Xueting Yao1, Fei Ye2, Miao Zhang1, Cheng Cui1, Baoying Huang2, Peihua Niu2, Xu Liu1, Li Zhao2, Erdan Dong3, Chunli Song4, Siyan Zhan5, Roujian Lu2, Haiyan Li1,3, Wenjie Tan2, Dongyang Liu1. 1. Drug Clinical Trial Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. NHC Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Cardiology and Institute of Vascular Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 5. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in 2019 and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late phase in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen while considering the drug's safety profile. RESULTS: Hydroxychloroquine (EC50 = 0.72 μM) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50 = 5.47 μM) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached 3 times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in 2019 and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late phase in critically illpatients with SARS-CoV-2. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen while considering the drug's safety profile. RESULTS:Hydroxychloroquine (EC50 = 0.72 μM) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50 = 5.47 μM) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached 3 times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. CONCLUSIONS:Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
Authors: Pedro N Batalha; Luana S M Forezi; Carolina G S Lima; Fernanda P Pauli; Fernanda C S Boechat; Maria Cecília B V de Souza; Anna C Cunha; Vitor F Ferreira; Fernando de C da Silva Journal: Bioorg Chem Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 5.275
Authors: Pratik A Patel; Shanmuganathan Chandrakasan; Geoffrey E Mickells; Inci Yildirim; Carol M Kao; Carolyn M Bennett Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: James A Watson; Joel Tarning; Richard M Hoglund; Frederic J Baud; Bruno Megarbane; Jean-Luc Clemessy; Nicholas J White Journal: Elife Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 8.140