Mostafa W Galal, Mahmoud Ahmed, Yanqiu Shao, Chao Xing, Wael Ali, Abd Elhamid Baly, Abdallah Elfiky, Khaled Amer, John Schoggins, Hesham A Sadek, Zeinab N Gobara
{"title":"甲苯达唑在COVID-19患者中的应用:一项观察性回顾性单中心研究","authors":"Mostafa W Galal, Mahmoud Ahmed, Yanqiu Shao, Chao Xing, Wael Ali, Abd Elhamid Baly, Abdallah Elfiky, Khaled Amer, John Schoggins, Hesham A Sadek, Zeinab N Gobara","doi":"10.1155/2022/3014686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An <i>in-silico</i> screen identified mebendazole with potential antiviral activity that could be a repurposed drug against SARS-CoV-2. Mebendazole is a well-tolerated and cheap antihelminthic agent that is readily available worldwide and thus could be a therapeutic tool in the fight against COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an observational retrospective study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who received mebendazole with the intention-to-treat. The study included an inpatient cohort (157 inpatients) and an outpatient cohort (185 outpatients). Of the 157 inpatients and 185 outpatients, 68 (43.3%) and 94 (50.8%) received mebendazole, respectively. Patients who presented within the same timeframe but did not receive mebendazole were used as controls. Patients received standard-of-care treatment including remdesivir, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants as deemed necessary by the treating physician. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: for the inpatient cohort, length of stay (LOS) at the hospital, need for ventilation (combined invasive and noninvasive), and mortality; for the outpatient cohort, time to symptom resolution, need for hospitalization, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the inpatient cohort, the median age did not differ between the treatment and control groups; 62 (56, 67) vs. 62 (56, 68), <i>P</i>, and there was a comparable proportion of males in both groups; 43 (63%) vs. 55 (62%), <i>P</i>=0.85. The hospital LOS was 3.5 days shorter in the treatment group compared to the control group (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There were fewer patients who required invasive or noninvasive ventilation in the treatment group, 2 (2.9%) vs. 7 (7.9%), and the mortality rate is lower in the treatment group, 3 (4.4%) vs. 8 (9.0%), though the differences did not reach statistical significance. For the outpatient cohort, the median age was lower in the treatment group compared with the control group; 40 (34, 48) vs. 48 (41, 54), <i>P</i> < 0.001. There was a comparable proportion of males between both groups; 50 (53%) vs. 52 (57%), <i>P</i>=0.59. Patients in the treatment group were 3.3 days closer to symptom resolution (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There were numerically fewer patients requiring hospitalization in the treatment group compared with the control group, 3 (3.2%) vs. 6 (6.6%), though this did not reach statistical significance (<i>P</i>=0.33).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this retrospective observational study, the use of mebendazole in COVID-19 patients was associated with shorter hospitalizations in the inpatient cohort and shorter durations of symptom resolution in the outpatient cohort. The findings from this small observational study are hypothesis-generating and preclude drawing conclusions about clinical efficacy. Further studies are needed to examine the role of mebendazole in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7473,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Virology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759380/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Mebendazole in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Retrospective Single Center Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mostafa W Galal, Mahmoud Ahmed, Yanqiu Shao, Chao Xing, Wael Ali, Abd Elhamid Baly, Abdallah Elfiky, Khaled Amer, John Schoggins, Hesham A Sadek, Zeinab N Gobara\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/3014686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An <i>in-silico</i> screen identified mebendazole with potential antiviral activity that could be a repurposed drug against SARS-CoV-2. Mebendazole is a well-tolerated and cheap antihelminthic agent that is readily available worldwide and thus could be a therapeutic tool in the fight against COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an observational retrospective study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who received mebendazole with the intention-to-treat. The study included an inpatient cohort (157 inpatients) and an outpatient cohort (185 outpatients). Of the 157 inpatients and 185 outpatients, 68 (43.3%) and 94 (50.8%) received mebendazole, respectively. Patients who presented within the same timeframe but did not receive mebendazole were used as controls. Patients received standard-of-care treatment including remdesivir, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants as deemed necessary by the treating physician. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: for the inpatient cohort, length of stay (LOS) at the hospital, need for ventilation (combined invasive and noninvasive), and mortality; for the outpatient cohort, time to symptom resolution, need for hospitalization, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the inpatient cohort, the median age did not differ between the treatment and control groups; 62 (56, 67) vs. 62 (56, 68), <i>P</i>, and there was a comparable proportion of males in both groups; 43 (63%) vs. 55 (62%), <i>P</i>=0.85. The hospital LOS was 3.5 days shorter in the treatment group compared to the control group (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There were fewer patients who required invasive or noninvasive ventilation in the treatment group, 2 (2.9%) vs. 7 (7.9%), and the mortality rate is lower in the treatment group, 3 (4.4%) vs. 8 (9.0%), though the differences did not reach statistical significance. For the outpatient cohort, the median age was lower in the treatment group compared with the control group; 40 (34, 48) vs. 48 (41, 54), <i>P</i> < 0.001. There was a comparable proportion of males between both groups; 50 (53%) vs. 52 (57%), <i>P</i>=0.59. Patients in the treatment group were 3.3 days closer to symptom resolution (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There were numerically fewer patients requiring hospitalization in the treatment group compared with the control group, 3 (3.2%) vs. 6 (6.6%), though this did not reach statistical significance (<i>P</i>=0.33).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this retrospective observational study, the use of mebendazole in COVID-19 patients was associated with shorter hospitalizations in the inpatient cohort and shorter durations of symptom resolution in the outpatient cohort. The findings from this small observational study are hypothesis-generating and preclude drawing conclusions about clinical efficacy. Further studies are needed to examine the role of mebendazole in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Virology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759380/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3014686\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Virology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3014686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景:一项计算机筛选发现甲苯达唑具有潜在的抗病毒活性,可能是一种针对SARS-CoV-2的重新用途药物。甲苯达唑是一种耐受性良好且价格低廉的抗寄生虫剂,在世界各地都很容易获得,因此可能成为对抗COVID-19的治疗工具。方法:对pcr确诊的COVID-19患者采用甲苯达唑意向治疗进行观察性回顾性研究。该研究包括住院队列(157名住院患者)和门诊队列(185名门诊患者)。157例住院患者和185例门诊患者中,分别有68例(43.3%)和94例(50.8%)使用了甲苯达唑。在同一时间内就诊但未接受甲苯达唑治疗的患者作为对照。患者接受标准治疗,包括瑞德西韦、地塞米松和治疗医生认为必要的抗凝剂。评估了以下临床结果:住院队列,住院时间(LOS),通气需求(有创和无创合并)和死亡率;对于门诊队列,症状消退时间、住院需求和死亡率。结果:在住院队列中,治疗组和对照组的中位年龄没有差异;62 (56,67) vs. 62 (56,68), P,两组男性比例相当;43人(63%)对55人(62%),P=0.85。治疗组住院时间比对照组短3.5天(P < 0.001)。治疗组需要有创或无创通气的患者较少,为2例(2.9%)比7例(7.9%),死亡率较治疗组低,为3例(4.4%)比8例(9.0%),但差异无统计学意义。对于门诊队列,治疗组的中位年龄低于对照组;40 (34,48) vs. 48 (41,54), P < 0.001。两组中男性的比例相当;50 (53%) vs 52 (57%), P=0.59。治疗组患者离症状缓解更近3.3天(P < 0.001)。治疗组住院患者数量少于对照组,为3例(3.2%)比6例(6.6%),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.33)。结论:在这项回顾性观察性研究中,在COVID-19患者中使用甲苯达唑与住院队列中较短的住院时间和门诊队列中较短的症状缓解时间相关。这项小型观察性研究的发现是假设产生的,并排除了对临床疗效的结论。甲苯达唑在治疗COVID-19患者中的作用有待进一步研究。
The Use of Mebendazole in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Retrospective Single Center Study.
Background: An in-silico screen identified mebendazole with potential antiviral activity that could be a repurposed drug against SARS-CoV-2. Mebendazole is a well-tolerated and cheap antihelminthic agent that is readily available worldwide and thus could be a therapeutic tool in the fight against COVID-19.
Methods: This is an observational retrospective study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who received mebendazole with the intention-to-treat. The study included an inpatient cohort (157 inpatients) and an outpatient cohort (185 outpatients). Of the 157 inpatients and 185 outpatients, 68 (43.3%) and 94 (50.8%) received mebendazole, respectively. Patients who presented within the same timeframe but did not receive mebendazole were used as controls. Patients received standard-of-care treatment including remdesivir, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants as deemed necessary by the treating physician. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: for the inpatient cohort, length of stay (LOS) at the hospital, need for ventilation (combined invasive and noninvasive), and mortality; for the outpatient cohort, time to symptom resolution, need for hospitalization, and mortality.
Results: For the inpatient cohort, the median age did not differ between the treatment and control groups; 62 (56, 67) vs. 62 (56, 68), P, and there was a comparable proportion of males in both groups; 43 (63%) vs. 55 (62%), P=0.85. The hospital LOS was 3.5 days shorter in the treatment group compared to the control group (P < 0.001). There were fewer patients who required invasive or noninvasive ventilation in the treatment group, 2 (2.9%) vs. 7 (7.9%), and the mortality rate is lower in the treatment group, 3 (4.4%) vs. 8 (9.0%), though the differences did not reach statistical significance. For the outpatient cohort, the median age was lower in the treatment group compared with the control group; 40 (34, 48) vs. 48 (41, 54), P < 0.001. There was a comparable proportion of males between both groups; 50 (53%) vs. 52 (57%), P=0.59. Patients in the treatment group were 3.3 days closer to symptom resolution (P < 0.001). There were numerically fewer patients requiring hospitalization in the treatment group compared with the control group, 3 (3.2%) vs. 6 (6.6%), though this did not reach statistical significance (P=0.33).
Conclusion: In this retrospective observational study, the use of mebendazole in COVID-19 patients was associated with shorter hospitalizations in the inpatient cohort and shorter durations of symptom resolution in the outpatient cohort. The findings from this small observational study are hypothesis-generating and preclude drawing conclusions about clinical efficacy. Further studies are needed to examine the role of mebendazole in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.