-
PloS One 2024The 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38870134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298772 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Aug 2021Acyclovir and valacyclovir are commonly used antivirals with good general tolerance. Despite their good safety profile, they can cause systemic adverse effects, such as...
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Acyclovir and valacyclovir are commonly used antivirals with good general tolerance. Despite their good safety profile, they can cause systemic adverse effects, such as neurotoxicity, which are less frequent and known. The objective of this review was to collect all the reported cases of neurotoxicity associated with acyclovir and valaciclovir published in the literature and characterize their clinical course and interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review of cases was carried out following the guidelines established by "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA). The research was carried out using the PubMed-Medline and Embase databases, between July 1984 and March 2021.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 119 cases with neurotoxicity mainly related to acyclovir (n = 88; 73.9%), followed by valaciclovir (n = 35; 29.4%) were analysed. 49.6% (n = 59) were men with a mean age of 59.5 years ± 21.1 (0.5-88). In 83.3% of the cases, renal impairment was documented and 57.1% (n = 68) with end-stage renal disease. The administered dose was higher than the renal adjustment recommendations in 59.7% of the cases. The global mean of onset of symptoms was 3.1 days ± 4.3 (0.2-28) after the start of antivirals. The mean recovery time was 9.8 days ± 21.7 (0.2-180). 74.4% of the patients had a recovery of ≤7 days, 15.9% between 8 and 15 days and 9.8% > 15 days.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
The neurotoxicity induced by acyclovir and its derivative valacyclovir is a poorly known and rare adverse effect that can occur mainly in patients with advanced age and impaired renal function. The most characteristic symptoms are confusion, altered level of consciousness, hallucinations, agitation and dysarthria. The basis of treatment is the discontinuation of the antiviral, and in some cases, it may require additional clearance by dialysis.
Topics: Acyclovir; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiviral Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Kidney Function Tests; Male; Middle Aged; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Renal Insufficiency; Time Factors; Valacyclovir; Young Adult
PubMed: 34146428
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13464 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Jun 2021SARS-CoV-2, which causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), presents high rates of morbidity and mortality around the world. The search to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
SARS-CoV-2, which causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), presents high rates of morbidity and mortality around the world. The search to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 is ongoing and urgent. This systematic review seeks to assess whether photodynamic therapy (PDT) could be effective in SARS-CoV-2 inactivation.
METHODS
The focus question was: Can photodynamic therapy be used as potential guidance for dealing with SARS-CoV-2?". A literature search, according to PRISMA statements, was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Studies published from January 2004 to June 2020 were analyzed. In vitro and in vivo studies were included that evaluated the effect of PDT mediated by several photosensitizers on RNA and DNA enveloped and non-enveloped viruses.
RESULTS
From 27 selected manuscripts, 26 publications used in vitro studies, 24 were exclusively in vitro, and two had in vitro/in vivo parts. Only one analyzed publication was exclusively in vivo. Meta-analysis studies were unfeasible due to heterogeneity of the data. The risk of bias was analyzed in all studies.
CONCLUSION
The in vitro and in vivo studies selected in this systematic review indicated that PDT is capable of photoinactivating enveloped and non-enveloped DNA and RNA viruses, suggesting that PDT can potentially photoinactivate SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33601001
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102221 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2022Influenza infection poses a severe threat to pregnant mothers, and antiviral treatment is recommended. However, the safety of neuraminidase-inhibitor antiviral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Influenza infection poses a severe threat to pregnant mothers, and antiviral treatment is recommended. However, the safety of neuraminidase-inhibitor antiviral medications during pregnancy has not been well described.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the adverse neonatal outcomes associated with exposure to neuraminidase inhibitors during pregnancy. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify potential studies for inclusion.
RESULTS
Nine cohort studies that estimated adverse neonatal outcomes associated with exposure to neuraminidase-inhibitor medication during pregnancy were included. Exposure to a neuraminidase inhibitor during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.12, P = .341), low Apgar score (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.2, P = .733) or preterm birth (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.09, P = .771) compared with no exposure. However, exposure to a neuraminidase inhibitor was associated with a reduced risk of low birth weight (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92, P = .002) and giving birth to a small-for-gestational-age infant (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88, P < .001). Further analyses limited to oseltamivir exposure were consistent with the overall results.
CONCLUSION
Exposure to neuraminidase-inhibitor medication during pregnancy does not appear to be associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. We recommend further studies to investigate this association, which will help clinicians determine whether to prescribe a neuraminidase inhibitor during pregnancy.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cohort Studies; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Neuraminidase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 34378216
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15033 -
Leukemia Jun 2021Data on the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN)-α for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) are inconsistent. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Data on the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN)-α for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Scopus, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials, and Web of Science from inception through 03/2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-pegylated IFN (non-peg-IFN) in PV and ET patients. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the primary outcome of overall response rate (ORR) defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response (CHR) and partial hematologic response. Peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN were compared by meta-regression analyses. In total, 44 studies with 1359 patients (730 ET, 629 PV) were included. ORR were 80.6% (95% confidence interval: 76.6-84.1%, CHR: 59.0% [51.5%-66.1%]) and 76.7% (67.4-84.0%; CHR: 48.5% [37.8-59.4%]) for ET and PV patients, respectively. In meta-regression analyses results did not differ significantly for non-peg-IFN vs. peg-IFN. Annualized rates of thromboembolic complications and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were low at 1.2% and 8.8% for ET and 0.5% and 6.5% for PV patients, respectively. Both peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN can be effective and safe long-term treatments for ET and PV.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Polycythemia Vera; Thrombocythemia, Essential
PubMed: 32868875
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-01020-4 -
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine... Jun 2022To investigate the and studies of natural compounds and medicinal plants with anti-coronavirus activity.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the and studies of natural compounds and medicinal plants with anti-coronavirus activity.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Animal Research: Reporting of experiments guidelines to find data for medicinal plants and natural products effective against human coronaviruses in or studies. Studies published up to September 6, 2020 were included. Studies ( or ) reporting the effect of medicinal plants and natural products or their derivatives on human coronavirus were included RESULTS: Promising anti-coronavirus effects are seen with different herbal compounds like some diterpenoids, sesquiterpenoids, and three compounds in tea with 3CLpro inhibiting effect of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV); Hirsutenone, Six cinnamic amides and bavachinin are PLpro inhibitors and Tanshinones are active on both 3CLpro and PLpro. Some flavonoid compounds of Citrus fruits act on Immun-oregulation and target angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 which is used by SARS-COV for entry. Virus helicase is possibly inhibited by two compounds myricetin and scutellarein.
CONCLUSION
This review shows that complementary medicine have the potential for new drug discovery against coronavirus. Further research is needed before definitive conclusions can be made concerning the safety and efficacy of the use of these medicinal plants.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Biological Products; Humans; Plants, Medicinal; Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35610002
DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2022.03.002 -
The Journal of Infection May 2023The clinical impact of rapid sample-to-answer "syndromic" multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for respiratory viruses is not clearly established. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The clinical impact of rapid sample-to-answer "syndromic" multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for respiratory viruses is not clearly established. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate this impact for patients with possible acute respiratory tract infection in the hospital setting.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from 2012 to present and conference proceedings from 2021 for studies comparing clinical impact outcomes between multiplex PCR testing and standard testing.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies with 17,321 patient encounters were included in this review. Rapid multiplex PCR testing was associated with a reduction of - 24.22 h (95% CI -28.70 to -19.74 h) in the time to results. Hospital length of stay was decreased by -0.82 days (95% CI -1.52 to -0.11 days). Among influenza positive patients, antivirals were more likely to be given (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.48) and appropriate infection control facility use was more common with rapid multiplex PCR testing (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.07).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates a reduction in time to results and length of stay for patients overall along with improvements in appropriate antiviral and infection control management among influenza-positive patients. This evidence supports the routine use of rapid sample-to-answer multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses in the hospital setting.
Topics: Humans; Influenza, Human; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction; Viruses; Respiratory Tract Infections; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 36906153
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.03.005 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Feb 2022The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the duration of influenza symptoms, and thereby, informing the selection of suitable therapeutic regimens for patients with influenza. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effects of four NAIs administered to patients with influenza and placebo. Relevant studies were found in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Unpublished studies were collected from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and through hand searching. We carried out NWA to compare the different regimens with each other and across subgroups of age and medical status (high-risk patients). A total of 58 two-arm studies were identified. Five regimens were efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in all populations; this efficacy was comparable. No significant improvements were seen in combination therapy groups. The mean difference in the time to alleviation of symptoms ranged from 12.78 to 19.51 h. According to the summarized mean difference and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), peramivir (SUCRA = 82.6%), zanamivir (SUCRA = 64%), and oseltamivir (SUCRA = 55.1%) were the three top-ranking drugs for treating influenza. Zanamivir and peramivir were the preferred pharmacologic intervention among all investigated interventions based on the calculated "value preference of SUCRA." This study is a network meta-analysis to explore the therapeutic effects of NAIs in patients with influenza. Peramivir might be the best choice for reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34840038
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.11.014 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Feb 2022To better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram.
RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg - 10 days) ranked best, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Vomiting; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34323632
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2021.1961579 -
Microbiological Research Jun 2023Innumerable pathogens including RNA viruses have catastrophic pandemic propensity, in turn, SARS-CoV-2 infection is highly contagious. Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants... (Review)
Review
Innumerable pathogens including RNA viruses have catastrophic pandemic propensity, in turn, SARS-CoV-2 infection is highly contagious. Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with high mutation rate additionally codifies infectious ability of virus and arisen clinical imputations to human health. Although, our knowledge of mechanism of virus infection and its impact on host system has been substantially demystified, uncertainties about the emergence of virus are still not fully understood. To date, there are no potentially curative drugs are identified against the viral infection. Even though, drugs are repurposed in the initial period of infection, many are significantly negative in clinical trials. Moreover, the infection is dependent on organ status, co-morbid conditions, variant of virus and geographic region. This review article aims to comprehensively describe the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the impacts in the host cellular system. This review also briefly provides an overview of genome, proteome and metabolome associated risk to infection and the advancement of therapeutics in SARS-CoV-2 infection management.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Antiviral Agents; Mutation Rate
PubMed: 36989761
DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2023.127364