RESUMEN
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 nosocomial transmission to patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) has occurred throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) seemed particularly risky, and policies have restricted their use in all settings. We examined the prevalence of aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 in the rooms of COVID-19 patients requiring AGP or supplemental oxygen compared to those on room air. MethodsSamples were collected prospectively near to adults hospitalised with COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in the UK from November 2020 - October 2021. The Sartorius MD8 AirPort air sampler was used to collect air samples at a minimum distance of 1.5 meters from patients. RT-qPCR was used following overnight incubation of membranes in culture media and extraction. ResultsWe collected 219 samples from patients rooms: individuals on room air (n=67), receiving oxygen (n=65) or AGP (n=67). Of these, 54 (24.6%) samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. The highest prevalence was identified in the air around patients receiving oxygen (32.3%, n=21, CI95% 22.2 to 44.3%) with AGP and room air recording prevalence of (20.7%, n=18, CI95% 14.1 - 33.7%) and (22.3%, n=15, CI95% 13.5 - 30.4%) respectively. We did not detect a significant difference in the observed frequency of viral RNA between interventions. InterpretationSARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected in the air of hospital rooms of COVID-19 patients, and AGPs did not appear to impact the likelihood of viral RNA. Enhanced respiratory protection and appropriate infection prevention and control measures are required to be fully and carefully implemented for all COVID-19 patients to reduce risk of aerosol transmission.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo conduct a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy evaluation of professionally taken anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection using rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). MethodsNP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing and paired AN and NP swabs for the antigen detection were collected from symptomatic participants enrolled at a community drive-through COVID-19 test centre in Liverpool. Two Ag-RDT brands were evaluated: Sure-Status (PMC, India) and Biocredit (RapiGEN, South Korea). The visual read out of the Ag-RDT test band was quantitative scored and the 50% and 95% limit of detection (LoD) of both Ag-RDT brands using AN and NP swabs was calculated using a probabilistic logistic regression model. ResultsA total of 604 participants were recruited of which 241 (40.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity and specificity of AN swabs was equivalent to the obtained with NP swabs: 83.2% (75.2-89.4%) and 98.8% (96.5-99.6%) utilising NP swabs and 84.0% (76.2-90.1%) and 99.2% (97.0-99.8%) with AN swabs for Sure-Status and; 81.2% (73.1-87.7%) and 99.0% (94.7-86.5%) with NP swabs and 79.5% (71.3-86.3%) and 100% (96.5-100%) with AN swabs for Biocredit. The agreement of the AN and NP swabs was high for both brands with an inter-rater relatability ({kappa}) of 0.918 and 0.833 for Sure-Status and Biocredit, respectively. The overall 50% LoD and 95% LoD was 0.9-2.4 x 104 and 3.0-3.2 x 108 RNA copies/mL for NP swabs and 0.3-1.1 x 105 and 0.7-7.9 x 107 RNA copies/mL and for AN swabs with no significant difference on LoD for any of the swabs types or test brands. Quantitative read-out of test line intensity was more often higher when using NP swabs with significantly higher scores for both Ag-RDT brands. Conclusionsthe diagnostic accuracy of the two SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs brands evaluated in this study was equivalent using AN swabs than NP swabs. However, test line intensity was lower when using AN swabs which could influence negatively the interpretation of the Ag-RDT results for lay users. Studies on Ag-RDT self-interpretation using AN and NP swabs are needed to ensure accurate test use in the wider community.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVESTo investigate the potential of shared sporting equipment as transmission vectors of SARS-CoV-2 during the reintroduction of sports such as soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf and gymnastics. SETTINGLaboratory based live SARS-CoV-2 virus study INTERVENTIONSTen different types of sporting equipment were inoculated with 40l droplets containing clinically relevant high and low concentrations of live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Materials were then swabbed at time points relevant to sports (1, 5, 15, 30, 90 minutes). The amount of live SARS-CoV-2 recovered at each time point was enumerated using viral plaque assays, and viral decay and half-life was estimated through fitting linear models to log transformed data from each material. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREThe primary outcome measure was quantification of retrievable SARS-CoV-2 virus from each piece of equipment at pre-determined time points. RESULTSAt one minute, SARS-CoV-2 virus was recovered in only seven of the ten types of equipment with the low dose inoculum, one at five minutes and none at 15 minutes. Retrievable virus dropped significantly for all materials tested using the high dose inoculum with mean recovery of virus falling to 0.74% at 1 minute, 0.39% at 15 minutes and 0.003% at 90 minutes. Viral recovery, predicted decay, and half-life varied between materials with porous surfaces limiting virus transmission. CONCLUSIONSThis study shows that there is an exponential reduction in SARS-CoV-2 recoverable from a range of sports equipment after a short time period, and virus is less transferrable from materials such as a tennis ball, red cricket ball and cricket glove. Given this rapid loss of viral load and the fact that transmission requires a significant inoculum to be transferred from equipment to the mucous membranes of another individual it seems unlikely that sports equipment is a major cause for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. These findings have important policy implications in the context of the pandemic and may promote other infection control measures in sports to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and urge sports equipment manufacturers to identify surfaces that may or may not be likely to retain transferable virus. O_TEXTBOXWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICO_LITransmission of SARS-CoV-2 between individuals playing sport may be via respiratory droplets when in close proximity to an infected person. C_LIO_LISARS-CoV-2 remains viable on a variety of surfaces resulting in recommendations to reduce the sharing of sports equipment such as tennis balls when sports were re-opened. C_LI WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSO_LIThe recoverable SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduces exponentially with mean viral load of all materials less than 1% of the original inoculum after 1 minute. C_LIO_LIThe type of material has a significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 transfer, with less virus transferred from porous materials such as bovine leather or nylon woven cloth. C_LIO_LIPolicies on infection control measures in sport may be better directed towards areas other than reducing the sharing of sports equipment. C_LIO_LISports equipment manufacturers may consider using materials that absorb or retain virus as a way of reducing viral transmission from sports equipment. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
RESUMEN
A key element for the prevention and management of COVID-19 is the development of effective therapeutics. Drug combination strategies of repurposed drugs offer several advantages over monotherapies, including the potential to achieve greater efficacy, the potential to increase the therapeutic index of drugs and the potential to reduce the emergence of drug resistance. Here, we report on the in vitro synergistic interaction between two FDA approved drugs, remdesivir and ivermectin resulting in enhanced antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. These findings warrant further investigations into the clinical potential of this combination, together with studies to define the underlying mechanism.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation and urgent treatment and prevention strategies are needed. Many clinical trials have been initiated with existing medications, but assessments of the expected plasma and lung exposures at the selected doses have not featured in the prioritisation process. Although no antiviral data is currently available for the major phenolic circulating metabolite of nitazoxanide (known as tizoxanide), the parent ester drug has been shown to exhibit in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Nitazoxanide is an anthelmintic drug and its metabolite tizoxanide has been described to have broad antiviral activity against influenza and other coronaviruses. The present study used physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling to inform optimal doses of nitazoxanide capable of maintaining plasma and lung tizoxanide exposures above the reported nitazoxanide 90% effective concentration (EC90) against SARS-CoV-2. MethodsA whole-body PBPK model was constructed for oral administration of nitazoxanide and validated against available tizoxanide pharmacokinetic data for healthy individuals receiving single doses between 500 mg - 4000 mg with and without food. Additional validation against multiple-dose pharmacokinetic data when given with food was conducted. The validated model was then used to predict alternative doses expected to maintain tizoxanide plasma and lung concentrations over the reported nitazoxanide EC90 in >90% of the simulated population. Optimal design software PopDes was used to estimate an optimal sparse sampling strategy for future clinical trials. ResultsThe PBPK model was validated with AAFE values between 1.01 - 1.58 and a difference less than 2-fold between observed and simulated values for all the reported clinical doses. The model predicted optimal doses of 1200 mg QID, 1600 mg TID, 2900 mg BID in the fasted state and 700 mg QID, 900 mg TID and 1400 mg BID when given with food, to provide tizoxanide plasma and lung concentrations over the reported in vitro EC90 of nitazoxanide against SARS-CoV-2. For BID regimens an optimal sparse sampling strategy of 0.25, 1, 3 and 12h post dose was estimated. ConclusionThe PBPK model predicted that it was possible to achieve plasma and lung tizoxanide concentrations, using proven safe doses of nitazoxanide, that exceed the EC90 for SARS-CoV-2. The PBPK model describing tizoxanide plasma pharmacokinetics after oral administration of nitazoxanide was successfully validated against clinical data. This dose prediction assumes that the tizoxanide metabolite has activity against SARS-CoV-2 similar to that reported for nitazoxanide, as has been reported for other viruses. The model and the reported dosing strategies provide a rational basis for the design (optimising plasma and lung exposures) of future clinical trials of nitazoxanide in the treatment or prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESUMEN
Chloroquine has attracted intense attention as a potential clinical candidate for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 based on reports of in-vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. While the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) relationship of chloroquine is well established for malaria, there is sparse information regarding its dose-effect relationship in the context of COVID-19. Here, we explore the PK-PD relationship of chloroquine for COVID-19 by modelling both achievable systemic and pulmonary drug concentrations. Our data indicate that the standard anti-malarial treatment dose of 25mg/kg over three days does not deliver sufficient systemic drug exposures for the inhibition of viral replication. In contrast, PK predictions of chloroquine in the lungs using in-vivo data or human physiologically-based PK models, suggest that doses as low as 3mg/kg/day for 3 days could deliver exposures that are significantly higher than reported antiviral-EC90s for up to a week. Moreover, if pulmonary exposure is a driver for prevention, simulations show that chronic daily dosing of chloroquine may be unnecessary for prophylaxis purposes. Instead, once weekly doses of 5mg/kg would be sufficient to achieve a continuous cover of therapeutically active pulmonary exposures. These findings reveal a highly compartmentalised distribution of chloroquine in man that may significantly affect its therapeutic potential against COVID-19. The systemic circulation is shown as one site where chloroquine exposure is insufficient to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication. However, if therapeutic activity is driven by pulmonary exposure, it should be possible to reduce the chloroquine dose to safe levels. Carefully designed randomized controlled trials are urgently required to address these outstanding issues.
RESUMEN
There is a rapidly expanding literature on the in vitro antiviral activity of drugs that may be repurposed for therapy or chemoprophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2. However, this has not been accompanied by a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of these drugs to achieve target plasma and lung concentrations following approved dosing in humans. Moreover, most publications have focussed on 50% maximum effective concentrations (EC50), which may be an insufficiently robust indicator of antiviral activity because of marked differences in the slope of the concentration-response curve between drugs. Accordingly, in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity data was digitised from all available publications up to 13th April 2020 and used to recalculate an EC90 value for each drug. EC90 values were then expressed as a ratio to the achievable maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) reported for each drug after administration of the approved dose to humans (Cmax/EC90 ratio). Only 14 of the 56 analysed drugs achieved a Cmax/EC90 ratio above 1 meaning that plasma Cmax concentrations exceeded those necessary to inhibit 90% of SARS-CoV-2 replication. A more in-depth assessment of the putative agents tested demonstrated that only nitazoxanide, nelfinavir, tipranavir (boosted with ritonavir) and sulfadoxine achieved plasma concentrations above their reported anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity across their entire approved dosing interval at their approved human dose. For all drugs reported, the unbound lung to plasma tissue partition coefficient (KpUlung) was also simulated and used along with reported Cmax and fraction unbound in plasma to derive a lung Cmax/EC50 as a better indicator of potential human efficacy (lung Cmax/EC90 ratio was also calculable for a limited number of drugs). Using this parameter hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, mefloquine, atazanavir (boosted with ritonavir), tipranavir (boosted with ritonavir), ivermectin, azithromycin and lopinavir (boosted with ritonavir) were all predicted to achieve lung concentrations over 10-fold higher than their reported EC50. This analysis was not possible for nelfinavir because insufficient data were available to calculate KpUlung but nitozoxanide and sulfadoxine were also predicted to exceed their reported EC50 by 3.1- and 1.5-fold in lung, respectively. The antiviral activity data reported to date have been acquired under different laboratory conditions across multiple groups, applying variable levels of stringency. However, this analysis may be used to select potential candidates for further clinical testing, while deprioritising compounds which are unlikely to attain target concentrations for antiviral activity. Future studies should focus on EC90 values and discuss findings in the context of achievable exposures in humans, especially within target compartments such as the lung, in order to maximise the potential for success of proposed human clinical trials.