4.6 Article

Efficacy of Oral Remdesivir Compared to GS-441524 for Treatment of Cats with Naturally Occurring Effusive Feline Infectious Peritonitis: A Blinded, Non-Inferiority Study

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v15081680

关键词

FIPV; coronavirus; antiviral; feline coronavirus; therapy; nucleoside analog

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the efficacy of antiviral medications GS-442514 and remdesivir in treating feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), and found no significant difference in survival rate between the two medications. Both GS-442514 and remdesivir were proven to be safe and effective in treating FIP, but further optimization is needed in the initial 48 hours of treatment.
Nucleoside analogs GS-441524 and remdesivir (GS-5734) are effective in treating cats with feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). However, no studies have compared the efficacy between antiviral medications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of orally administered GS-442514 (12.5-15 mg/kg) compared to orally administered remdesivir (25-30 mg/kg) in a double-blinded non-inferiority trial. Eighteen cats with effusive FIP were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either GS-442514 or remdesivir. Cats were treated daily for 12 weeks and evaluated at week 0, 12, and 16. Survival and disease remission at week 16 were compared between groups. Five of 9 (55%) cats treated GS-441524 and 7/9 (77%) cats treated with remdesivir survived, with no difference in survival rate (p = 0.2). Remdesivir fulfilled the criteria for non-inferiority with a difference in survival of 22% (90% CI; -13.5-57.5%). Three of the 18 cats died within 48 h of enrollment. Excluding these cats, 5/6 (83%) of the cats treated with GS-441524 and 7/9 (77%) of the cats treated with remdesivir survived. These findings suggest that both orally administered GS-441524 and remdesivir are safe and effective anti-viral medications for the treatment of effusive FIP. Further optimization of the first 48 h of treatment is needed.

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