4.7 Article

Molnupiravir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 variants including Omicron in the hamster model

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 7, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.160108

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of NIAID, NIH (Bethesda, Maryland, USA)
  2. University of Plymouth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MK-4482 demonstrates efficacy against earlier SARS-CoV-2 lineages and shows significant inhibitory effect on the replication of the Omicron variant, reducing lung disease and viral antigen load.
The recent emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VOC), which contains a heavily mutated spike protein capable of escaping preexisting immunity, identifies a continued need for interventional measures. Molnupiravir (MK-4482), an orally administered nucleoside analog, has demonstrated efficacy against earlier SARS-CoV-2 lineages and was recently approved for SARS-CoV-2 infections in high-risk adults. Here, we assessed the efficacy of MK-4482 against the earlier Alpha, Beta, and Delta VOCs and Omicron in the hamster COVID-19 model. Omicron replication and associated lung disease in vehicle-treated hamsters was reduced compared with replication and lung disease associated with earlier VOCs. MK-4482 treatment inhibited virus replication in the lungs of hamsters infected with Alpha, Beta, or Delta VOCs. Importantly, MK -4482 profoundly inhibited virus replication in the upper and lower respiratory tract of hamsters infected with the Omicron VOC. Consistent with its mutagenic mechanism, MK-4482 treatment had a more pronounced inhibitory effect on infectious titers compared with viral RNA genome load. Histopathologic analysis showed that MK-4482 treatment caused a concomitant reduction in the level of lung disease and viral antigen load in infected hamsters across all VOCs examined. Together, our data indicate the potential of MK-4482 as an effective antiviral against known SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, especially Omicron, and likely future SARS-CoV-2 variants.

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