Showing papers on "Lopinavir/ritonavir published in 2021"

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019.

Abstract: Background/aims The efficacies of lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare the virological and clinical responses to lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine at a single center in Korea from February 17 to March 31, 2020. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine concurrently and those treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine for less than 7 days were excluded. Time to negative conversion of viral RNA, time to clinical improvement, and safety outcomes were assessed after 6 weeks of follow-up. Results Of 65 patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 25 men [38.5%]), 31 were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and 34 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The median duration of symptoms before treatment was 7 days and 26 patients (40%) required oxygen support at baseline. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir had a significantly shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA than those treated with hydroxychloroquine (median, 21 days vs. 28 days). Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 4.21) and younger age (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.87) was associated with negative conversion of viral RNA. There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between lopinavir-ritonavir- and hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (median, 18 days vs. 21 days). Lymphopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were more frequent in lopinavir-ritonavir-treated patients compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients. Conclusion Lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with more rapid viral clearance than hydroxychloroquine in mild to moderate COVID-19, despite comparable clinical responses. These findings should be confirmed in randomized, controlled trials.

Lopinavir/ritonavir: repurposing an old drug for HIV infection in COVID-19 treatment

Abstract: Currently, there is no specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. However, drugs previously developed to treat other viral infections are being tested to verify if they might also be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Twenty years ago, the F.D.A. approved Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to treat HIV infection. LPV and ritonavir were initially purposed to inhibit 3-chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV and preliminary promising data on its efficacy for treating people infected with those viruses were available. Therefore, due to the high genetic similarities among those viruses and SARS-CoV-2, early during COVID-19 pandemic LPV/r was also proposed as one emergency treatment. We reviewed data from the literature about LPV/r treatment and SARS-CoV-2 infection, mainly focused on the efficacy and safety of this drugs for COVID-19 treatment. We can conclude that although up to date no clear benefit has been observed with the LPV/r treatment beyond standard care, its efficacy against SARS-COV-2 infection deserves further evaluations, particularly during the very early phase of the disease.

Effectiveness of Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Favipiravir for COVID-19 Treatment: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain that causes acute respiratory illnesses known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, there is limited information regarding the therapeutic management for this disease. Several studies have stated that antivirals drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir may potentially inhibit the virus from spreading to the host. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical effectiveness and safety of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir on COVID-19. Methods The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2021 to identify eligible experimental randomized controlled trials on remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 patients. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Results From 158 references, 15 studies were included in the review. The results showed that remdesivir has some potential benefits for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, as seen from clinical improvements such as faster recovery time, less duration of hospitalization, and fewer respiratory side effects among COVID-19 patients. However, the impact of remdesivir in reducing mortality remains uncertain. Treatment with favipiravir has shown promising improvement in the clinical status of COVID-19 patients, although the results suggested no significant differences in some clinical parameters such as length of hospitalizations and clinical recovery. A combination of favipiravir with other supportive therapy showed more favorable outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients reported no significant clinical improvement compared to standard care with notable adverse effect reactions. Conclusion This study provides an overview of the evidence-based role of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in the management of COVID-19. A thorough assessment of the benefit-risk profile in COVID-19 patients is urgently needed. The current review was based on very limited available data; therefore, further well-designed clinical trials are required.

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early pandemic period. It is well-known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients treated with these drugs. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%-18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%-14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56-4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16-9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

Lopinavir-Ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Drug-Drug Interactions with Cardioactive Medications.

Abstract: Lopinavir-ritonavir combination is being used for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A low dose of ritonavir is added to other protease inhibitors to take advantage of potent inhibition of cytochrome (CYP) P450 3A4, thereby significantly increasing the plasma concentration of coadministered lopinavir. Ritonavir also inhibits CYP2D6 and induces CYP2B6, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, and CYP1A2. This potent, time-dependent interference of major hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes by ritonavir leads to several clinically important drug-drug interactions. A number of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure may have SARS-CoV-2 infection simultaneously. Lopinavir-ritonavir is added to their prescription of multiple cardiac medications leading to potential drug-drug interactions. Many cardiology, pulmonology, and intensivist physicians have never been exposed to clinical scenarios requiring co-prescription of cardiac and antiviral therapies. Therefore, it is essential to enumerate these drug-drug interactions, to avoid any serious drug toxicity, to consider alternate and safer drugs, and to ensure better patient care.

Hydroxychloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir in severe COVID-19 patients : Results from a real-life patient cohort.

Abstract: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a high mortality. To date no trial comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) has been performed. Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were treated with either HCQ or LPV/RTV if they had either respiratory insufficiency (SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air or the need for oxygen insufflation) or bilateral consolidations on chest X‑ray and at least 2 comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. Outcomes investigated included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) negativity and side effects of treatment. Of 156 patients (41% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 55.25–81) admitted to our department, 67 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 received HCQ, 47 LPV/RTV). Groups were comparable regarding most baseline characteristics. Median time from symptom onset to treatment initiation was 8 days and was similar between the groups (p = 0.727). There was no significant difference (HCQ vs. LPV/RTV) in hospital mortality (15% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.418), ICU admission rate (20% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.470) and length of stay (9 days vs. 11 days, p = 0.340). A PCR negativity from nasopharyngeal swabs was observed in approximately two thirds of patients in both groups. Side effects led to treatment discontinuation in 15% of patients in the LPV/RTV group. No statistically significant differences were observed in outcome parameters in patients treated with HCQ or LPV/RTV but patients in the LPV/RTV group showed a numerically lower hospital mortality rate. Additionally, in comparison to other studies we demonstrated a lower mortality in patients treated with LPV/RTV despite having similar patient groups, perhaps due to early initiation of treatment.

Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Compared With Standard Care for Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly discovered multi-organ disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Currently, there are no official guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir is a licensed antiviral treatment against HIV and has shown activity against other coronaviruses. OBJECTIVE In this study, we review the evidence of the use of lopinavir/ritonavir as a potential treatment candidate against COVID-19. METHODS This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020182067). A systematic search of the literature for the observational and randomized controlled trial was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar through May 2nd, 2020. Two reviewers were independently searched and selected. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Jadad scale, Newcastle- Ottawa Quality assessment tool, and the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. RESULTS A total of 1,965 articles were screened, from which 6 articles were selected. Of 6 articles that were included in this study, 4 reported no significant benefit in clinical improvement with lopinavir/ ritonavir when compared to standard care of treatment, while 2 studies reported otherwise. Lopinavir/ritonavir was also not associated with a reduction of 28-day mortality rate as reported by 1 included study. Most included studies reported gastrointestinal symptoms as side effects from lopinavir/ritonavir therapy. CONCLUSION There is not yet enough evidence to support the regular use of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Further clinical trials are needed to evaluate lopinavir/ritonavir's efficacy in treatment.

Lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with pneumonia resolution in COVID-19 patients with influenza coinfection: A retrospective matched-pair cohort study.

Abstract: During the early stages of the pandemic, some coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients were misdiagnosed as having influenza, which aroused the concern that some deaths attributed to influenza were actually COVID-19-related However, little is known about whether coinfection with influenza contributes to severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, and the optimal therapeutic strategy for these patients We retrospectively studied 128 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia All patients were positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive by nucleic acid detection Sixty-four cases were coinfected with influenza A/B and the other 64 were influenza negative, matched by age, sex, and days from onset of symptoms Among the 64 coinfected patients, 54 (844%) were coinfected with influenza A, and 10 (156%) with influenza B The median duration of viral shedding time from admission was longer for patients with influenza coinfection (170 days) than for those without influenza coinfection (120 days) (P < 001) The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that the hazards ratio of resolution in lung involvement was 1878 (P = 020) for patients administered lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those not administered lopinavir/ritonavir (95% confidence interval: 1103-3196) Among influenza coinfected patients, those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir exhibited faster pneumonia resolution within 2 weeks after symptom onset (37% vs 1%; P = 001) There was no difference in lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups Lopinavir/ritonavir eliminated the difference of lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups, indicating that lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with pneumonia resolution in COVID-19

Early administration of lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine does not alter the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort study.

Abstract: As it has been shown that lopinavir (LPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have in vitro activity against coronaviruses, they were used to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the epidemic in Lombardy, Italy. To compare the rate of clinical improvement between those who started LPV/ritonavir (LPV/r)+HCQ within 5 days of symptom onset (early treatment, ET) and those who started later (delayed treatment, DT). This was a retrospective intent-to-treat analysis of the hospitalized patients who started LPV/r + HCQ between 21 February and 20 March 2020. The association between the timing of treatment and the probability of 30-day mortality was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic models. The study involved 172 patients: 43 (25%) in the ET and 129 (75%) in the DT group. The rate of clinical improvement increased over time to 73.3% on day 30, without any significant difference between the two groups (Gray's test P = .213). After adjusting for potentially relevant clinical variables, there was no significant association between the timing of the start of treatment and the probability of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] ET vs DT = 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.50-4.19). Eight percent of the patients discontinued the treatment becausebecause of severe gastrointestinal disorders attributable to LPV/r. The timing of the start of LPV/r + HCQ treatment does not seem to affect the clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Together with the severe adverse events attributable to LPV/r, this raises concerns about the benefit of using this combination to treat COVID-19.

Observational study of the effects of Favipiravir vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir on clinical outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19.

Abstract: What is known and objectives In November 2019, several patients were diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. So far, there are no specific treatments with proven high efficacy in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Presently, several drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, ribavirin, favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), remdesivir and oseltamivir, have been suggested as effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical experience with FPV and LPV/r in critically ill patients with COVID-19 at Sakarya University Education and Research Hospital. Methods The study included 107 consecutive patients who had a laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 19 March and 19 May 2020. Follow-up continued through 30 May 2020 when the last observed patients were discharged. Results and discussion Of the 107 patients, 65 received FPV (Group FPV) and 42 received LPV/r (Group LPV/r). The two groups were similar in terms of demographic data and clinical findings. 43 (66.2%) of the 65 patients in the FPV group and 23 (54.8%) of the 42 patients in the LPV/r group died (p = 0.237). The median ICU stay was 6.6 (IQR, 3-10) days in the FPV group and 9 (IQR, 6-16) days in the LPV/r group, which was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.010). What is new and conclusion The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the FVP group compared to the LPV/r group among patients who were discharged from the ICU. Although the analysis was done with a limited number of patients and the observed difference in mortality rate is of some concern, FVP treatment may be more beneficial than LPV/r in terms of effective use in the ICU.

Combination of (interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin) versus favipiravir in hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19: A cohort study.

Abstract: Objectives Our study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of IFN-based therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon β-1b) vs. favipiravir (FPV) in a cohort of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19. Methods Single center observational study comparing IFN-based therapy (interferon β-1b, ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) vs. FPV in non-critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allocation to either treatment group was non-random but based on changes to national treatment protocols rather than physicians’ selection (quasi-experimental). We examined the association between IFN-based therapy and 28-day mortality using Cox regression model with treatment as a time-dependent covariate. Results The study cohort included 222 patients, of whom 68 (28%) received IFN-based therapy. Antiviral therapy was started at a median of 5 days (3–6 days) from symptoms onset in the IFN group vs. 6 days (4–7 days) for the FPV group, P <0.0001. IFN-based therapy was associated with a lower 28-day mortality as compared to FPV (6 (9%) vs. 18 (12%)), adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] (95% Cl) = 0.27 (0.08–0.88)). No difference in hospitalization duration between the 2 groups, 9 (7–14) days vs. 9 (7–13) days, P = 0.732 was found. IFN treated group required less use of systemic corticosteroids (57%) as compared to FPV (77%), P = 0.005 after adjusting for disease severity and other confounders. Patients in the IFN treated group were more likely to have nausea and diarrhea as compared to FPV group (13%) vs. (3%), P = 0.013 and (18%) vs. (3%), P<0.0001, respectively. Conclusion Early IFN-based triple therapy was associated with lower 28-days mortality as compared to FPV.

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir in Covid-19 patients.

Abstract: To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir boosted by ritonavir in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) patients. Concentrations of lopinavir/ritonavir were assayed by an accredited LC-MS/MS method. The population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir was described using non-linear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM version 7.4). After determination of the base model that better described the data set, the influence of covariates (age, body weight, height, body mass index (BMI), gender, creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), C reactive protein (CRP), and trough ritonavir concentrations) was tested on the model. From 13 hospitalized patients (4 females, 9 males, age = 64 ± 16 years), 70 lopinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The data were best described by a one-compartment model with a first-order input (KA). Among the covariates tested on the PK parameters, only the ritonavir trough concentrations had a significant effect on CL/F and improved the fit. Model-based simulations with the final parameter estimates under a regimen lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg b.i.d. showed a high variability with median concentration between 20 and 30 mg/L (Cmin/Cmax) and the 90% prediction intervals within the range 1–100 mg/L. According to the estimated 50% effective concentration of lopinavir against SARS-CoV-2 virus in Vero E6 cells (16.7 mg/L), our model showed that at steady state, a dose of 400 mg b.i.d. led to 40% of patients below the minimum effective concentration while a dose of 1200 mg b.i.d. will reduce this proportion to 22%.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Darunavir/Cobicistat in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Findings From the Multicenter Italian CORIST Study

Abstract: Background: Protease inhibitors have been considered as possible therapeutic agents for COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To describe the association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) use and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Study Design: Multicenter observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted in 33 Italian hospitals. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were retrospectively divided in three groups, according to use of LPV/r, DRV/c or none of them. Primary outcome in a time-to event analysis was death. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting by multinomial propensity scores. Results: Out of 3,451 patients, 33.3% LPV/r and 13.9% received DRV/c. Patients receiving LPV/r or DRV/c were more likely younger, men, had higher C-reactive protein levels while less likely had hypertension, cardiovascular, pulmonary or kidney disease. After adjustment for propensity scores, LPV/r use was not associated with mortality (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), whereas treatment with DRV/c was associated with a higher death risk (HR = 1.89, 1.53 to 2.34, E-value = 2.43). This increased risk was more marked in women, in elderly, in patients with higher severity of COVID-19 and in patients receiving other COVID-19 drugs. Conclusions: In a large cohort of Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-life setting, the use of LPV/r treatment did not change death rate, while DRV/c was associated with increased mortality. Within the limits of an observational study, these data do not support the use of LPV/r or DRV/c in COVID-19 patients.

Drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19: a disproportionality analysis of U.S. food and drug administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS) data.

Abstract: Background Liver injury has been documented independently in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Objective to investigate the drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir among the patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted a disproportionality analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between 2020Q1 and 2021Q1 to evaluate the association between lopinavir-ritonavir and risk of drug-induced liver injury (or severe drug-induced liver injury) and calculated their reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 3,425 cases of drug-induced liver injury were reported in 19,782 patients with COVID-19. The ROR for drug-induced liver injury was 2.99 (2.59-3.46), 3.16 (2.68-3.73), and 5.39 (4.63-6.26) when comparing lopinavir-ritonavir with all other drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only, and remdesivir, respectively. For severe drug-induced liver injury, RORs for lopinavir-ritonavir provided evidence of an association compared with all other drugs (3.98; 3.15-5.05), compared with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only (5.33; 4.09-6.94), and compared with remdesivir (3.85; 3.03-4.89). Conclusions In the FAERS, we observed a disproportional signal for drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

Antiviral Therapeutic Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review.

Abstract: Due to the lack of an etiologic treatment for SARS-CoV-2 and the difficulties involved in developing new drugs, some drugs already approved for other diseases or with efficacy against SARS and MERS, have been used in patients with COVID-19. This systematic review aims to summarize evidence on the efficacy and safety of five antivirals applied to patients with COVID-19, that have proven to be effective either in vitro studies or in studies on SARS-CoV and MERS.; An intensive search of different databases (Pub Med, WoS, MEDLINE and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) has been carried out until the end of April 2021. This systematic review has been conducted according to the PRISMA statement. From each of the included studies, the characteristics of the intervention and comparison groups, demographic data and results were extracted independently; Remdesivir is well tolerated and helps to accelerate clinical improvement but is ineffective in reducing mortality. Favipiravir is safe and shows promising results regarding symptom resolution but does not improve viral clearance. The use of lopinavir/ritonavir has been associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events and it has not proven to be effective. No significant differences were observed between patients treated with ribavirin or umifenovir and their respective control groups; Remdesivir and favipiravir are well tolerated and effective in accelerating clinical improvement. This systematic review does not support the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin and umifenovir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir for COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract: -- Purpose: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned medRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3). Results: Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed significantly lower efficacy than arbidol for primary outcomes (P 0.05). Conclusion: Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents in COVID-19 patients.

Early antiviral treatment in outpatients with COVID-19 (FLARE): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Abstract: The objective of this trial is to assess whether early antiviral therapy in outpatients with COVID-19 with either favipiravir plus lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir alone, or favipiravir alone, is associated with a decrease in viral load of SARS-CoV-2 compared with placebo. FLARE is a phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2x2 factorial placebo-controlled, interventional trial. This trial is being conducted in the United Kingdom, with Royal Free Hospital, London as the lead site. Participants are non-hospitalised adults with highly suspected COVID-19 within the first 5 days of symptom onset, or who have tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 within the first 7 days of symptom onset, or who are asymptomatic but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for the first time within the last 48 hours. Inclusion criteria are as follows: Exclusion criteria are as follows: *Considering the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 to impact viral load, the absence of known chronic liver/ kidney disease will be confirmed verbally by the participant during pre-screening and Screening/Baseline visit. Safety blood samples will be collected at Screening/Baseline visit (Day 1) and test results will be examined as soon as they become available and within 24 hours. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process into one of the following four arms: Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. The primary outcome is upper respiratory tract viral load at Day 5. Secondary outcomes: Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process, with the following factors: trial site, age (≤ 55 vs > 55 years old), gender, obesity (BMI <30 vs ≥30), symptomatic or asymptomatic, current smoking status (Yes = current smoker, No = ex-smoker, never smoker), ethnicity (Caucasian, other) and presence or absence of comorbidity (defined as diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (including previous myocardial infarction), other heart disease (arrhythmia and valvular heart disease), asthma, COPD, other chronic respiratory disease). Participants and investigators will both be blinded to treatment allocation (double-blind). 240 participants, 60 in each arm. Protocol version 4.0 dated 7th January 2021. Date of first enrolment: October 2020. Recruitment is ongoing, with anticipated finish date of 31st March 2021. The FLARE trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, trial identifying number NCT04499677 , date of registration 4th August 2020. The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.

Abstract: Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a Drug Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Azithromycin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Doxycycline, and Azithromycin-Hydroxychloroquine for Patients Diagnosed with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infections.

Abstract: Background At the present time, COVID-19 vaccines are at the testing stage, and an effective treatment for COVID-19 incorporating appropriate safety measures remains the most significant obstacle to be overcome A strategic countermeasure is, therefore, urgently required Aim This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir-azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir-doxycycline, and azithromycin-hydroxychloroquine used to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections Setting and Design This study was conducted at four different clinical study sites in Indonesia The subjects gave informed consent for their participation and were confirmed as being COVID-19-positive by means of an RT-PCR test The present study constituted a randomized, double-blind, and multicenter clinical study of patients diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection Materials and Methods Six treatment groups participated in this study: a Control group administered with a 500 mg dose of azithromycin; Group A which received a 200/50 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 500 mg of azithromycin; Group B treated with a 200/50 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 200 mg of doxycycline; Group C administered with 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine and 500 mg of azithromycin; Group D which received a 400/100 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 500 mg of azithromycin; and Group E treated with a 400/100 mg dose of lopinavir/ritonavir and 200 mg of doxycycline Results 754 subjects participated in this study: 694 patients (924%) who presented mild symptoms and 57 patients (76%) classified as suffering from a moderate case of COVID-19 On the third day after treatment, 917%-992% of the subjects in Groups A-E were confirmed negative by a PCR swab test compared to 269% in the Control group Observation of all groups which experienced a significant decrease in virus load between day 1 and day 7 was undertaken Other markers, such as CRP and IL-6, were significantly lower in all treatment groups (p < 005 and p < 00001) than in the Control group Furthermore, IL-10 and TNF-α levels were significantly elevated in all treatment groups (p < 00001) The administration of azithromycin to the Control group increased CRP and IL-6 levels, while reduced IL-10 and TNF-α on day 7 (p < 00001) compared with day 1 Decreases in ALT and AST levels were observed in all groups (p < 00001) There was an increase in creatinine in the serum level of the Control, C, D, and E groups (p < 005), whereas the BUN level was elevated in all groups (p < 00001) Conclusions The study findings suggest that the administration of lopinavir/ritonavir-doxycycline, lopinavir/ritonavir-azithromycin, and azithromycin-hydroxychloroquine as a dual drug combination produced a significantly rapid PCR conversion rate to negative in three-day treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 cases Further studies should involve observation of older patients with severe clinical symptoms in order to collate significant amounts of demographic data

High Dose Lopinavir/Ritonavir Does Not Lead to Sufficient Plasma Levels to Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Abstract: Background: Despite lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) demonstrating in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, large trials failed to show any net clinical benefit. Since SARS-CoV-2 has an EC50 of 16.4 μg/ml for LPV this could be due to inadequate dosing. Methods: COVID-19 positive patients admitted to the hospital who received high dose LPV/RTV were included. High dose (HD) LPV/RTV 200/50 mg was defined as four tablets bid as loading dose, then three tablets bid for up to 10 days. Trough plasma concentrations were measured after the loading dose and on day 5–7 in steady state (SS). Post loading dose (PLD) and SS plasma trough levels were compared with SS trough levels from COVID-19 patients who received normal dose (ND) LPV/RTV (2 tablets bid) at the beginning of the pandemic. Results: Fifty patients (30% female) with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range 49–70.25) received HD LPV/RTV. Median HD-PLD concentration was 24.9 μg/ml (IQR 15.8–30.3) and significantly higher than HD-SS (12.9 μg/ml, IQR 7.2–19.5, p < 0.001) and ND-SS (13.6 μg/ml, IQR 10.1–22.2, p = 0.013). HD-SS and ND-SS plasma levels did not differ significantly (p = 0.507). C-reactive-protein showed a positive correlation with HD-SS (Spearman correlation-coefficient rS = 0.42, p = 0.014) and ND-SS (rS = 0.81, p = 0.015) but not with HD-PLD (rS = 0.123, p = 0.43). Conclusion: HD-PLD plasma trough concentration was significantly higher than HD-SS and ND-SS concentration, but no difference was detected between HD-SS and ND-SS trough levels. Due to the high EC50 of SARS-CoV-2 and the fact that LPV/RTV is highly protein bound, it seems unlikely that LPV/RTV exhibits a relevant antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 in vivo.

Comparing the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.