Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India.
Indian J Pharmacol. 2020 Jul-Aug;52(4):313-323. doi: 10.4103/ijp.IJP_627_20.
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.
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.
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.
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).
洛匹那韦/利托那韦(L/R)组合作为蛋白酶抑制剂,由于其在 SARS-CoV 中的疗效,正被用于 COVID-19 的治疗。在本系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们评估了 L/R 组合的相对安全性和疗效。
纳入了比较、观察性研究和对照临床试验,这些研究比较了 L/R 组合与标准治疗(SOC)/对照或任何其他抗病毒药物/组合。共检索了 10 个数据库,确定了符合预先设定的纳入/排除标准的 13 项研究。
与 SOC/对照相比,L/R 组在“向更严重状态进展”(4 项研究,优势比[OR]:1.446[0.722-2.895])、“死亡率”(3 项研究,OR:1.208[0.563-2.592])和“第 7-10 天病毒学治愈”(3 项研究,OR:0.777[0.371-1.630])方面未观察到明显的有益效果,而 L/R 组合组在“住院时间”(3 项研究,均数差[MD]:-1.466[-2.403 至-0.529])和“病毒学治愈时间”(3 项研究,MD:-3.272[-6.090 至-0.454])方面优于 SOC/对照。L/R 与羟氯喹(HCQ)和 L/R 与阿比多尔相比,疗效无差异。然而,在一项单中心随机对照试验(开放标签)中,氯喹(CQ)的疗效优于 L/R。L/R 联合阿比多尔可能有益(在病毒学清除和影像学改善方面);然而,我们需要更多的专门研究。单独的研究报告了 L/R 联合干扰素(IFN,无论是α还是 1-β)联合治疗的疗效。我们需要更多的研究来阐明适当的疗效大小。关于不良反应,除了腹泻(L/R 组发生率较高)外,安全性与 SOC 相当。
在本研究中,L/R 联合组与 SOC 组在“向更严重状态进展”、“死亡率”和第 7-10 天的病毒学治愈方面无差异;然而,在“住院时间”和“病毒学治愈时间”方面观察到一些益处。与阿比多尔和 HCQ 单药治疗相比,L/R 疗效无显著差异。除了腹泻发生率较高(L/R 组)外,L/R 的安全性与 SOC 相当。与 L/R 联合相比,CQ、L/R+阿比多尔、L/R+IFN-α和 L/R+IFN-1β显示出更好的疗效,但由于研究数量有限(每项研究 1 项),这些发现的外部有效性受到限制。