A case report: recurrent anemia related to long term acyclovir use in a pregnant HIV infected Ugandan.

This case report describes a pregnant patient with recent diagnosis of Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV) infection initiated on Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) in the second trimester, as well as high dose acyclovir high for large infected genital warts. She had no other HIV related opportunistic infections, and no prior anti tuberculosis treatment or preventive medication. Despite little response to acyclovir, patient was continuing on acyclovir for over 4 months. She subsequently developed recurrent anemia requiring frequent transfusion (14 units in total) over a 6-week period. On stopping acyclovir, the anemia subsided, a few weeks later she had a normal delivery, followed by surgical removal of the warts. At a follow-up 8 months later, she was well, with a healthy baby, and reported no other episodes of blood transfusion.

Remdesivir-Related Cardiac Adverse Effects in COVID-19 Patients: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: There have been reports of serious side effects of Remdesivir, including cardiovascular complications. The present study aimed to determine the adverse cardiovascular effects of Remdesivir and the factors affecting them in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The patients were classified into two groups: those receiving Remdesivir without cardiac complications and those receiving Remdesivir with cardiovascular complications. After reviewing the patient's medical records, the relationship of some factors with the incidence of adverse cardiovascular effects was measured. RESULTS: Chi-square test showed that the distribution of complications in men was significantly higher than in women (P=0.001). The independent t-test revealed that the mean age in the group with complications was significantly higher than the group without complications (P=0.013). Fisher's exact test demonstrated a significant relationship between smoking and cardiovascular complications (P=0.05). According to the Mann-Whitney test, a significant difference was found in the mean changes of Bilirubin (P=0.02) and ALKP (P=0.01) before and after treatment in the groups with and without heart complications. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that most of the COVID-19 patients suffered from sinus bradycardia, and the distribution of complications was more pronounced in men than in women. The mean age in the group with complications was higher than the group without complications. Smoking was found to be associated with the occurrence of cardiovascular complications and the mean changes of Bilirubin and ALKP before and after treatment were significantly different in the groups with and without cardiovascular complications.

Association of thrombotic microangiopathy with interferon therapy for hepatitis B: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic microangiopathy is characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and organ injury. The pathological features include vascular damage that is manifested by arteriolar and capillary thrombosis with characteristic abnormalities in the endothelium and vessel wall. Thrombocytopenia is one of the common adverse effects of interferon therapy. However, a more serious but rare side effect is thrombotic microangiopathy. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 36-year-old Asian male patient with clinical manifestations of hypertension, blurred vision, acute renal failure, thrombocytopenia, and thrombotic microangiopathy. Renal biopsy showed interstitial edema with fibrosis, arteriolar thickening with vitreous changes, and epithelial podocytes segmental fusion. Immunofluorescence microscopy showed C3(+), Ig A(+) deposition in the mesangial region, which was pathologically consistent with thrombotic microangiopathy renal injury and Ig A deposition. The patient had a history of hepatitis B virus infection for more than 5 years. Lamivudine was used in the past, but the injection of long-acting interferon combined with tenofovir alafenamide fumarate was used since 2018. The comprehensive clinical investigation and laboratory examination diagnosed the condition as thrombotic microangiopathy kidney injury caused by interferon. After stopping interferon in his treatment, the patient's renal function partially recovered after three consecutive therapeutic plasma exchange treatments and follow-up treatment without immunosuppressant. The renal function of the patient remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: This report indicates that interferon can induce thrombotic microangiopathy with acute renal injury, which can progress to chronic renal insufficiency.

Efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 is controversial. A Cochrane review concluded that the efficacy and safety of ivermectin is uncertain (evidence up to April 2022) and WHO recommended its use only in the setting of clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. TRIAL DESIGN AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among RT-PCR-confirmed, adults, hospitalised within the first four days of symptoms. Patients received oral ivermectin 24 mg or placebo daily for five days. RT-PCR was repeated on days five and ten. Clinical progression was monitored using the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale. Serum ivermectin levels were measured on days three, five, and seven. The primary outcome was the difference in the viral load between day zero and ten in the two groups. RESULTS: Out of 1699 patients screened, 249 underwent randomization and 127 received ivermectin, and 122 placebo. D10 median viral load for E gene (IQR) was 2,000 copies/mL (100 - 20,500) with ivermectin (n = 80) and 4,100 copies/mL (1,000-65,600) with placebo (n = 81, p = 0.028), per protocol analysis. The difference in Log viral load between day zero and ten between ivermectin and placebo was 3.72 and 2.97 respectively (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the WHO clinical progression scale or the adverse effects. Ivermectin blood levels taken before or with meals were not significantly different. Only 7 and 17 patients achieved blood levels above 160ng/ML and 100ng/ML respectively and they did not achieve a significantly lower viral load. CONCLUSION: Although ivermectin resulted in statistically significant lower viral load in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, it had no significant effect on clinical symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SLCTR/2021/020, Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry. 19/07/2021.

Safety and Efficacy of Camostat Mesylate for Covid-19: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Camostat mesylate, an oral serine protease inhibitor, is a powerful TMPRSS2 inhibitor and has been reported as a possible antiviral treatment against COVID-19. Therefore, we aim to assess the safety and efficacy of camostat mesylate for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and medrxiv until June 2023. The outcomes were pooled using Mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42023439633. RESULTS: Nine RCTs, including 1,623 patients, were included in this analysis. There was no difference between camostat mesylate and placebo in producing negative PCR test results at 1-7 days (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: [0.54, 1.06] P = 0.1), 8-14 days (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.23] P = 0.87), or 15-21 days (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: [0.82, 1.19] P = 0.90); clinical resolution of symptoms at 1-7 days (RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.58, 1.53) P = 0.81), 8-14 days (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: [0.74, 1.11] P = 0.33, ), or 15-21 days (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: [0.40, 1.51] P = 0.45); and time to symptom improvement (MD:-0.38 weeks (95% CI: [-1.42, 0.66] P = 0.47, I2 = 85%). CONCLUSION: Camostat mesylate did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, compared to placebo.

Cardiac effects of direct anti-viral treatment in type II diabetic patients with hepatitis C infection.

BACKGROUND: The link between diabetes mellitus and chronic hepatitis C infection remains well established. It is estimated that up to one third of chronic hepatitis C patients have type II diabetes mellitus. Hepatitis C virus infection is one of the main global health burdens. Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir are used as effective antiviral inhibitors of hepatitis C virus. The cardiovascular effects of those drugs are not well studied. We used electrocardiography and echocardiography with global longitudinal strain assessment by speckle tracking to detect their effect on cardiac function. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred diabetic patients with hepatitis C infection were included in the study. Abdominal ultrasound and laboratory work up were carried out for all participants. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function were assessed by 2D-echocardiography and global longitudinal strain, before and 3 months after treatment. Results showed significant decrease in global longitudinal strain 3 months after therapy (-21 ± 4 vs. -18 ± 7; P < 0.001) but other echocardiographic findings showed no significant changes. CONCLUSIONS: Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir were associated with early left ventricular systolic dysfunction as assessed by global longitudinal strain in diabetic patients. More deterioration in left ventricular systolic function was detected among those with Child-Pough class B. Further long-term follow-up may be required.

Efficacy and Safety of Azvudine in Patients With COVID-19 in China: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Azvudine (FNC) is a novel small molecule antiviral drug for treating COVID-19 that is available only on the Chinese market. Despite being recommended for treating COVID-19 by the Chinese guidelines, its efficacy and safety are still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of FNC on COVID-19 outcomes and its safety. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to evaluate studies on the effectiveness of FNC in treating COVID-19 in China, focusing on mortality and overall outcomes. Additionally, its impact on the length of hospital stay (LOHS), time to first nucleic acid negative conversion (T-FNANC), and adverse events was evaluated. The inclusion criterion was that the studies were published from July 2021 to April 10, 2024. This study uses the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias risk and employs the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 24 retrospective studies involving a total of 11 830 patients. Low-certainty evidence revealed no significant difference in mortality (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76-1.08) or LOHS (WMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35) between FNC and Paxlovid in COVID-19 patients. Low-certainty evidence shows that the T-FNANC was longer (WMD = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.36-3.53). Compared with the Paxlovid group, low-certainty evidence shows the FNC group exhibited a worse composite outcome (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.95) and fewer adverse events (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.85). Compared with supportive treatment, low certainty shows FNC significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74) and decreased the composite outcome (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91), and very low certainty evidence shows significantly decreased the T-FNANC (WMD = -4.62, 95% CI: -8.08 to -1.15). However, in very low certainty, there was no significant difference in LOHS (WMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -3.32 to 1.91) or adverse events (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.48-8.17). CONCLUSIONS: FNC appears to be a safe and potentially effective treatment for COVID-19 in China, but further research with larger, high-quality studies is necessary to confirm these findings. Due to the certainty of the evidence and the specific context of the studies conducted in China, caution should be exercised when considering whether the results are applicable worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD42024520565.

Oral Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not shown a significant benefit of postexposure prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind trial to assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in asymptomatic, rapid antigen test-negative adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 within 96 hours before randomization. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg of nirmatrelvir and 100 mg of ritonavir) every 12 hours for 5 days or for 10 days or matching placebo for 5 or 10 days. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, confirmed on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen testing, through 14 days in participants who had a negative RT-PCR test at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2736 participants were randomly assigned to a trial group - 921 to the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 917 to the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 898 to the placebo group. Symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed by day 14 in 2.6% of the participants in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 2.4% of those in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 3.9% of those in the placebo group. In each nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the percentage of participants in whom symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed did not differ significantly from that in the placebo group, with risk reductions relative to placebo of 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.7 to 57.8; P = 0.17) in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 35.5% (95% CI, -11.5 to 62.7; P = 0.12) in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups, with dysgeusia being the most frequently reported adverse event (in 5.9% and 6.8% of the participants in the 5-day and 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir groups, respectively, and in 0.7% of those in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial, postexposure prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 or 10 days did not significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047601.).

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients undergoing treatment with tyrosine kinase-inhibitors.

This editorial commented on an article in the World Journal of Gastroenterology titled "Risks of Reactivation of Hepatitis B Virus in Oncological Patients Using Tyrosine Kinase-Inhibitors: Case Report and Literature Analysis" by Colapietro et al. In this editorial, we focused on providing a more comprehensive exploration of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) associated with the usage of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). It includes insights into the mechanisms underlying HBV reactivation, the temporal relationship between TKIs and HBV reactivation, and preventive measures. The aim is to understand the need for nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAT) and serial blood tests for early recognition of reactivation and acute liver injury, along with management strategies. TKIs are considered to be an intermediate (1%-10%) of HBVr. Current guidelines stipulate that patients receiving therapy with high or moderate risks of reactivation or recent cancer diagnosis must have at least tested hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc), and anti-hepatitis B surface antibody. Anti-HBc screening in highly endemic areas means people with negative tests should be vaccinated against HBV. Nucleoside or nucleotide analogs (NAs) like entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) form the basis of HBV reactivation prophylaxis and treatment during immunosuppression. Conversely, lamivudine, telbivudine, and adefovir are generally discouraged due to their reduced antiviral efficacy and higher risk of fostering drug-resistant viral strains. However, these less effective NAs may still be utilized in cases where ETV, TDF, and TAF are not feasible treatment options.

Association of Antiviral Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19 With Acute Renal Failure.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Reports regarding the association of remdesivir use for the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) are inconsistent, and the associations between the use of other antivirals and AKI remain unclear. Therefore, this study investigated whether the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 is a risk factor for the development of AKI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 176,197 reports submitted to the Japanese Adverse Event Reporting Database between 2020 and 2022. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for AKI that were associated with the use of antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19 were calculated after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 5,879 of the reports analyzed were associated with AKI. Signs of AKI were detected with the use of remdesivir [crude ROR (cROR)=2.45; 95%CI=1.91-3.14] and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (cROR=6.07; 95%CI=4.06-9.06). These results were maintained even after adjusting for potential confounders [remdesivir: adjusted ROR (aROR)=2.18; 95%CI=1.69-2.80, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: aROR=5.24; 95%CI=3.48-7.90]. However, when analyzing data stratified by reporting year, the association between remdesivir and AKI appeared to diminish over time and was not sustained. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use may be associated with developing AKI. This knowledge may be useful in helping patients with COVID-19 avoid AKI complications.

Switching to tenofovir alafenamide in patients with virologically suppressed chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment: final week 96 results from an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 studies in patients with chronic hepatitis B have shown tenofovir alafenamide to have non-inferior efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with improved renal and bone safety. We conducted this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching to tenofovir alafenamide in participants with chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study was done in eight countries or territories at 30 sites. We recruited adults (≥18 years) with chronic hepatitis B who were virally suppressed on nucleoside or nucleotide analogues and had renal impairment (part A: moderate or severe in cohort 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Cockcroft-Gault formula (eGFRCG) 15-59 mL/min] or end-stage renal disease [eGFRCG <15 mL/min] on haemodialysis in cohort 2) or hepatic impairment including decompensation (part B: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score 7-12). Participants switched to 25 mg of tenofovir alafenamide given orally once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with viral suppression (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) at week 24 by missing-equals-failure analysis. Efficacy (full analysis set) and safety (safety analysis set) analyses included all enrolled participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. Week 96 safety was assessed, including renal and bone parameters. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180619, and is completed. FINDINGS: 124 participants (93 in part A [78 in cohort 1 and 15 in cohort 2] and 31 in part B) were enrolled between Aug 11, 2017, and Oct 17, 2018, and included in the full and safety analysis sets. 106 (85%) participants completed the study. There were 69 (74%) men and 24 (26%) women in part A and 21 (68%) men and ten (32%) women in part B. At week 24, 91 (97·8%, 95% CI 92·4 to 99·7) of 93 individuals in part A (76 [97·4%, 91·0 to 99·7] of 78 in cohort 1 and 15 [100·0%, 78·2 to 100·0] of 15 in cohort 2) and 31 (100·0%, 88·8 to 100·0) in part B had HBV DNA of less than 20 IU/mL. By week 96, the most common adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, which occurred in 14 (15%) participants in part A and in six (19%) participants in part B. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (22%) part A participants and in ten (32%) part B participants; none were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths occurred. At week 96, median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (Cockcroft-Gault method) was 1·0 mL/min (IQR -2·8 to 4·5) in cohort 1 and -2·4 mL/min (-11·4 to 10·7) in part B. Mean changes in spine and hip bone mineral density were 1·02% (SD 4·44) and 0·20% (3·25) in part A and -0·25% (3·91) and 0·28% (3·25) in part B. INTERPRETATION: Tenofovir alafenamide might offer continued antiviral efficacy and a favourable safety profile for patients with renal or hepatic impairment and chronic hepatitis B switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or other antivirals. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Metabolic effects and cardiovascular disease risks of antiviral treatments in patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Different antiviral treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) have been known to have different metabolic effects. This study aimed to reveal whether tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-induced dyslipidemia and its associated outcomes are significant. This study utilized 15-year historical cohort including patients with CHB in Korea and consisted of two parts: the single-antiviral and switch-antiviral cohorts. In the single-antiviral cohort, patients were divided into four groups (entecavir [ETV]-only, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [TDF]-only, TAF-only, and non-antiviral). Propensity score matching (PSM) and linear regression model were sequentially applied to compare metabolic profiles and estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risks longitudinally. In the switch-antiviral cohort, pairwise analyses were conducted in patients who switched NAs to TAF or from TAF. In the single-antiviral cohort, body weight and statin use showed significant differences between groups before PSM, but well-balanced after PSM. Changes in total cholesterol were significantly different between groups (-2.57 mg/dL/year in the TDF-only group and +2.88 mg/dL/year in the TAF-only group; p = 0.002 and p = 0.02, respectively). In the TDF-only group, HDL cholesterol decreased as well (-0.55 mg/dL/year; p < 0.001). The TAF-only group had the greatest increase in ASCVD risk, followed by the TDF-only group and the non-antiviral group. In the switch-antiviral cohort, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had a higher total cholesterol after switching (+9.4 mg/dL/year) than before switching (-1.0 mg/dL/year; p = 0.047). Sensitivity analysis on data with an observation period set to a maximum of 3 years for NA treatment showed consistent results on total cholesterol (-2.96 mg/dL/year in the TDF-only group and +3.09 mg/dL/year in the TAF-only group; p = 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). Another sensitivity analysis conducted on statin-treated patients revealed no significant change in cholesterol and ASCVD risk. TAF was associated with increased total cholesterol, whereas TDF was associated with decreased total and HDL cholesterol. Both TAF and TDF were associated with increased ASCVD risks, and statin use might mitigate these risks.

A noninferiority randomized open-label pilot study of 3- versus 7-day influenza postexposure prophylaxis with oseltamivir in hospitalized children.

Short influenza postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) showed high efficacy in adults, but studies in children are lacking. This randomized open-label pilot trial aimed to verify noninferiority of a 3- versus 7-day prophylaxis with oral oseltamivir in hospitalized children. Influenza contacts were randomized to the 3- or 7-day group and efficacy, relative risk of adverse events (AEs), and the cumulative costs of drugs and AEs management were compared. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included 59 children (n = 28 and n = 31 in the 3- and 7-day group, respectively). The efficacy was 100% (95% CI 87.7-100%) versus 93.6% (95% CI 78.6-99.2%) in the 3- and 7-day group; the differences were statistically insignificant. A per-protocol (PP) analysis including 56 patients (n = 27 and n = 29, respectively) showed 100% (95% CI 87.2-100%) and 93.1% (95% CI 77.2-99.2%) efficacy, respectively, without statistical significance. Differences were within the predefined noninferiority margin with an efficacy difference Δ = 6.45 percentage points (p.p.) with 1-sided 95% CI (- 2.8, - 1.31, p = 0.86; ITT) and Δ = 6.9 p.p. (1-sided 95% CI - 2.83, - 1.27, p = 0.85; PP). Adverse events did not differ significantly, while the cumulative costs of the prophylaxis and AEs management were higher in the 7-day group (median 10.5 euro vs. 4.5 euro, p < 0.01). This pilot study showed the noninferiority of the 3-day versus 7-day PEP, which was associated with lower costs.Trial registration number: NCT04297462, 5th March 2020, restrospectively registered.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensitrelvir for Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19: An Exploratory Analysis of a Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 2b/3 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase 2b/3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial explored the efficacy and evaluated the safety of ensitrelvir. This trial involved individuals with asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The trial was conducted at 57 medical institutions in Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam (study period: January 6-August 14, 2022). Eligible participants were randomized (1:1:1) to the ensitrelvir 125-mg, ensitrelvir 250-mg, or placebo group, received the allocated intervention orally, and were followed up until Day 28. Participants self-rated the severity of 14 typical COVID-19 symptoms and recorded the data in an electronic diary. RESULTS: In total, 572 participants (194, 189, and 189 in the ensitrelvir 125-mg, ensitrelvir 250-mg, and placebo groups, respectively) were included in the intention-to-treat population. Ensitrelvir 125-mg group observed a 77% reduction in the risk of developing any of the 14 COVID-19 symptoms or fever and a 29% reduction in the risk of worsening of such symptoms or fever versus placebo (statistically nonsignificant). The viral RNA, viral titer, and time to infectious viral clearance observed a statistically significant decrease versus placebo. Most treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate in severity, and the most common TEAE observed across groups was a decrease in high-density lipoprotein. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory results suggest a potential reduction in the risk of development or worsening of COVID-19 symptoms with ensitrelvir. Ensitrelvir showed antiviral efficacy and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRCT2031210350.

Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). METHODS: A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.

Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Bulevirtide Combined with Pegylated Interferon for Chronic Hepatitis D.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, bulevirtide monotherapy led to a virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis D. Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alfa-2a is recommended by guidelines as an off-label treatment for this disease. The role of combination therapy with bulevirtide and peginterferon alfa-2a, particularly with regard to finite treatment, is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 2b, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive peginterferon alfa-2a alone (180 µg per week) for 48 weeks; bulevirtide at a daily dose of 2 mg or 10 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a (180 µg per week) for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks; or bulevirtide at a daily dose of 10 mg alone for 96 weeks. All the patients were followed for 48 weeks after the end of treatment. The primary end point was an undetectable level of hepatitis D virus (HDV) RNA at 24 weeks after the end of treatment. The primary comparison was between the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group and the 10-mg bulevirtide monotherapy group. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients received peginterferon alfa-2a alone, 50 received 2 mg and 50 received 10 mg of bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a, and 50 received 10 mg of bulevirtide monotherapy. At 24 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 17% of the patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 32% of those in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide group. For the primary comparison, the between-group difference was 34 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 15 to 50; P<0.001). At 48 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 25% of the patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 26% of those in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide group. The most frequent adverse events were leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. The majority of adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 in severity. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a was superior to bulevirtide monotherapy with regard to an undetectable HDV RNA level at 24 weeks after the end of treatment. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; MYR 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03852433.).