Ostavimir is ineffective against COVID-19: in silico assessment, in vitro and retrospective study

  1. Qi Tan
  2. Yang Jin

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As a neuraminidase inhibitor, oseltamivir has effectively combated the pandemic influenza A and B, so it is a first-line commonly used antiviral drug, especially in primary hospitals. At the same time, oseltamivir, as an over-the-counter drug, is also a popular antiviral drug. As healthcare workers fighting against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we have found that many patients experiencing discomfort or considered to be infected with a virus take oseltamivir. From severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003 to middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, and now the current COVID-19 epidemic, there is not plenty of evidence showing that oseltamivir is effective against coronavirus. Still, there is also no sufficient evidence to refute its ineffectiveness. We cannot predict whether there will be a pandemic of respiratory coronavirus in the future, so we hope to initiate such research and preliminarily explore whether oseltamivir is effective for COVID-19, which can better guide healthcare workers in the selection of appropriate antiviral drugs in the face of coronavirus epidemics. If oseltamivir is effective, then a wide promotion of its application often can achieve a double effect with half the effort. If it is not effective, then considering the side effects of oseltamivir, it is not necessary to use unreasonable drugs that will not slow the progression of the disease but can cause adverse reactions. We found that oseltamivir is not suitable for fighting against COVID-19 through the method of computer aided drug design and in vitro study and retrospective case study. Meanwhile it was high-occurrence seasons for the influenza, COVID-19 should be highly suspected in patients who did not benefit from oseltamivir. We hope that the result of our study could be shared with the frontline physicians in fighting against COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.15.20102392: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 16 and 15. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.15.20102392v1 on medRxiv