AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the antiviral activity and safety of darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) in treating COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this single-center, randomized, and open-label trial, mild patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in Shanghai, China. Participants were randomized to receive DRV/c for 5 days on the top of interferon alpha 2b inhaling or interferon alpha 2b inhaling alone. The primary end point was the virological clearance rate of oropharyngeal swabs at day 7 after randomization in the intention-to-treat population (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04252274).ResultsFrom January 30, 2020, to February 6, 2020, a total of 30 patients were enrolled, of whom 18 (60%) were male, aged 47.2 ± 2.8 years; 63.3% (19/30) of the participants had fever, and 46.7% (14/30) had cough at enrollment. The participants were randomized (range) at 4 (2–5) days after onset of symptoms. The proportion of negative PCR results at day 7 was 46.7% (7/15) and 60.0% (9/15) in the DRV/c and control groups (P = .72), respectively. The viral clearance rate at day 3 was 20% (3/15) in both study groups, while the number increased to 26.7% (4/15) in the DRV/c group and remained 20% (3/15) in the control group at day 5. Fourteen days after randomization, 1 participant in the DRV/c group progressed to critical illness and discontinued DRV/c, while all the patients in the control group were stable (P = 1.0). The frequencies of adverse events in the 2 groups were comparable.ConclusionsFive days of DRV/c did not increase the proportion of negative conversion vs standard of care alone, although it was well tolerated.
A new class of chiral phosphoric acids with spirobiindane as scaffold were conveniently synthesized from (S)-1,1'-spirobiindane-7,7'-diol ((S)-SPINOL) and employed to catalyze the asymmetric Friedel-Crafts reaction of indoles with imines to afford 3-indolyl methanamines. High yields (68-97%) and excellent enantioselectivities (up to 99% ee) were obtained.
It is of great significance to develop and evaluate noninvasive indexes predicting the level of liver fibrosis. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR) versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis index based on 4 factors (FIB-4) in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) within the framework of HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. A total of 1157 HBeAg-positive and 859 HBeAg-negative CHB patients were enrolled, among whom the pathological stage ≥S2, ≥S3, ≥S4 were defined as significant fibrosis, extensive fibrosis and cirrhosis, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the performance of GPR, APRI and FIB-4 in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis. In HBeAg-positive patients, the area under ROC curves (AUROCs) of GPR in predicting extensive fibrosis and cirrhosis were both significantly larger than those of APRI (P = .0001 and P < .0001). In HBeAg-negative patients, the AUROCs of GPR in predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were significantly larger than those of FIB-4 (P = .0006 and P = .0041). The AUROC of GPR in predicting extensive fibrosis was significantly larger than that of APRI and FIB-4 (P = .0320 and P = .0018). Using a cut-off of GPR > 0.500 as standard, the sensitivities and specificities of GPR in predicting significant fibrosis in HBeAg-positive patients were 59.6% and 81.2%, and for cirrhosis 80.9% and 63.8%, respectively; and those of HBeAg-negative patients were 60.3% and 78.3%, 84.5% and 66.1%, respectively. Regardless of HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative status, GPR had the best performance in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.