-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken. Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Disease Progression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36695483
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014962.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.
METHODS
We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.
MAIN RESULTS
Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Azathioprine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28084646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010369.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Neuraminidase 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 describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.
MAIN RESULTS
We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Drug Evaluation; Enzyme Inhibitors; Europe; Health Status; Humans; Influenza, Human; Japan; Legislation, Drug; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Pneumonia; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United Kingdom; United States; Zanamivir
PubMed: 24718923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Aug 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral loads change rapidly following symptom onset, so to assess antivirals it is important to understand... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral loads change rapidly following symptom onset, so to assess antivirals it is important to understand the natural history and patient factors influencing this. We undertook an individual patient-level meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in humans to describe viral dynamics and estimate the effects of antivirals used to date. This systematic review identified case reports, case series, and clinical trial data from publications between January 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox-PH) regression model of time to viral clearance was fitted to respiratory and stool samples. A simplified four parameter nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME) model was fitted to viral load trajectories in all sampling sites and covariate modeling of respiratory viral dynamics was performed to quantify time-dependent drug effects. Patient-level data from 645 individuals (age 1 month to 100 years) with 6,316 viral loads were extracted. Model-based simulations of viral load trajectories in samples from the upper and lower respiratory tract, stool, blood, urine, ocular secretions, and breast milk were generated. Cox-PH modeling showed longer time to viral clearance in older patients, men, and those with more severe disease. Remdesivir was associated with faster viral clearance (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 9.19, P < 0.001), as well as interferon, particularly when combined with ribavirin (AHR = 2.2, P = 0.015; AHR = 6.04, P = 0.006). Combination therapy should be further investigated. A viral dynamic dataset and NLME model for designing and analyzing antiviral trials has been established.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Adult; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Interferons; Male; Middle Aged; Proportional Hazards Models; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load; Virus Shedding; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33641159
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2223 -
Infection and Drug Resistance 2022Antigen-presenting cells recognize respiratory syncytial virus antigens, and produce cytokines and chemokines that act on immune cells. Dendritic cells play the main... (Review)
Review
Antigen-presenting cells recognize respiratory syncytial virus antigens, and produce cytokines and chemokines that act on immune cells. Dendritic cells play the main role in inflammatory cytokine responses. Similarly, alveolar macrophages produce IFN-β, IFN-α, TNF-α, IL-6, CXCL10, and CCL3, while alternatively activated macrophages differentiate at the late phase, and require IL-13 or IL-4 cytokines. Furthermore, activated NKT cells secrete IL-13 and IL-4 that cause lung epithelial, endothelial and fibroblasts to secrete eotaxin that enhances the recruitment of eosinophil to the lung. CD8 and CD4T cells infection by the virus decreases the IFN-γ and IL-2 production. Despite this, both are involved in terminating virus replication. CD8T cells produce a larger amount of IFN-γ than CD4T cells, and CD8T cells activated under type 2 conditions produce IL-4, down regulating CD8 expression, granzyme and IFN-γ production. Antiviral inhibitors inhibit biological functions of viral proteins. Some of them directly target the virus replication machinery and are effective at later stages of infection; while others inhibit F protein dependent fusion and syncytium formation. TMC353121 reduces inflammatory cytokines, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β and chemokines, KC, IP-10, MCP and MIP1-α. EDP-938 inhibits viral nucleoprotein (N), while GRP-156784 blocks the activity of respiratory syncytial virus ribonucleic acid (RNA) polymerase. PC786 inhibits non-structural protein 1 (NS-1) gene, RANTES transcripts, virus-induced CCL5, IL-6, and mucin increase. In general, it is an immune reaction that is blamed for the disease severity and pathogenesis in respiratory syncytial virus infection. Anti-viral inhibitors not only inhibit viral entry and replication, but also may reduce inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Many respiratory syncytial virus inhibitors are proposed; however, only palivizumab and ribavirin are approved for prophylaxis and treatment, respectively. Hence, this review is focused on immunity cell responses to respiratory syncytial virus and the role of antiviral inhibitors.
PubMed: 36540102
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S387479 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Epidemiological studies have shown that a diet rich in bioactive components significantly reduces cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. In this sense, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Epidemiological studies have shown that a diet rich in bioactive components significantly reduces cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. In this sense, there is a need for meta-analytical research that confirms this phenomenon and increases specific knowledge about certain bioactive compounds such as carotenoids. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to disseminate knowledge about the sources of carotenoids in fruit consumed in the north of Brazil which are outside the Brazilian trade balance. A systematic review and a meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines were conducted based on a random effects synthesis of multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs). Searches of seven sources were carried out, including PubMed, Science Direct from Elsevier, Web of Science, Scielo, Eric Research and Google Scholar databases. The systematic review was guided by a systematic review protocol based on the POT strategy (population, outcome and type of study) adapted for use in this research. Mendeley was a resource used to organize and manage references and exclude duplicates of studies selected for review. In this review, we present the potential bioactive compounds concentrated in little-known fruit species from the Amazon and their benefits. Consuming fruits that are rich in notable constituents such as carotenoids is important for the prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases through anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, as well as antivirals, immunomodulators and antioxidants agents that directly affect the immune response.
Topics: Humans; Antioxidants; Brazil; Carotenoids; Feeding Behavior; Fruit; Cardiovascular Diseases
PubMed: 38792052
DOI: 10.3390/molecules29102190 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2023In Japan, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality and hepatitis C virus infection is a major cause of HCC. We conducted a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Response to antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma occurrence in Japan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
In Japan, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality and hepatitis C virus infection is a major cause of HCC. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies evaluating patient response to antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C on the risk of HCC occurrence in Japan. Articles were searched using terms determined a priori through PubMed, screened by title and abstract, and selected by full-text assessment according to criteria determined a priori, including HCC occurrence in response to interferon (IFN)-based or IFN-free therapy, Japanese study, and 2 or more years of follow-up. We excluded studies on HCC recurrence. We calculated the pooled estimate of the crude incidence rate ratio with data from the selected studies using the person-years method with Poisson regression model and pooled estimate of the hazard ratio adjusted for potential confounders reported by the studies using a random effects model. A total of 26 studies were identified, all of which examined only IFN-based therapy as a result of the selection process. The pooled estimate (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 25 studies was 0.37 (0.33-0.43) for sustained virologic response (SVR) and 1.70 (1.61-1.80) for non-SVR for the HCC incidence rate per 100 person-years, and 0.22 (0.19-0.26) for the incidence rate ratio (SVR vs. non-SVR). The pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (95% CI) of HCC incidence adjusted for potential confounders of 8 studies was 0.25 (0.19-0.34). SVR to interferon therapy for chronic hepatitis C reduces the risk of HCC occurrence.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Japan; Liver Neoplasms; Interferons; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 36859564
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30467-5 -
Viruses Jun 2023About 5% of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients experienced treatment failure with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. The global data on the practice and treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
About 5% of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients experienced treatment failure with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. The global data on the practice and treatment outcomes of Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) in DAA-experienced CHC patients remains sparse. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX as a salvage treatment in DAA-experienced CHC patients. We searched five electronic databases from inception to 31 January 2023. The study outcomes were SVR12 and treatment-related adverse effects, with subgroup analysis performed based on genotype, cirrhosis, HCC, prior SOF/VEL exposure, and region. We identified and analyzed data from 24 studies (2877 DAA-experienced CHC patients); 17.2% had prior SOF/VEL exposure, 25% received ribavirin with SOF/VEL/VOX, and 42% had pre-treatment resistance-associated substitution (RAS) testing performed. Eastern Mediterranean had a higher pooled SVR12 than the America and Europe regions ( < 0.05). Predictors of SOF/VEL/VOX failure were genotype 3, active HCC, baseline cirrhosis, and prior SOF/VEL. Baseline RAS mutation and ribavirin supplementation were not associated with higher SVR12. Treatment discontinuation because of drug-related adverse events was uncommon (10 studies, 0.2%). In summary, SOF/VEL/VOX is efficacious and safe for retreatment in DAA-experienced CHC patients, even with RAS mutation. Our findings support SOF/VEL/VOX as a first-line rescue treatment for DAA-experienced CHC patients.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Sofosbuvir; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Ribavirin; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Sustained Virologic Response; Liver Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Hepatitis C; Genotype; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 37515176
DOI: 10.3390/v15071489 -
Przeglad Gastroenterologiczny 2015Keratins are proteins that form intermediate filaments of epithelial cell cytoskeleton. The utility of keratin expression determination is based on the fact that... (Review)
Review
Keratins are proteins that form intermediate filaments of epithelial cell cytoskeleton. The utility of keratin expression determination is based on the fact that epithelial cells acquire a specific pattern of keratin expression during differentiation and maturation, which reflects the specificity of the tissue and the degree of maturation, and generally remains stable during carcinogenesis. Determination of the pattern makes it possible to identify the origin of cells in diagnosing neoplastic lesions as well as in research on pathophysiology or the possibility to apply keratin-positive cell detection in the process of cancer staging and treatment planning. As keratins undergo degradation during apoptosis as caspase substrate the identification of the caspase-derived K18 fragment by the use of specific monoclonal antibody allows us to estimate the apoptosis/necrosis ratio, especially in liver pathology, e.g. nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic hepatitis or graft-versus-host disease or in assessing response to antiviral or antitumour therapy.
PubMed: 26557935
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2015.51182 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.
Topics: Clinical Deterioration; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36103313
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015391