|
 |
| SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS (ORIGINAL ARTICLE) |
|
|
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 52
| Issue : 4 | Page : 313-323 |
| |
Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis
Anusuya Bhattacharyya1, Subodh Kumar2, Phulen Sarma2, Hardeep Kaur2, Manisha Prajapat2, Nishant Shekhar2, Seema Bansal2, Pramod Avti3, Mythili Hazarika4, Saurabh Sharma2, Dhruv Mahendru2, Ajay Prakash2, Bikash Medhi2
1 Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Biophysics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India
4 Department of Psychiatry, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India
| Date of Submission | 01-Jul-2020 |
| Date of Decision | 07-Sep-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 02-Oct-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 14-Oct-2020 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Bikash Medhi
Department of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijp.IJP_627_20
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).
Keywords: COVID-19, lopinavir, meta-analysis, ritonavirAbbreviations: L/R: Lopinavir + Ritonavir, A: Arbidol, SOC: Standard of care, HCQ: Hydroxy chloroquine, CQ: Chloroquine, IFN: Interferon, ADR: Adverse drug reaction, MD: Mean difference, OR: Odd ratio, COVID-19: Corona virus disease-19, ALT: Alanine aminotransferase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase
How to cite this article:
Bhattacharyya A, Kumar S, Sarma P, Kaur H, Prajapat M, Shekhar N, Bansal S, Avti P, Hazarika M, Sharma S, Mahendru D, Prakash A, Medhi B. Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis. Indian J Pharmacol 2020;52:313-23 |
How to cite this URL:
Bhattacharyya A, Kumar S, Sarma P, Kaur H, Prajapat M, Shekhar N, Bansal S, Avti P, Hazarika M, Sharma S, Mahendru D, Prakash A, Medhi B. Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2023 May 28];52:313-23. Available from: https://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2020/52/4/313/298151 |
| » Introduction | |  |
Human coronaviruses (a total of 7 strains) are frequently implicated in different human diseases.[1] The common four strains of coronaviruses causing human diseases are 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1, of which the first two are Alpha-coronavirus and the latter two are Beta-coronavirus.[2],[3] The other three strains that are responsible for causing serious human disease are SARS-CoV ( first reported in 2003),[4] MERS-CoV (reported in 2012),[5] and SARS-CoV-2[6],[7],[8] (Wuhan, China, in 2019), all three being Beta-coronavirus genera of Orthocoronaviridae subfamily.[2]
The effectiveness of lopinavir–ritonavir (L/R) combination against SARS-CoV was demonstratedin vitro in 2004.[9] Later, these findings were established in clinical studies using historical control (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.076 (0.01–0.589)).[9] The safety and efficacy of L/R combination in SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are already reviewed.[10]
Following the same line, L/R showed good binding affinity in in silico studies against SARS-CoV-2 main protease, which was validated by molecular dynamic (MD) simulation studies.[11] No difference was observed in the binding pattern of L/R to SARS-CoV-2 main protease;[12] however, some studies demonstrated a better binding profile of ritonavir than lopinavir.[13] Inin vitro settings, L/R inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication.[14] On the background of its clinical evidence of efficacy against “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV,” L/R use was recommended as a treatment option for COVID-19,[15] and many regulatory agencies recommended its use, especially during the initial few months of the disease outbreak.[16] Since then, there came a trend of use of this combination in COVID-19, and few randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and observational studies came up evaluating the safety and efficacy of this combination with varied results. While many of the case series showed beneficial effect of L/R combination with regard to virological as well as clinical cure,[17],[18] many reports refuted its treatment efficacy.[19],[20],[21] In this regard, we have conducted this systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis to evaluate the comparative safety as well as efficacy of L/R combination in the present scenario of “COVID-19 pandemic.”
| » Materials and Methods | | |
Recommendations laid down by “Cochrane Community”[22] and “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis” guidelines were followed[23] while conducting this study.
Aim
The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety as well as efficacy of L/R combination therapy in the management of COVID-19.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Studies with the below-mentioned characteristics were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Study design: Comparative, observational/interventional studies and RCTs, which compared L/R combination to either standard of care (SOC)/control or other standard drug/drug combinations, were included. Nonpeer-reviewed articles/studies/preprints were excluded
- Participants: Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients
- Intervention/treatment: L/R
- Control: Symptomatic treatment/SOC/other standard drug.
Exclusion criteria
We excluded case report and series as well as single-group observational studies in our study.
Objectives
- Virological cure
- Mortality
- Clinical worsening/progression/deterioration of disease state during treatment
- Safety/tolerability of the studied drug.
Comparisons
- L/R versus conventional/SOC/control
- L/R versus other antiviral drugs/drug combinations.
Definitions
- Virological cure: Nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the respective biologic fluid[24]
- Progression to severe disease: For our study purpose, “progression of disease” was defined as mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease or in case of severe disease, progressing to critical state requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive), or a higher level of care was considered as “progression of the disease.”
Search strategy and study selection
A total of 10 literature databases were searched namely PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL PLUS, OVID, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, CNKI, and Cochrane CENTRAL Library from interception to September 21, 2020, with appropriate keywords without language restriction. Articles in other languages were translated into English language using an online doc translator.[25] The full text of the relevant articles was further screened using the predefined “inclusion/exclusion criteria” by HK and SK. Any discrepancies were resolved by consulting with BM and PS.
Data extraction
Two authors namely PS and HK separately did the data extraction using “pretested data extraction forms.” “Online doc translator” was used to translate documents in other languages to English.[25]
Risk of bias
For RCT, risk of bias (ROB) was evaluated in accordance with the “Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized control studies.”[22] For observational studies, “Newcastle Ottawa Scale” was used.[26] Three investigators PS, AB, and HK independently evaluated the ROB of all the included studies. For any discrepancy, the issue was solved after consulting BM.
Assessment of heterogeneity and statistical analysis
While estimating the point estimate, for “dichotomous data,” OR/risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as appropriate. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Chi2 statistics.[22] In case of the presence of “significant heterogeneity” >50%), a “random-effect model” was used, otherwise “fixed-effect model” was used to negotiate the effect.[27] “Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3” software (Cochrane community) was used for meta-analysis.[28] Interconversion of the data in different formats was conducted as per the standard methodology.[29]
Exploration of heterogeneity: meta-regression analysis
In case of high heterogeneity, we explored the possible cause of high heterogeneity using meta-regression analysis. Factors that we investigated were sex distribution, age, time from disease onset to treatment initiation, severity of disease, and use of corticosteroids (these factors are known to prolong virological shredding in COVID-19). Analysis was conducted using using SPSS (IBM, New-york)[30] and Metafor[31] package in “R”.
| » Results | | |
Details of included articles
We searched 10 databases with appropriate keywords, and finally, 557 articles were screened with the help of title and abstract using the predefined inclusion–exclusion criteria, among which 40 articles were further screened using full text. A total of 13 studies satisfying predefined “inclusion/exclusion criteria” were included in the final analysis: five[32],[33],[34],[35],[36] were RCTs and rest eight studies[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44] were comparative, observational studies. One of the studies was retracted (retractionwatch.org)[45] and hence was excluded [Figure 1] and [Table 1]. | Figure 1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis flowchart of the study
Click here to view |
Risk of bias
ROB of the included studies (8 observational and 5 RCTs) is shown in [Supplementary Figure 1 [Additional file 1]] and [Supplementary Table 1 [Additional file 2]].
Overall safety and efficacy of lopinavir + ritonavir combination in SARS-CoV-2 (irrespective of disease severity)
Lopinavir + ritonavir combination versus standard treatment/control
A total of six studies[32],[33],[37],[38],[39],[40] evaluated the comparative effectiveness and safety of L/R combination versus SOC/control. The details of therapy in the standard treatment group are given in [Table 1].
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Duration of hospital stay
A total of three studies[32],[37],[38] have reported the duration of hospital stay between L/R and SOC. Treatment with L/R was associated with significant decrease in the duration of hospital stay (MD: −1.466 (−2.403 to − 0.529), I2 = 0%, fixed-effect model) [Figure 2]. | Figure 2: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Duration of hospital stay
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Mortality
Three studies[32],[33],[39] reported comparative mortality between L/R and SOC. No differences were seen among groups (OR: 1.208 (0.563–2.592), I2 = 26.42%) [Figure 3].
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Progression of disease to a more severe state
A total of four studies[32],[33],[37],[39] reported “progression of disease to a more severe state.” No difference was seen between the LR and SOC arm in terms of “progression of disease to a more severe state” (OR: 1.466 (0.722–2.895), I2 = 43.6%) [Figure 4]. | Figure 4: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Progression to severe disease
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: “Virological cure on days 7–10” post-therapy
Three studies[32],[33],[39] reported “virological cure on days 7–10 post therapy.” No difference was noted between the two arms (OR: 0.777 (0.371–1.630), I2 = 23.14%) [Figure 5]. | Figure 5: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Virological cure on days 7–10 posttherapy
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Time to virological cure
Although there was no difference in terms of “virological cure on days 7–10,” when the treatment effect was measured in terms of “time to virological cure,” treatment with L/R was associated with a shorter “time to virological cure” (MD: −3.272 (−6.090 to −0.454)). However, heterogeneity among the included studies was high (I2 = 68.58%) [Figure 6]. | Figure 6: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Time to virological cure
Click here to view |
Meta-regression analysis to evaluate the causes of high heterogeneity in “time to virological cure”
As heterogeneity was high among the included studies (I2 = 68.58%), we tried to explain the heterogeneity with the help of meta-regression. As male sex,[46] age,[37] time from disease onset to treatment initiation,[37] severity of disease, and use of corticosteroids[47] are already reported to prolong the viral shredding, we intended to evaluate the effect of these covariates on the overall result and their contribution to the heterogeneity. However, the number of studies was too less (n = 3) and data were not available for most of the covariates. Hence, as meta-regression was carried out with only variable “difference in percentage of male sex LR-SOC/control,” this variable could not explain the high heterogeneity among the included studies [Figure 7] and [Table 2]. | Figure 7: Result of meta-regression (variable percentage difference in male sex lopinavir + ritonavir-standard of care)
Click here to view |
 | Table 2: Result of meta-regression (variable percentage difference in male sex lopinavir + ritonavir-standard of care)
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus standard of care: Safety
L/R combination was associated with higher incidence of diarrhea (2 studies, OR: 11.44; 95% CI 1.45–90.21, I2 = 0%, fixed effect); however, no difference was seen in terms of other adverse effects, e.g., loss of appetite (2 studies, OR: 5.97; 95% CI: 0.71–49.96, I2 = 0%, fixed effect), elevation of Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (5 studies, OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21–1.36, I2 = 0%, fixed effect), elevation of Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (5 studies, OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.52–1.63, I2 = 0%, fixed effect), and occurrence of serious adverse effect (2 studies, OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.29–1.04, I2 = 0%, fixed effect) [Supplementary Figure 2 [Additional file 3]].
Other adverse effects that are reported in both the arms with no difference in between were occurrence of thrombocytopenia, prolonged QT, sleep disturbance, neutropenia, rash, leukopenia, lymphopenia, anemia, and abdominal discomfort. However, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and increased bilirubin was higher in the L/R group as compared to the standard treatment group (single study[32]).
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Efficacy and safety evaluation
A total of three studies[39],[42],[43] reported comparative efficacy and safety of L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Virological cure
No difference was observed between the L/R and HCQ group in terms of number of patients showing “virological cure” (three studies, OR: 2.266 (0.964–5.329), I2 = 0%) [Figure 8]. | Figure 8: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Virological cure
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Time to virological cure:
In the study by Kim et al., 2020,[42] “time to negative conversion” of viral RNA was shorter in the L/R arm (median 21 days) compared to the HCQ group (median 28 days) and the difference was statistically significant. However, no difference was noted by Karolyi et al., 2020.[43]
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Duration of hospital stay
Karolyi et al., 2020[43] did not find any difference between the L/R and HCQ arm in terms of length of hospital stay among the survivors.
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Progression to severe disease during therapy
Karolyi et al., 2020[43] reported that 12.8% of the patients in the L/R arm required admission to intensive care unit (ICU), while only 20% of the patients in the HCQ arm required ICU admission. Again, 4.3% of patients in the L/R arm required mechanical ventilation, while 10% of patients in the HCQ arm required mechanical ventilation and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to both of these parameters.
Similarly, in the study by Lecronier et al., 2020[39] also, no difference was observed between both the arms with regard to “requirement of ICU during therapy, “treatment escalation after day 1 until day 28,” and ventilator-free days at day 28.
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Mortality
No difference was observed in the L/R versus HCQ group in terms of mortality (3 studies, OR: 0.701 (0.276–1.777), I2 = 0%) [Figure 9].
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: Safety
Although the occurrence of any adverse events was higher in the L/R arm, there was no difference in terms of “occurrence of serious adverse events” and “occurrence of diarrhea.” Data are shown in [Supplementary Figure 3 [Additional file 4]]. Other adverse effects noted in both the arms are increase in liver enzymes, thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, lymphopenia, neutropenia, skin rash, etc.
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus chloroquine
In one limited sample sized RCT,[34] chloroquine (CQ) administration was associated with better virological cure and the percentage of patients becoming “SARS-CoV-2 negative” were slightly higher (day 7, 10, and 14). Again, by day 9 post-therapy, 60% of the patients in the CQ group achieved radiological lung clearance compared to 25% in the L/R group. Although vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, rash, cough, and shortness of breath were reported, there were no serious adverse events and none of the patients required withdrawal and overall CQ was well tolerated.[34]
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus arbidol: Efficacy and safety assessment
A total of three studies[33],[41],[48] compared L/R combination to arbidol.
Lopinavir + ritonavir vs. arbidol: Virological cure
In terms of “virological cure on day 14,” no significant difference was seen between two groups and favors arbidol groups compared to L/R group (2 studies, OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.01–2.89, I2 = 66%, random effect) [Figure 10]. | Figure 10: Lopinavir + ritonavir versus arbidol: virological cure on day 14
Click here to view |
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus arbidol: Progression to severe disease
As documented by Li et al., 2020,[49] 8/34 (23.52%) in the L/R arm and 3/35 (8.57%) in the arbidol group progressed to severe/critical clinical status; however, this difference in proportions was not statistically significant. Two patients in the L/R arm required mechanical ventilation.
Lopinavir + ritonavir versus arbidol: Safety
Three studies reported ALT elevation between the two arms, however no difference was seen in the incidence of ALT elevation (3 studies, OR: 2.18; 95% CI: 0.31–15.43, I2 = 66%, random effect). Other reported adverse effects are nausea, diarrhea, and loss of appetite; however, no difference was seen in the incidence of occurrence of these adverse effects between the two arms. No difference was observed in the occurrence of serious adverse drug reaction (ADRs) between the two arms [Supplementary Figure 4 [Additional file 5]].
Comparative efficacy and safety of lopinavir + ritonavir + arbidol versus Arbidol monotherapy
In a single retrospective study[44], the use of L/R + arbidol (A) combination therapy was associated with better virological clearance on day 7 (75% in L/R + A group compared to 35% in the A group, P < 0.05) and on day 14 (94% in L/R + A group compared to 52.9% in the A group, P < 0.05). Again, the number of patients showing radiologic improvement was more in the L/R + A group compared to the arbidol monotherapy group (69% vs. 29%, P < 0.05).
Efficacy of lopinavir + ritonavir + interferon-alpha combination therapy
In a retrospective study by Zuo et al., 2020,[50] after adjusting for multiple factors, they found that treatment with L/R + interferon (IFN)-alpha therapy was associated with a shorter duration of viral shredding (other treatment arms were L/R monotherapy and L/R + IFN-alpha + arbidol).
Comparative efficacy of lopinavir + ritonavir + interferon-alpha, lopinavir + ritonavir + interferon-alpha + ribavirin, and ribavirin versus interferon-alpha
A single randomized open-labeled prospective study[35] has evaluated the comparative antiviral effectiveness of these three regimens. Although there was no difference in terms of efficacy between these three arms, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was significantly higher when L/R and ribavirin were coadministered.
Lopinavir + ritonavir + interferon-1-beta (triple antiviral therapy) versus lopinavir + ritonavir: comparative safety and efficacy
A Phase 2 open-label RCT[36] found that early triple antiviral therapy was superior to L/R alone in terms of shortening the “time to virological cure” and alleviating the clinical symptoms. Another important point in this study was that the median time from symptom onset to initiation of treatment was 5 days.
| » Discussion | | |
At present, when mankind is in dire need of safe and effective therapeutics against COVID-19, every possible option is being tested in different evaluation platforms. Owing to its therapeutic efficacy in SARS-CoV, L/R was one of the first agents being tried against SARS-CoV-2. Both these drugs belong to the class “protease inhibitors,” which are active against human immune deficiency virus protease (HIV protease). Lopinavir is prescribed in combination with low-dose ritonavir[51] in which ritonavir acts as a pharmacokinetic enhancer.[52] Ritonavir inhibits CYP450-mediated metabolism of other protease inhibitors,[52] thus enabling better bioavailability, requirement of reduced dose, and decreased frequency of dosing of the second protease inhibitor. In addition, ritonavir also protects the second protease inhibitor from intestinal first-pass metabolism.[52] Another possible benefit of ritonavir boosting is the inhibition of p-glycoprotein and multidrug resistance protein-1 and 2-mediated efflux of protease inhibitors from the intestinal epithelial cells.[52] Ritonavir boosting also increases the therapeutically active unbound fraction of the second protease inhibitor by the saturation of protein binding sites.[53],[54] Protease in SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role in the life cycle of the virus owing to its role in the cleavage of polyproteins and subsequent release of nonstructural proteins. Although L/R combination came out to be good binders against SARS-CoV-2 protease and showed inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV-2 activity invitro, clinical efficacy is not established. In this meta-analysis, we are trying to find out an answer regarding the efficacy and safety of this combination and rationale of using this combination in COVID-19.
In our study, compared to SOC, significant lower “duration of hospital stay” was observed in L/R-treated group. Interestingly the direction of effect of all the three included trials was in the same direction. However, no significant difference in “progression to more severe state” and “mortality” was found in between the groups. Regarding “virological cure on days 7–10,” although no difference was found in L/R versus SOC, significant difference was found favoring L/R group in terms of “time to virological cure.” Regarding adverse effects, except the incidence of diarrhea which was higher in the L/R group, no difference was found in other adverse effects. However, few issues complicate the interpretation, e.g., treatment in the standard treatment arm varied among different studies and it ranged from the standard of care,[32] adjuvant/symptomatic treatment,[38],[40] to no antiviral[49] and no L/R.[55] Again, the baseline viral RNA copies were higher in the study by Cao et al., 2020[32] (4.4 ± 2 in the L/R group and 3.7 ± 2.1 in the standard care group). Another point of importance is that Yan et al., 2020[55] found that the administration of L/R within 10 days of initiation of symptom was associated with a shortening of the duration of viral shedding. However, in the study by Cao et al., 2020, the median time from onset of disease to randomization was 13 days (11–16 days). However, in the study by Li et al., 2020,[49] it was 3.5 days (2–6) in the L/R group and 5 days (2–8) in the control group. Ye et al., 2020[40] and Shi et al., 2020[38] did not mention time from onset of disease to time of the start of treatment. Yan et al., 2020[55] mentioned old age as a potential risk factor for prolonged viral RNA shredding even after adjusting for other potential confounders (sex, comorbidity, and drug use). In this regard, the median age of the population in the study by Cao et al. was 58 years (interquartile range 49–68 years), in the study by Ye et al. age of the study population ranged from 5- 68 years (n=9 under 30 years and n=38 above 30 years and interestingly in this study, use of L/R showed clinical benefit), Shi et al. (mean age 48.7 ± 15 year), and Li et al. (age 50 ± 15.4 year in L/R group and 44.3 year (range 27–62 years) in the control or standard treatment group). These issues can be addressed in further clinical trials.
While comparing L/R vs. HCQ, no significant difference was seen between two arms in terms of “virological cure,” but “shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA'' was found in the L/R arm (single study[42]) although another study found no significant difference.[43] Similarly, no added advantage was seen in terms of “duration of hospital stay” and “progression to severe disease” during treatment period[39],[43] and mortality.[39],[42],[43] To summarize, no difference was observed in terms of efficacy between the L/R combination and HCQ therapy. On the other hand, CQ therapy was associated with better virological cure and percentage negative SARS-CoV-2 conversion as compared to L/R combination although reported by single RCT.[34]
No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol (monotherapy) in terms of virological cure on day 14 (2 studies) and “progressed to severe/critical clinical status.” Regarding adverse event, both arbidol monotherapy and L/R combination showed no significant difference (ALT elevation, nausea, diarrhea, and loss of appetite). No difference was observed in the occurrence of serious ADRs between the two arms. However, L/R + arbidol combination showed significant protection in terms of “virological clearance” and “radiological improvement.” However, data are from a single study. Although very little literature is there showing effectiveness of L/R + IFN-α and L/R + IFN-1β-based triple therapy regimen; however, there is only one study each against each of these comparisons. We need more data on it, whether it is the sole effect size of IFN or there is a synergistic effect.
Limitation
The limitations of the present study are that there was not even a single double-blinded high-quality RCT. Most of the study comparisons are based upon observational studies, which typically provide low quality of evidence. Again, in most of the studies, gap from symptom onset to initiation of treatment highly varies among the studies. Again, few comparisons comprised only one/very few studies.
| » Conclusion | | |
Although no difference was found in terms of “mortality,” “progression of disease to a more severe state,” and “virological cure on days 7–10,” L/R therapy showed some benefit in terms of decreasing “time to virological clearance” and decreased the “duration of hospitalization.” Efficacy of HCQ and L/R is comparable. CQ may be better in terms of efficacy compared to L/R; however, findings are limited by single study. No difference is observed between safety and efficacy of L/R combination and arbidol monotherapy. 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 + IFN (either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Another issue that complicates the situation is that, in most of the studies, treatment was initiated late, whereas early initiation of L/R may be associated with better outcomes. These issues need to be clarified in future trials. Again, most of the included studies are observational studies imparting a low level of evidence in the evidence-based grading process.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge Mr. Umesh Sarma and Mrs. Hiran Devi for their support.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| » References | | |
| 1. | Prajapat M, Sarma P, Shekhar N, Prakash A, Avti P, Bhattacharyya A, et al. Update on the target structures of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review. Indian J Pharmacol 2020;52:142-9.  [Full text] |
| 2. | Prajapat M, Sarma P, Shekhar N, Avti P, Sinha S, Kaur H, et al. Drug targets for corona virus: A systematic review. Indian J Pharmacol 2020;52:56-65. |
| 3. | Sarma P, Shekhar N, Prajapat M, Avti P, Kaur H, Kumar S, et al. In-silico homology assisted identification of inhibitor of RNA binding against 2019-nCoV N-protein ( N terminal domain). J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2020 May 18:1-9. |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. | Sarma P, Kaur H, Medhi B, Bhattacharyya A. Possible prophylactic or preventive role of topical povidone iodine during accidental ocular exposure to 2019-nCoV. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020 May 20:1–3. |
| 7. | Prajapat M, Shekhar N, Sarma P, Avti P, Singh S, Kaur H, et al. Virtual screening and molecular dynamics study of approved drugs as inhibitors of spike protein S1 domain and ACE2 interaction in SARS-CoV-2. J Mol Graph Model. 2020 Aug 21;101:107716. |
| 8. | Shekhar N, Sarma P, Prajapat M, Avti P, Kaur H, Raja A, et al. In Silico Structure-Based Repositioning of Approved Drugs for Spike Glycoprotein S2 Domain Fusion Peptide of SARS-CoV-2: Rationale from Molecular Dynamics and Binding Free Energy Calculations. mSystems. 2020 Sep 22;5(5):e00382-20. |
| 9. | Chu CM, Cheng VC, Hung IF, Wong MM, Chan KH, Chan KS, et al. Role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of SARS: Initial virological and clinical findings. Thorax 2004;59:252-6. |
| 10. | Yao TT, Qian JD, Zhu WY, Wang Y, Wang GQ. A systematic review of lopinavir therapy for SARS coronavirus and MERS coronavirus-A possible reference for coronavirus disease-19 treatment option. J Med Virol 2020;92:556-63. |
| 11. | Pant S, Singh M, Ravichandiran V, Murty USN, Srivastava HK. Peptide-like and small-molecule inhibitors against Covid-19. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2020 May 6:1-10. |
| 12. | Nukoolkarn V, Lee VS, Malaisree M, Aruksakulwong O, Hannongbua S. Molecular dynamic simulations analysis of ritonavir and lopinavir as SARS-CoV 3CL (pro) inhibitors. J Theor Biol 2008;254:861-7. |
| 13. | Nutho B, Mahalapbutr P, Hengphasatporn K, Pattaranggoon NC, Simanon N, Shigeta Y, et al. Why are lopinavir and ritonavir effective against the newly emerged coronavirus 2019? Atomistic insights into the inhibitory mechanisms. Biochemistry 2020;59:1769-79. |
| 14. | Choy KT, Wong AY, Kaewpreedee P, Sia SF, Chen D, Hui KPY, et al. Remdesivir, lopinavir, emetine, and homoharringtonine inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro. Antiviral Res. 2020 Jun;178:104786. |
| 15. | Sarma P, Prajapat M, Avti P, Kaur H, Kumar S, Medhi B. Therapeutic options for the treatment of 2019-novel coronavirus: An evidence-based approach. Indian J Pharmacol 2020;52:1-5. [Full text] |
| 16. | Bhatnagar T, Murhekar MV, Soneja M, Gupta N, Giri S, Wig N, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir combination therapy amongst symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 patients in India: Protocol for restricted public health emergency use. Indian J Med Res 2020;151:184-9. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 17. | Liu F, Xu A, Zhang Y, Xuan W, Yan T, Pan K, et al. Patients of COVID-19 may benefit from sustained Lopinavir-combined regimen and the increase of Eosinophil may predict the outcome of COVID-19 progression. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:183-91. |
| 18. | Wang Z, Chen X, Lu Y, Chen F, Zhang W. Clinical characteristics and therapeutic procedure for four cases with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia receiving combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment. Biosci Trends 2020;14:64-8. |
| 19. | Cheng CY, Lee YL, Chen CP, Lin YC, Liu CE, Liao CH, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir did not shorten the duration of SARS CoV-2 shedding in patients with mild pneumonia in Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Jun;53(3):488-492. |
| 20. | Young BE, Ong SW, Kalimuddin S, Low JG, Tan SY, Loh J, et al. Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA 2020;323:1488-94. |
| 21. | Feng Z, Li J, Yao S, Yu Q, Zhou W, Mao X, et al. The Use of Adjuvant Therapy in Preventing Progression to Severe Pneumonia in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Multicenter Data Analysis. medRxiv 2020;2020.04.08.20057539. |
| 22. | Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available from: http://handbook. [Last accessed 2018 Dec 07]. |
| 23. | |
| 24. | Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Jul;56(1):105949. |
| 25. | Free Online Document Translator Preserves your Document's Layout (Word, PDF, Excel, Powerpoint, Open Office, text). Online Doc Translator. Available from: https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/. [Last accessed on 2020 May 02]. |
| 26. | |
| 27. | Sarma P, Kaur H, Kumar H, Mahendru D, Avti P, Bhattacharyya A, et al. Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):776-785. |
| 28. | |
| 29. | Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:135. |
| 30. | |
| 31. | |
| 32. | Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, Liu W, Wang J, Fan G, et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1787-99. |
| 33. | Li Y, Xie Z, Lin W, Cai W, Wen C, Guan Y, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir or Arbidol in Adult Patients with Mild/Moderate COVID-19: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial. Med ( N Y). 2020 May 19. |
| 34. | Huang M, Tang T, Pang P, Li M, Ma R, Lu J, et al. Treating COVID-19 with chloroquine. J Mol Cell Biol 2020;12:322-5. |
| 35. | Huang YQ, Tang SQ, Xu XL, Zeng YM, He XQ, Li Y, et al. No statistically apparent difference in antiviral effectiveness observed among ribavirin plus interferon-alpha, lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon-alpha, and ribavirin plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon-alpha in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: Results of a randomized, open-labeled prospective study. Front Pharmacol 2020;11:1071. |
| 36. | Hung IF, Lung KC, Tso EY, Liu R, Chung TW, Chu MY, et al. Triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: An open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2020;395:1695-704. |
| 37. | Yan D, Liu XY, Zhu YN, Huang L, Dan BT, Zhang GJ, et al. Factors associated with prolonged viral shedding and impact of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in hospitalised non-critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eur Respir J. 2020 Jul 16;56(1):2000799. |
| 38. | Shi X, Lu Y, Li R, Tang Y, Shi N, Song F, et al. Evaluation of antiviral therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Shanghai, China. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 16:10.1002/jmv.25893. |
| 39. | Lecronier M, Beurton A, Burrel S, Haudebourg L, Deleris R, Le Marec J, et al. Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: An opportunistic retrospective analysis. Crit Care 2020;24:418. |
| 40. | Ye XT, Luo YL, Xia SC, Sun QF, Ding JG, Zhou Y, et al. Clinical efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020;24:3390-6. |
| 41. | Zhu Z, Lu Z, Xu T, Chen C, Yang G, Zha T, et al. Arbidol monotherapy is superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19. J Infect 2020;81:e21-e23. |
| 42. | Kim JW, Kim EJ, Kwon HH, Jung CY, Kim KC, Choe JY, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019. Korean J Intern Med. 2020 Jun 16. |
| 43. | Karolyi M, Pawelka E, Mader T, Omid S, Kelani H, Ely S et al. Hydroxychloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir in severe COVID-19 patients : Results from a real-life patient cohort. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2020 Aug 10:1–8. |
| 44. | Deng L, Li C, Zeng Q, Liu X, Li X, Zhang H, et al. Arbidol combined with LPV/r versus LPV/r alone against Corona Virus Disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study. J Infect 2020;81:e1-5. |
| 45. | Cai Q, Yang M, Liu D, Chen J, Shu D, Xia J, et al. Experimental Treatment with Favipiravir for COVID-19: An Open-Label Control Study. Engineering (Beijing). 2020 Mar 18. |
| 46. | Xu K, Chen Y, Yuan J, Yi P, Ding C, Wu W, et al. Factors associated with prolonged viral RNA shedding in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:799-806. |
| 47. | |
| 48. | Shi X, Lu Y, Li R, Tang Y, Shi N, Song F et al. Evaluation of antiviral therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Shanghai, China. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 16:10.1002/jmv.25893. |
| 49. | Li Y, Xie Z, Lin W, Cai W, Wen C, Guan Y, et al. An exploratory randomized controlled study on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol treating adult patients hospitalized with mild/moderate COVID-19 (ELACOI). MedRxiv 2020;2020.03.19.20038984. |
| 50. | Zuo Y, Liu Y, Zhong Q, Zhang K, Xu Y, Wang Z, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon combination therapy may help shorten the duration of viral shedding in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective study in two designated hospitals in Anhui, China. J Med Virol. 2020 Jun 3:10.1002/jmv.26127. |
| 51. | xsOldfield V, Plosker GL. Lopinavir/ritonavir: A review of its use in the management of HIV infection. Drugs 2006;66:1275-99. |
| 52. | Hull MW, Montaner JS. Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV therapy. Ann Med 2011;43:375-88. |
| 53. | Zeldin RK, Petruschke RA. Pharmacological and therapeutic properties of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor therapy in HIV-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:4-9. |
| 54. | Feng W, Li Q, Wang W, Zhao T, Feng Y, Li F, et al. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of chromium malate and its influence on trace metals absorption after oral or intravenous administration. Indian J Pharmacol 2018;50:75-83. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 55. | Yan D, Liu XY, Zhu YN, Huang L, Dan BT, Zhang GJ, et al. Factors associated with prolonged viral shedding and impact of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in hospitalised non-critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eur Respir J. 2020 Jul 16;56(1):2000799. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]
[Table 1], [Table 2]
|
