Search

Background: Being protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination., Materials and Methods: Comparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria., Results: No discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC., Conclusion: In our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each)., Competing Interests: None

Following the demonstration of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro, many trials started to evaluate its efficacy in clinical settings. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis have addressed the issue of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the objectives of evaluation of safety and efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination in terms of "time to clinical cure," "virological cure," "death or clinical worsening of disease," "radiological progression," and safety. RevMan was used for meta-analysis. We searched 16 literature databases out of which seven studies (n = 1358) were included in the systematic review. In terms of clinical cure, two studies reported possible benefit in "time to body temperature normalization" and one study reported less "cough days" in the HCQ arm. Treatment with HCQ resulted in less number of cases showing the radiological progression of lung disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.9). No difference was observed in virological cure (OR, 2.37, 95% CI, 0.13-44.53), death or clinical worsening of disease (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.37-21.97), and safety (OR, 2.19, 95% CI, 0.59-8.18), when compared with the control/conventional treatment. Five studies reported either the safety or efficacy of HCQ + azithromycin. Although seems safe and effective, more data are required for a definitive conclusion. HCQ seems to be promising in terms of less number of cases with radiological progression with a comparable safety profile to control/conventional treatment. We need more data to come to a definite conclusion., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Knowledge of structural details is very much essential from the drug-design perspective. In the systematic review, we systematically reviewed the structural basis of different target proteins of SARS-corona virus (CoV2) from a viral life cycle and from drug design perspective. We searched four literature (PubMed, EMBASE, NATURE, and Willey online library) databases and one structural database (RCSB.org) with appropriate keywords till April 18, and finally, 26 articles were included in the systematic review. The published literature mainly centered upon the structural details of "spike protein," "main protease/M Pro/3CL pro," "RNA-dependent RNA polymerase," and "nonstructural protein 15 Endoribonuclease" of SARS-CoV-2. However, inhibitor bound structures were very less. We need better structures elucidating the interactions between different targets and their inhibitors which will help us in understanding the atomic level importance of different amino acid residues in the functionality of the target structures. To summarize, we need structures with fine resolution, co-crystallized structures with biologically validated inhibitors, and functional characterization of different target proteins. Some other routes of entry of SARS-CoV-2 are also mentioned (e.g., CD147); however, these findings are not structurally validated. This review may pave way for better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 life cycle from structural biology perspective., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Pharmacology.)

The 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV) is a major source of disaster in the 21 th century. However, the lack of specific drugs to prevent/treat an attack is a major need at this current point of time. In this regard, we conducted a systematic review to identify major druggable targets in coronavirus (CoV). We searched PubMed and RCSB database with keywords HCoV, NCoV, corona virus, SERS-CoV, MERS-CoV, 2019-nCoV, crystal structure, X-ray crystallography structure, NMR structure, target, and drug target till Feb 3, 2020. The search identified seven major targets (spike protein, envelop protein, membrane protein, protease, nucleocapsid protein, hemagglutinin esterase, and helicase) for which drug design can be considered. There are other 16 nonstructural proteins (NSPs), which can also be considered from the drug design perspective. The major structural proteins and NSPs may serve an important role from drug design perspectives. However, the occurrence of frequent recombination events is a major deterrent factor toward the development of CoV-specific vaccines/drugs., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Pharmacology.)