-
Journal of Infection and Public Health Oct 2023Dengue is caused by the dengue virus (DENVs) infection and clinical manifestations include dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), or dengue shock syndrome...
Dengue is caused by the dengue virus (DENVs) infection and clinical manifestations include dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), or dengue shock syndrome (DSS). Due to a lack of antiviral drugs and effective vaccines, several therapeutic and control strategies have been proposed. A systemic literature review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to select proper references to give an overview of DENV infection. Results indicate that understanding the virus characteristics and epidemiology are essential to gain the basic and clinical knowledge as well as dengue disseminated pattern and status. Different factors and mechanisms are thought to be involved in the presentation of DHF and DSS, including antibody-dependent enhancement, immune dysregulation, viral virulence, host genetic susceptibility, and preexisting dengue antibodies. This study suggests that dissecting pathogenesis and risk factors as well as developing different types of therapeutic and control strategies against DENV infection are urgently needed.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Dengue; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Risk Factors; Virulence
PubMed: 37595484
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.08.001 -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated diseases have caused an estimated 1.8 million hospital admissions and 40,000 deaths among children. RSV can cause lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated diseases have caused an estimated 1.8 million hospital admissions and 40,000 deaths among children. RSV can cause lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in all age groups, adults with comorbidities, and immunocompromised patients. The aim was to summarize the evidence concerning efficacy and safety of ribavirin in subjects diagnosed with RSV associated with LRTI.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Eligible studies were observational (> 10 subjects) and randomized-controlled trials of subjects with aerosol/oral ribavirin for RSV-LRTI. Comparator was supportive care or placebo. Systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted between January 2001 and January 2022. PROSPERO register number: CRD42022308147.
RESULTS
After retrieving 907 studies, 10 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included (4/11 high quality of evidence). Seven studies included subjects with haematological malignancy/stem cell transplant, two lung transplants, and two healthy individuals. A total of 788 subjects diagnosed with RSV infection were included; 14.3% of them presented with only LRTI. Among 445 subjects treated with ribavirin, 195 (43.8%) received an aerosolized formulation. Pooled meta-analysis showed no differences in mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-1.42] in all subjects treated with aerosol/oral ribavirin compared to supportive care. In subgroup analysis, mortality was significantly lower in haematological subjects (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.14-0.71), but did not differ significantly in lung transplant recipients (RR: 0.89; 95% CI 0.31-2.56). Oral ribavirin (vs. supportive care) was associated with increased viral clearance (RR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.35-4.99). Seventeen adverse events were reported among 119 subjects, but none were severe.
CONCLUSION
Ribavirin should be considered for treatment of RSV-LRTI in haematological subjects. There is a lack of evidence to support its use in lung transplant recipients. Oral formulation appears to be an easier, safe, and cost-effective alternative to aerosolized ribavirin. Further advances needs to focus on newer antivirals.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Respiratory Syncytial Viruses; Respiratory Tract Infections; Ribavirin
PubMed: 35876973
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02256-5 -
Journal of Hepatology Dec 2022HBV reactivation (HBVr) can be prevented by nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of HBVr associated with new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
HBV reactivation (HBVr) can be prevented by nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of HBVr associated with new classes of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies and developed guidance on NA prophylaxis. An expert panel reviewed the data and categorised the risk of HBVr associated with each class of drugs into low (<1%), intermediate (1-10%), and high (>10%). Our search uncovered 59 studies, including 3,424 HBsAg+ and 5,799 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, which met our eligibility criteria. Based on medium-high quality evidence, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids were associated with high HBVr risk in HBsAg+ patients; cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids with intermediate risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients; and anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors with low risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients. Provisional recommendations are provided for drugs with low quality evidence. NA prophylaxis is recommended when using drugs associated with a high HBVr risk, while monitoring with on-demand NAs is recommended for low-risk drugs - either approach may be appropriate for intermediate-risk drugs. Consensus on definitions and methods of reporting HBVr, along with inclusion of HBsAg+, and HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients in clinical trials, will be key to gathering reliable data on the risk of HBVr associated with immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B; Immunosuppressive Agents; Virus Activation; Expert Testimony; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B Antibodies; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Cytokines
PubMed: 35850281
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.003 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2024The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and...
The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) alterations that can condition the correct exposure to antimicrobials if standard dosages are used. Inadequate dosing in obese patients can lead to toxicity or therapeutic failure. In recent years, additional antimicrobial PK/PD data, extended infusion strategies, and studies in critically ill patients have made it possible to obtain data to provide a better dosage in obese patients. Despite this, it is usually difficult to find information on drug dosing in this population, which is sometimes contradictory. This is a comprehensive review of the dosing of different types of antimicrobials (antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antituberculosis drugs) in obese patients, where the literature on PK and possible dosing strategies in obese adults was critically assessed.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antifungal Agents; Antitubercular Agents; Antiviral Agents; Critical Illness; Obesity
PubMed: 38526051
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01719-23 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2021Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2; however, questions remain about which treatment is associated with the best outcomes and fewest adverse events.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of neuraminidase inhibitors and the endonuclease inhibitor for the treatment of seasonal influenza among healthy adults and children.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials were searched from inception to January 2020 (the last search was updated in October 2020).
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials conducted among patients of all ages with influenza treated with neuraminidase inhibitors (ie, oseltamivir, peramivir, zanamivir, or laninamivir) or an endonuclease inhibitor (ie, baloxavir) compared with other active agents or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators identified studies and independently abstracted data. Frequentist network meta-analyses were performed; relative ranking of agents was conducted using P-score probabilities. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. Data were analyzed in October 2020.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The time to alleviation of influenza symptoms (TTAS), complications of influenza, and adverse events (total adverse events, nausea, and vomiting).
RESULTS
A total of 26 trials were identified that investigated antiviral drugs at high or low doses; these trials included 11 897 participants, among whom 6294 (52.9%) were men and the mean (SD) age was 32.5 (16.9) years. Of all treatments comparing with placebo in efficacy outcomes, high-quality evidence indicated that zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77), while baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of influenza-related complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80) based on moderate-quality evidence. In safety outcomes, baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of total adverse events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96) compared with placebo based on moderate-quality evidence. There was no strong evidence of associations with risk of nausea or vomiting among all comparisons, except for 75 mg oseltamivir, which was associated with greater occurrence of nausea (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.38-2.41) and vomiting (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.41).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, all 4 antiviral agents assessed were associated with shortening TTAS; zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS, and baloxavir was associated with reduced rate of influenza-related complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Dibenzothiepins; Endonucleases; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons; Triazines; Young Adult; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34387680
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.19151 -
The Journal of Antibiotics Sep 2020Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly...
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; Cell Line; DNA Viruses; Disease Models, Animal; Global Health; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Structure; RNA Viruses; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32533071
DOI: 10.1038/s41429-020-0336-z -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jan 2021To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who have a high risk of MTCT despite infant immunoprophylaxis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to inform the 2020 WHO guidelines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, CNKI, and Wanfang for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis, with no language restriction, published from database inception until March 28, 2019. We used search terms covering HBV, antiviral therapy, and pregnancy. We included studies that enrolled pregnant women with chronic infection with HBV who received antiviral prophylaxis anytime during pregnancy; that included any of the following antivirals: adefovir, emtricitabine, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and that reported the following outcomes: MTCT, indicated by infant HBsAg positivity or HBV DNA positivity, or both, at age 6-12 months, and any infant or maternal adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Our primary endpoint was MTCT based on infant HBsAg positivity. We assessed pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the efficacy of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to reduce the risk of MTCT. We assessed safety of prophylaxis by pooling risk differences. The protocol for the systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO, CRD42019134614.
FINDINGS
Of 7463 articles identified, 595 articles were eligible for full-text review and 129 studies (in 157 articles) were included. The following antivirals were assessed in the meta-analysis: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (19 studies, with 1092 mothers and 1072 infants), lamivudine 100-150 mg (40 studies, with 2080 mothers and 2007 infants), and telbivudine 600 mg (83 studies, with 6036 mothers and 5971 infants). The pooled ORs for randomised controlled trials were similar, at 0·10 (95% CI 0·03-0·35) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·16 (0·10-0·26) for lamivudine, and 0·14 (0·09-0·21) for telbivudine. The pooled ORs in non-randomised studies were 0·17 (0·10-0·29) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·17 (0·12-0·24) for lamivudine, and 0·09 (0·06-0·12) for telbivudine. We found no increased risk of any infant or maternal safety outcomes after peripartum antiviral prophylaxis.
INTERPRETATION
Peripartum antiviral prophylaxis is highly effective at reducing the risk of HBV MTCT. Our findings support the 2020 WHO recommendation of administering antivirals during pregnancy, specifically tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, for the prevention of HBV MTCT.
FUNDING
World Health Organization.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Female; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Prenatal Care; Tenofovir
PubMed: 32805200
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30586-7 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jul 2022Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear.
METHODS
We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty).
INTERPRETATION
Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35878897
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.220471 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2023To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases...
OBJECTIVES
To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).
METHODS
An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member.
RESULTS
Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis against seems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15-30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Immunosuppressive Agents; Opportunistic Infections; Rheumatic Diseases; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 36328476
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223335 -
Journal of Medical Virology Jun 2023This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 37368841
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.28889