Author
Listed:
- Vicki Osborne
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Miranda Davies
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Samantha Lane
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Alison Evans
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Jacqueline Denyer
(Bursledon Hall)
- Sandeep Dhanda
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Debabrata Roy
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
- Saad Shakir
(Bursledon Hall
University of Portsmouth)
Abstract
Introduction and Objective COVID-19 is an ongoing, global public health crisis for which safe and effective treatments need to be identified. The benefit-risk balance for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis, therefore a systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation; although initially this evaluation is likely to contain limited information, it is required because of the urgent unmet public need. Importantly, it allows additional data to be incorporated as they become available, and re-evaluation of the benefit-risk profile. Methods A systematic benefit-risk assessment was conducted using the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. The exposure of interest was lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in severe COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting clinical outcomes. Two clinicians constructed a value tree and ranked key benefits and risks in order of considered clinical importance. Results We screened 143 papers from PubMed and 264 papers from Embase for lopinavir-ritonavir; seven papers were included in the final benefit-risk assessment. In comparison to standard of care, data for several key benefits and risks were identified for lopinavir-ritonavir. Time to clinical improvement was not significantly different for lopinavir-ritonavir in comparison to standard of care (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.95–1.80). From one study, there were fewer cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir compared with standard of care (13% vs 27%). There also appeared to be fewer serious adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir (20%) vs standard of care (32%). Limited data were available for comparison of lopinavir-ritonavir to other treatments. Conclusions Based on currently available data, there was no clear benefit for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir compared to standard of care in severe COVID-19. Risk data suggested a possible decrease in serious adverse events. There was a reduction in acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir in one study. Overall, the benefit-risk profile for lopinavir-ritonavir in severe COVID-19 cannot be considered positive until further efficacy and effectiveness data become available.
Suggested Citation
Vicki Osborne & Miranda Davies & Samantha Lane & Alison Evans & Jacqueline Denyer & Sandeep Dhanda & Debabrata Roy & Saad Shakir, 2020.
"Lopinavir-Ritonavir in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Dynamic Systematic Benefit-Risk Assessment,"
Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(8), pages 809-821, August.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-020-00966-9
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-00966-9
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-020-00966-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.