporated in this review indicate that rituximab is a valuable additional agent for managing children with steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome. However, the treatment effect is temporary, and many children will require additional courses of rituximab. The long-term adverse effects of this treatment are not known. Comparative studies of CNIs, MMF, levamisole and alkylating agents have demonstrated little or no differences in efficacy but, because of insufficient power; clinically important differences in treatment effects have not been completely excluded.