4.7 Article

Robust Antiviral Efficacy upon Administration of a Nucleoside Analog to Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Chimpanzees

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 926-934

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01032-08

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects an estimated 170 million individuals worldwide and is associated with an increased incidence of liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Currently approved therapies to treat HCV infection consist of combinations of pegylated alpha interferon and ribavirin which result in a sustained viral response in 40 to 60% of patients. Efforts to develop improved therapies include the development of direct inhibitors of virally encoded enzymes such as the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A nucleoside analog, 2'-C-methyl-7-deaza-adenosine (MK-0608), has been shown to inhibit viral RNA replication in the subgenomic HCV genotype 1b replicon, with a 50% effective concentration (EC50) of 0.3 mu M (EC90 = 1.3 mu M). To determine efficacy in vivo, MK-0608 was administered to HCV-infected chimpanzees, resulting in dose-and time-dependent decreases in plasma viral loads. In separate experiments, chimpanzees dosed for 7 days with MK-0608 at 0.2 and 2 mg per kg of body weight per day by intravenous administration experienced average reductions in viral load of 1.0 and >5 log(10) IU/ml, respectively. Two other HCV-infected chimpanzees received daily doses of 1 mg MK-0608 per kg via oral administration. After 37 days of oral dosing, one chimpanzee with a high starting viral load experienced a reduction in viral load of 4.6 log(10), and the viral load in the other chimpanzee fell below the limit of quantification (LOQ) of the HCV TaqMan assay (20 IU/ml). Importantly, viral load remained below the LOQ throughout the duration of dosing and for at least 12 days after dosing ended. The results demonstrate a robust antiviral effect on the administration of MK-0608 to HCV-infected chimpanzees.

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