Delandre Océane, Gendrot Mathieu, Jardot Priscilla, Le Bideau Marion, Boxberger Manon, Boschi Céline, Fonta Isabelle, Mosnier Joel, Hutter Sébastien, Levasseur Anthony, La Scola Bernard, Pradines Bruno
Unité Parasitologie et Entomologie, Département Microbiologie et Maladies Infectieuses, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées, 13005 Marseille, France.
Aix Marseille University, IRD, SSA, AP-HM, VITROME, 13005 Marseille, France.
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022 Apr 2;15(4):445. doi: 10.3390/ph15040445.
Over the past two years, several variants of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged and spread all over the world. However, infectivity, clinical severity, re-infection, virulence, transmissibility, vaccine responses and escape, and epidemiological aspects have differed between SARS-CoV-2 variants. Currently, very few treatments are recommended against SARS-CoV-2. Identification of effective drugs among repurposing FDA-approved drugs is a rapid, efficient and low-cost strategy against SARS-CoV-2. One of those drugs is ivermectin. Ivermectin is an antihelminthic agent that previously showed in vitro effects against a SARS-CoV-2 isolate (Australia/VI01/2020 isolate) with an IC of around 2 µM. We evaluated the in vitro activity of ivermectin on Vero E6 cells infected with 30 clinically isolated SARS-CoV-2 strains belonging to 14 different variants, and particularly 17 strains belonging to six variants of concern (VOC) (variants related to Wuhan, alpha, beta, gamma, delta and omicron). The in vitro activity of ivermectin was compared to those of chloroquine and remdesivir. Unlike chloroquine (EC from 4.3 ± 2.5 to 29.3 ± 5.2 µM) or remdesivir (EC from 0.4 ± 0.3 to 25.2 ± 9.4 µM), ivermectin showed a relatively homogeneous in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the strains or variants (EC from 5.1 ± 0.5 to 6.7 ± 0.4 µM), except for one omicron strain (EC = 1.3 ± 0.5 µM). Ivermectin (No. EC = 219, mean EC = 5.7 ± 1.0 µM) was, overall, more potent in vitro than chloroquine (No. EC = 214, mean EC = 16.1 ± 9.0 µM) ( = 1.3 × 10) and remdesivir (No. EC = 201, mean EC = 11.9 ± 10.0 µM) ( = 1.6 × 10). These results should be interpreted with caution regarding the potential use of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients: it is difficult to translate in vitro study results into actual clinical treatment in patients.
在过去两年中,严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)的几种变体出现并在全球传播。然而,SARS-CoV-2变体在传染性、临床严重程度、再感染、毒力、传播性、疫苗反应与逃逸以及流行病学方面存在差异。目前,针对SARS-CoV-2推荐的治疗方法非常少。在重新利用美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的药物中鉴定有效药物是一种针对SARS-CoV-2的快速、高效且低成本的策略。其中一种药物是伊维菌素。伊维菌素是一种抗蠕虫药物,此前显示在体外对一株SARS-CoV-2分离株(澳大利亚/VI01/2020分离株)有作用,半数抑制浓度(IC)约为2µM。我们评估了伊维菌素对感染30株临床分离的SARS-CoV-2毒株的Vero E6细胞的体外活性,这些毒株属于14种不同变体,特别是属于六种值得关注的变体(VOC)(与武汉、阿尔法、贝塔、伽马、德尔塔和奥密克戎相关的变体)的17株毒株。将伊维菌素的体外活性与氯喹和瑞德西韦的体外活性进行了比较。与氯喹(半数有效浓度(EC)为4.3±2.5至29.3±5.2µM)或瑞德西韦(EC为0.4±0.3至25.2±9.4µM)不同,伊维菌素对SARS-CoV-2显示出相对均匀的体外活性,无论毒株或变体如何(EC为5.1±0.5至6.7±0.4µM),除了一株奥密克戎毒株(EC = 1.3±0.5µM)。总体而言,伊维菌素(有效浓度数量(No. EC)= 219,平均EC = 5.7±1.0µM)在体外比氯喹(No. EC = 214,平均EC = 16.1±9.0µM)(P = 1.3×10⁻⁵)和瑞德西韦(No. EC = 201,平均EC = 11.9±10.0µM)(P = 1.6×10⁻⁵)更有效。关于伊维菌素在SARS-CoV-2感染患者中的潜在用途,这些结果应谨慎解读:很难将体外研究结果转化为患者的实际临床治疗。