25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.

          Design

          Systematic review.

          Eligibility

          Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.

          Data source

          PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020–28 September 2022).

          Risk of bias

          Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.

          Data analysis

          Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.

          Results

          In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I 2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I 2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.

          Conclusions

          Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42021292797.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

              Abstract Background The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in Wuhan (China) and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late-phase in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK) were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen whilst considering the drug’s safety profile. Results Hydroxychloroquine (EC50=0.72 μM) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50=5.47 μM) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached three times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                bmjresp
                bmjopenrespres
                BMJ Open Respiratory Research
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2052-4439
                2023
                28 August 2023
                28 August 2023
                : 10
                : 1
                : e001674
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentUnit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology & Economics, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy , Ringgold_3647University of Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Ringgold_26082Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]departmentVirology and Immunology Research Group, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention , Ringgold_10173University Medical Centre , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention , Ringgold_10173University Medical Centre Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology , Ringgold_10173University Medical Centre , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [6 ]departmentGroningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD , Ringgold_10173University Medical Centre , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Epidemiology , Ringgold_10173University Medical Centre , Groningen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Guiling Zhou; g.zhou@ 123456rug.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1872-0084
                Article
                bmjresp-2023-001674
                10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001674
                10462970
                37640510
                9f64671c-9123-4c3d-a5c4-b13658e2c0ee
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 February 2023
                : 31 July 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: China Scholarship Council (CSC);
                Award ID: 202107720033
                Categories
                Respiratory Infection
                1506
                2474
                2229
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                free

                covid-19,respiratory infection
                covid-19, respiratory infection

                Comments

                Comment on this article