4.6 Article

Characterization of the In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Baloxavir Marboxil against H5 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Infection

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14010111

关键词

baloxavir marboxil; viral replication; inhibition; lung inflammation; combination therapy; oseltamivir

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the antiviral efficacy of a new influenza drug BXA against H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIV) in vitro, as well as the effectiveness of BXM in treating H5N1 virus-infected mice. The results showed that BXA exhibited similar activities against different H5 virus variants, while BXM demonstrated potent antiviral effects against H5 HPAIV infections.
Human infections caused by the H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) sporadically threaten public health. The susceptibility of HPAIVs to baloxavir acid (BXA), a new class of inhibitors for the influenza virus cap-dependent endonuclease, has been confirmed in vitro, but it has not yet been fully characterized. Here, the efficacy of BXA against HPAIVs, including recent H5N8 variants, was assessed in vitro. The antiviral efficacy of baloxavir marboxil (BXM) in H5N1 virus-infected mice was also investigated. BXA exhibited similar in vitro activities against H5N1, H5N6, and H5N8 variants tested in comparison with seasonal and other zoonotic strains. Compared with oseltamivir phosphate (OSP), BXM monotherapy in mice infected with the H5N1 HPAIV clinical isolate, the A/Hong Kong/483/1997 strain, also caused a significant reduction in viral titers in the lungs, brains, and kidneys, thereby preventing acute lung inflammation and reducing mortality. Furthermore, compared with BXM or OSP monotherapy, combination treatments with BXM and OSP using a 48-h delayed treatment model showed a more potent effect on viral replication in the organs, accompanied by improved survival. In conclusion, BXM has a potent antiviral efficacy against H5 HPAIV infections.

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

4.6
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