Introduction: So far, there is no vaccine, nor are there effective drugs to treat COVID-19, an emerging viral respiratory infection deadlier than influenza. Objective: To take a snapshot picture of planned and ongoing clinical research addressing drugs potentially useful for treating SAR-CoV-2 infections. Method: A search was conducted (20 April 2020) in an international registry of clinical studies (https://ClinicalTrials.gov, US NIH). After excluding observational studies and other interventions that fell outside the scope of this study, 294 research protocols (out of 516 retrieved protocols) were selected for analysis. Results: Of 294 included trials, 249 were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), 118 of which were double-, triple-or quadruple-blinded studies. The interventions (drug therapies) were compared with "standard-of-care" (SOC) or with the placebo plus SOC, or yet with presumed "active" comparators. RCT focused on the primary treatment of the disease (inhibitors of viral replication) or on the therapy for resolution of hyperinflammation in pneumonia/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and thromboembolism associated with SARS-CoV-2. The trials found in the database involve existing antiviral compounds and drugs with multiple modes of antiviral action. Antiparasitic drugs, which inhibited viral replication in cell-culture assays, are being tested as well. Regarding the adjunctive immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic therapies, a number of drugs with distinct pharmacological targets are under investigation in trials enrolling patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: Although many clinical studies of drugs for COVID-19 are planned or in progress, only a minority of them are sufficiently large, randomized and placebo-controlled trials with masking and concealment of allocation. Owing to methodological limitations, only a few clinical trials found in the registry are likely to yield robust evidence of effectiveness and safety of drugs repurposable for COVID-19.

No abstract

BackgroundMalaria remains a major public health problem, with half the world population at risk of contracting malaria. The effects of Plasmodium vivax on prosperity and longevity have been highlighted in several recent clinical case reports. The first line of vivax treatment drugs has seen no radical innovation for more than 60 years. This study introduces a subtle incremental innovation to vivax treatment: a chloroquine and primaquine co-blister. The co-blister includes a new chloroquine formulation incorporating coated tablets to mask the drug’s bitter taste and user-friendly packaging containing tablets of each drug, which may improve patient adherence and facilitate the appropriate use of the drugs. This new formulation will replace the non-coated chloroquine distributed in Brazil.MethodsPatients were orally treated with 150 mg coated chloroquine tablets for 3 days: an initial 450 mg dose, followed by two 300 mg doses. The patients were treated concomitantly with two 15 mg primaquine tablets for 7–9 days, according to their weight. The primary objective of this study was to prove parasitological and clinical cure rates above 90 % by day 28.ResultsThis single-arm open-label non-comparative trial was conducted according to the WHO recommended methodology for the surveillance of anti-malarial drug efficacy in the Brazilian Amazon. On day 28, the parasitological and clinical response was adequate in 98.8 % of patients (CI 95 % 93.4–100 %). The success rate on day 3 was 100 %, and the cumulative success rate by day 28 was 98.8 % (CI 95 % 91.7–99.8 %). There were no serious adverse events, with most adverse events classified as mild. The pharmacokinetic parameters of chloroquine analysed in whole blood dry spot samples showed mean (coefficient of variation) Cmax and AUC0–t values of 374.44 (0.35) and 3700.43 (0.36) ng/mL, respectively.DiscussionThis study reports an appropriate safety and efficacy profile of a new formulation of coated chloroquine tablets for vivax malaria treatment in the Brazilian Amazon. The cure rates meet the WHO efficacy criteria, supporting current Brazilian guidelines and the use of the formulation for vivax malaria treatment. Nevertheless, further studies should be conducted to address adherence and the effectiveness of the formulation.Trial registration RBR-77q7t3-UTN: U1111-1121-2982. Registered 10th May 2011Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1530-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The recommended treatment for latent tuberculosis (TB) infection in adults is a daily dose of isoniazid (INH) 300 mg for six months. In Brazil, INH was formulated as 100 mg tablets. The treatment duration and the high pill burden compromised patient adherence to the treatment. The Brazilian National Programme for Tuberculosis requested a new 300 mg INH formulation. The aim of our study was to compare the bioavailability of the new INH 300 mg formulation and three 100 mg tablets of the reference formulation. We conducted a randomised, single dose, open label, two-phase crossover bioequivalence study in 28 healthy human volunteers. The 90% confidence interval for the INH maximum concentration of drug observed in plasma and area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration “time t” was 89.61-115.92 and 94.82-119.44, respectively. The main limitation of our study was that neither adherence nor the safety profile of multiple doses was evaluated. To determine the level of INH in human plasma, we developed and validated a sensitive, simple and rapid high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Our results showed that the new formulation was bioequivalent to the 100 mg reference product. This finding supports the use of a single 300 mg tablet daily strategy to treat latent TB. This new formulation may increase patients’ adherence to the treatment and quality of life.

No abstract

Introduction: The immediate-release solid oral products containing very soluble and permeable drugs are candidates for the biowaiver process. This work aims to compare in vitro, in silico, and in vivo data to establish if previously published prednisone oral tablet formulations are biowaiver candidates. Method: To achieve this goal, permeation studies were conducted on Caco-2 cells. A previous bioequivalence study between the test and the reference drug product was applied on an in silico evaluation using Gastroplus® to assess the bioequivalence of two other previously proposed formulations. Results: The apparent permeability coefficient for prednisone presented a value of 3.69 x 10-5 cm/s in 180 minutes. The bioequivalence study shows that the tested and reference product was equivalent. The in silico simulations successfully predicted the pharmacokinetics of the tested and the other two formulations since they were validated with the in vivo study. Both exhibit the same plasma concentration vs. time profiles. Conclusions: Through the in silico results, it is possible to infer that the other two formulations tested may be bioequivalent concerning the reference product. This result may be helpful in biowaiver requesting. Toward to reduce costs and the use of human beings in bioequivalence studies, this approach could be an essential way to work in the pharmaceutical industry.