OBJECTIVES: Pioneering research on molecular mechanisms underlying the viral transmission, molecular pathogenicity, and potential treatments will be highlighted in this review. The development of antiviral drugs specific to SARS-CoV-2 is a complicated and tedious process. To accelerate scientific discoveries and advancement, researchers are consolidating available data from associated coronaviruses into a single pipeline, which can be readily made available to vaccine developers.
METHODS: In order to find studies evaluating the COVID-19 virus epidemiology, repurposed drugs and potential vaccines, web searches and bibliographical bases have been used with keywords that matches the content of this review.
RESULTS: The published results of SARS-CoV-2 structures and interactomics have been used to identify potential therapeutic candidates. We illustrate recent publications on SARS-CoV-2, concerning its molecular, epidemiological, and clinical characteristics, and focus on innovative diagnostics technologies in the production pipeline. This objective of this review is to enhance the comprehension of the unique characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and strengthen future control measures.
Lay Summary: An innovative analysis is evaluating the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim is to increase knowledge of possible viral detection methods, which highlights several new technology limitations and advantages. We have assessed some drugs currently for patients (Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Anakinra and Interferon beta 1a), as the feasibility of COVID-19 specific antivirals is not presently known. The study explores the race toward vaccine development and highlights some significant trials and candidates in various clinical phases. This research addresses critical knowledge gaps by identifying repurposed drugs currently under clinical trials. Findings will be fed back rapidly to the researchers interested in COVID 19 and support the evidence and potential of possible therapeutics and small molecules with their mode of action.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of palivizumab in reducing the incidence of RSV hospitalization in children with CF who are younger than 2 years.
METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception until January 31, 2017, for clinical studies investigating the use of palivizumab in infants with CF aged less than 2 years. The primary outcome was hospitalization rate due to RSV infection. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for respiratory illness, length of hospital stay, safety (adverse effects), and cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis.
RESULTS: The review included a total of 10 studies (six cohort studies, two before-and-after studies, one cross-sectional study, and one randomized controlled trial) involving 3891 patients with CF. Seven studies reported that palivizumab prophylaxis had a positive impact on the rate of RSV hospitalization. Five studies (n=3404) reported that palivizumab prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization due to RSV infection compared to no prophylaxis. One study (n=5) demonstrated patients with CF who received palivizumab had no RSV hospitalization. Another study showed infants with CF receiving palivizumab (n=117) had a lower risk of hospitalization for RSV infection compared with premature infants (gestational age < 35 completed weeks) who received palivizumab (n=4880).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the literature suggests that palivizumab may have a potential role in reducing RSV hospitalization in children aged less than 2 years with CF. Given the lack of overall data, additional research is warranted to better understand the efficacy and safety of prophylactic palivizumab in infants with CF.
METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.
METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive HCV patients treated with PegIFN/RBV in 2004 to 2012.
RESULTS: A total of 273 patients received treatment. The mean age was 44.16 ± 10.5 years and 76% were male. The top 2 self-reported risks were blood or blood product transfusion before 1994 and injection drug use, found in 57.1% of patients. The predominant HCV genotype (GT) was 3 at 60.6%, second was GT1 at 36.1% and other GTs were uncommon at about 1% or less. About half of our patients have high baseline viral load (>800,000 iu/ml), 18.3% had liver cirrhosis and 22.3% had HIV co-infection. Co-morbid illness was found in 42.9%, hypertension and type 2 diabetes were the two most common. The overall sustained virological response (SVR) by intention-to-treat analysis were 54.9% (n=150/273), 41.2% (40/97) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 62% (101/163) for GT3. Subgroup analysis for HCV monoinfected, treatment naïve showed SVR of 49.2% (31/63) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 67% (69/103) for GT3. In HCV mono-infected and treatment experienced (n=29), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1, 21.4% (69/103) for GT3. In the HIV/HCV co-infected, treatment naïve (n=56), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1 and 64.3% (27/42) for GT3. Treatment naïve GT3 mono-infected patients had a statistically significant higher SVR compared to treatment experienced patients (P=0.001). In GT3 patients who achieved rapid virological response, the SVR was significantly higher at 85.2% (P< 0.001). The SVR for cirrhotics were low especially for GT1 at 21% (4/19) and 31% (4/13) based on all patients and treatment naïve HCV monoinfected respectively. In GT3 cirrhotics the corresponding SVR were 57.1% (16/28) and 60.9% (14/23). Premature discontinuation rate was 21.2% with the majority due to intolerable adverse events at 12.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: In our routine clinical practice, the HCV patients we treated were young, predominantly of GT3 and many had difficult-to-treat clinical characteristics. The SVR of our patients were below those reported in Asian clinical trials but in keeping with some "real world" data.