-
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine Jan 2018Palivizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody used for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis. RSV is the primary cause of lower respiratory tract infection in... (Review)
Review
Palivizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody used for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis. RSV is the primary cause of lower respiratory tract infection in children aged <2 years, and can give rise to high-burden hospitalization and respiratory complications in later life. Adherence to a monthly dosing regimen, both in timing and injection number, is essential to sustain therapeutic levels of palivizumab and maintain protective status. Deviation from the approved dosing schedule may reduce the efficacy of palivizumab and increase the risk of breakthrough RSV infection and hospitalization. Areas covered: There is no standardized definition of adherence to palivizumab treatment. This review addresses the wide variability in defining and reporting adherence to palivizumab prophylaxis across different studies. The review assesses whether a relationship exists in the outcomes reported in studies relative to the monthly adherence protocol as defined in published randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of palivizumab. Expert commentary: Standardized detailed reporting of adherence to palivizumab prophylaxis using consistent definitions will help provide a more robust level of evidence. This information may be important when considering variations in effectiveness, alterations to recommendations and guidelines, and cost-effectiveness of treatment.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Palivizumab; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29130355
DOI: 10.1080/17476348.2018.1401926 -
The safety and efficacy of oral antiviral drug VV116 for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.Medicine Jul 2023Recent trials have highlighted the potential of oral antiviral VV116 in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19. However, no comprehensive studies have assessed the...
BACKGROUND
Recent trials have highlighted the potential of oral antiviral VV116 in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19. However, no comprehensive studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of VV116. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the safety and efficacy of VV116.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar websites, with a cutoff date of March 23, to identify pertinent studies.
RESULTS
The results from the 3 included studies indicated that no serious adverse events were reported in the VV116 experimental groups, which exhibited a 2.57-day faster time to viral shedding than the control group and demonstrated non-inferiority to the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir control group in alleviating major symptoms.
DISCUSSION
Collectively, available studies suggest a reliable safety and efficacy profile for VV116. However, the limited number of trials was insufficient for meta-analysis, and the included population consisted of younger individuals with mild and moderate symptoms, not encompassing the elderly who are severely affected by COVID-19. We hope that more studies will be conducted in the future to ensure that VV116 has a more reliable safety and efficacy profile in the clinical setting, especially in severe or critical patients.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Ritonavir
PubMed: 37417593
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034105 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Jan 2024The Antiviral Granules (AG) are derived from the classical famous prescription, which is composed of 9 traditional Chinese medicines, namely Radix Isatidis (called... (Review)
Review
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
The Antiviral Granules (AG) are derived from the classical famous prescription, which is composed of 9 traditional Chinese medicines, namely Radix Isatidis (called Banlangen, BLG in Chinese), Forsythiae Fructus (called Lianqiao, LQ in Chinese), Gypsum fibrosum, Anemarrhenae Rhizoma (called Zhimu, ZM in Chinese), Phragmitis Rhizoma (called Lugen, LG in Chinese), Rehmanniae Radix (called Dihuang, DH in Chinese), Pogostemonis Herba (called Guanghuoxiang, GHX in Chinese), Acori Tatarinowii Rhizoma (called Shichangpu, SCP in Chinese), and Curcumae Radix (called Yujin, YJ in Chinese), and has shown an excellent therapeutic effect in clinical treatment of influenza. However, there are few studies on the anti-influenza mechanism of AG, and the mechanism of action is still unclear.
AIM OF THE STUDY
The purpose is to provide the latest information about the clinical efficacy, pharmacodynamic composition and mechanism of AG based on scientific literature, so as to enhance the utilization of AG in the treatment of influenza and related diseases, and promote the development and innovation of novel anti-influenza drugs targeting the influenza virus.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Enter the data retrieval room, search for Antiviral Granules, as well as the scientific names, common names, and Chinese names of each Chinese medicine. Additionally, search for the relevant clinical applications, pharmacodynamic composition, pharmacological action, and molecular mechanism of both Antiviral Granules and single-ingredient medicines. Keywords includes terms such as "antiviral granules", "influenza", "Isatis indigotica Fort.", "Radix Isatidis", "Banlangeng", "pharmacology", "clinical application", "pharmacologic action", etc. and their combinations. Obtain results from the Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Sci Finder Scholar, CNKI and other resources.
RESULTS
AG is effective in the treatment of influenza and is often used in combination with other drugs to treat viral diseases. Its chemical composition is complex, including alkaloids, polysaccharides, volatile oils, steroid saponins, phenylpropanoids, terpenoids and other compounds. These compounds have a variety of pharmacological activities, which can interfere with the replication cycle of the influenza virus, regulate RIG-I-MAVS, JAK/STAT, TLRs/MyD88, NF-κB signaling pathways and related cytokines, regulate intestinal microorganisms, and protect both the lungs and extrapulmonary organs.
CONCLUSIONS
AG can overcome the limitations of traditional antiviral drug therapy, play a synergistic role in fighting influenza virus with the characteristics of multi-component, multi-pathway and multi-target therapy, and reverse the bodily function damage caused by influenza virus. AG may be a potential drug in the prevention and treatment of influenza and related diseases.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Plant Extracts; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37567423
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2023.117011 -
The American Journal of Medicine Jun 2015We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral agents on complete recovery of Bell's palsy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral agents on complete recovery of Bell's palsy.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and sources of unpublished literature to November 1, 2014. Primary and secondary outcomes were complete and satisfactory recovery, respectively. To evaluate statistical heterogeneity, we performed subgroup analysis of baseline severity of Bell's palsy and between-study sensitivity analyses based on risk of allocation and detection bias.
RESULTS
The 10 included randomized controlled trials (2419 patients; 807 with severe Bell's palsy at onset) had variable risk of bias, with 9 trials having a high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Complete recovery was not statistically significantly greater with antiviral use versus no antiviral use in the random-effects meta-analysis of 6 trials (relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.16; I(2) = 65%). Conversely, random-effects meta-analysis of 9 trials showed a statistically significant difference in satisfactory recovery (relative risk, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.18; I(2) = 63%). Response to antiviral agents did not differ visually or statistically between patients with severe symptoms at baseline and those with milder disease (test for interaction, P = .11). Sensitivity analyses did not show a clear effect of bias on outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiviral agents are not efficacious in increasing the proportion of patients with Bell's palsy who achieved complete recovery, regardless of baseline symptom severity.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Bell Palsy; Humans
PubMed: 25554380
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.11.033 -
Virology Journal May 2022The new coronavirus (COVID-19) has been transmitted exponentially. Numerous studies have been performed in recent years that have shown the inhibitory effect of plant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The new coronavirus (COVID-19) has been transmitted exponentially. Numerous studies have been performed in recent years that have shown the inhibitory effect of plant extracts or plant-derived compounds on the coronavirus family. In this study, we want to use systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the question, which herbal compound has been more effective?
MAIN BODY
The present study is based on the guidelines for conducting meta-analyzes. An extensive search was conducted in the electronic database, and based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were selected and data screening was done. Quality control of articles was performed. Data analysis was carried out in STATA software.
CONCLUSION
Due to the variety of study methods, definitive conclusions are not possible. However, in this study, we attempted to gather all the available evidence on the effect of plant compounds on SARS-COV-2 to be used for the development and use of promising antiviral agents against this virus and other coronaviruses. Trypthantrin, Sambucus extract, S. cusia extract, Boceprevir and Indigole B, dioica agglutinin urtica had a good effect on reducing the virus titer. Also among the compounds that had the greatest effect on virus inhibition, Saikosaponins B2, SaikosaponinsD, SaikosaponinsA and Phillyrin, had an acceptable selectivity index greater than 10. Andrographolide showed the highest selectivity index on SARS-COV-2. Our study confirmed insufficient data to support alkaloid compounds against SARS-COV-2, and the small number of studies that used alkaloid compounds was a limitation. It is recommended to investigate the effect of more alkaloid compounds against Corona virus.
Topics: Alkaloids; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Plant Extracts; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35597998
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-022-01808-z -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Dec 2021To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment.
METHODS
A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05).
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Indoles; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34347937
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.502 -
Pain Physician Jul 2023The most refractory symptom of herpes zoster (HZ) is pain. Approximately 90% of people who have HZ suffer from pain. Early use of antiviral medications has been found to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents for Immunocompetent Patients with Herpes Zoster-Associated Pain.
BACKGROUND
The most refractory symptom of herpes zoster (HZ) is pain. Approximately 90% of people who have HZ suffer from pain. Early use of antiviral medications has been found to reduce pain across all stages of the disease. Although many antiviral agents via oral or intravenous administration were recommended by clinical practice, the best approach to prevent HZ-associated pain remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and adverse events of various antiviral agents used for the treatment of HZ-associated pain through a network meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to Feb 2020.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials evaluating antiviral agents currently available for treating HZ-associated pain were included. We extracted data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and conducted network meta-analyses with random-effects models. The primary outcome was the presence of acute pain at the end of anti-virus treatment, and the secondary outcomes included the presence of pain at 28-30 days after the onset of the acute herpetic rash, the presence of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and any other adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 17 randomized control trials with 5,579 participants were included in this study. According to the results of the network meta-analysis, for the treatment of acute pain, there was no significant difference between oral acyclovir and intravenous acyclovir. Furthermore, oral famciclovir was the most effective treatment concerning both the odds ratio (OR) (superior to placebo OR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.13~0.48) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.84 for the treatment of acute pain among all the oral antiviral agents. For the presence of pain at 28-30 days, no significant difference was observed in efficacy between all antiviral treatments and placebo concerning the OR; however, oral valaciclovir ranked first (SUCRA values of 0.96). For the presence of NPH, oral famciclovir was determined to be the most effective (SUCRA values of 0.77) treatment with an efficacy of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.18~0.99) versus placebo. For adverse events, there was no significant difference between oral antivirals and placebo; however, intravenous acyclovir ranked last with a score of OR 4.31 (95% CI: 1.26~14.75) versus placebo.
LIMITATIONS
The distribution of severity of pain was different in various studies; then, the lack of availability of individual data prevented us from analyzing the effects of the risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS
For the treatment of acute pain and PHN, oral famciclovir was the most effective treatment among all the oral antiviral agents. For alleviating pain after 28-30 days, oral valaciclovir appeared to be the most effective among all antiviral agents. Additionally, all oral antiviral agents were well tolerated.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION
PROSPERO under the identification CRD42020212834.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Valacyclovir; Famciclovir; Network Meta-Analysis; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Acyclovir; Herpes Zoster; Neuralgia, Postherpetic
PubMed: 37535772
DOI: No ID Found -
Health Technology Assessment... May 2016Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza.
METHODS
We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies.
RESULTS
Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65).
CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Asthma; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zanamivir
PubMed: 27246259
DOI: 10.3310/hta20420 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2024This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; COVID-19; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines
PubMed: 38244811
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107096 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Apr 2022Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are likely part of the rapid response and control in influenza pandemics and institutional outbreaks. We conducted a systematic review to...
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are likely part of the rapid response and control in influenza pandemics and institutional outbreaks. We conducted a systematic review to appraise the current evidence on the use of NAIs among healthcare workers in the context of an influenza pandemic.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Health Personnel; Humans; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Zanamivir
PubMed: 33715650
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2021.79