4.7 Review

Role of favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 501-508

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.069

关键词

Anti-viral; Clinical guidelines; In vitro; Viral clearance; Pharmacokinetic

资金

  1. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (Mumbai, India)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Favipiravir has shown promising results in clinical studies worldwide, demonstrating potential efficacy against COVID-19, and is being included in treatment protocols by multiple countries.
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak all over the world has led the researchers to strive to develop drugs or vaccines to prevent or halt the progression of this ailment. To hasten the treatment process, repurposed drugs are being evaluated. Favipiravir is one such oral drug that was approved for new and reemerging pandemic influenza in Japan in 2014 and has shown potent in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. It has a wide therapeutic safety margin indicated by a wide CC50/EC50 ratio for a high dose. From the clinical studies in COVID-19, it has shown rapid viral clearance as compared to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) and superior recovery rate than umifenovir. Overall, favipiravir has shown promising results in clinical studies in China, Russia, and Japan, and more trials are underway in multiple countries, including USA, UK, and India. Recently, treatment guidelines from many countries and some states from India have included favipiravir in the treatment protocol. This review provides insights into the evidence-based evolving role of favipiravir in the management of COVID-19 infection with emphasis on benefits of initiating an early antiviral therapy with special focus on favipiravir, its pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, in vitro, clinical data, and inclusion in the treatment protocols of COVID-19. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据