Mathematical Modeling of Remdesivir to Treat COVID-19: Can Dosing Be Optimized?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The antiviral remdesivir has been approved by regulatory bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19. However, its efficacy is debated and toxicity concerns might limit the therapeutic range of this drug. Computational models that aid in balancing efficacy and toxicity would be of great help. Parametrizing models is difficult because the prodrug remdesivir is metabolized to its active form (RDV-TP) upon cell entry, which complicates dose–activity relationships. Here, we employ a computational model that allows drug efficacy predictions based on the binding affinity of RDV-TP for its target polymerase in SARS-CoV-2. We identify an optimal infusion rate to maximize remdesivir efficacy. We also assess drug efficacy in suppressing both wild-type and resistant strains, and thereby describe a drug regimen that may select for resistance. Our results differ from predictions using prodrug dose–response curves (pseudo-EC50s). We expect that reaching 90% inhibition (EC90) is insufficient to suppress SARS-CoV-2 in the lungs. While standard dosing mildly inhibits viral polymerase and therefore likely reduces morbidity, we also expect selection for resistant mutants for most realistic parameter ranges. To increase efficacy and safeguard against resistance, we recommend more clinical trials with dosing regimens that substantially increase the levels of RDV-TP and/or pair remdesivir with companion antivirals.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.16.21258981: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Experimental Models: Cell Lines Sentences Resources However, our estimate of 0.17 µM is well within the range of reported pseudo-EC50 values of 0.01 µM in isolated human epithelial airway cells, 0.28 µM in Calu cells and 1.65 µM or 0.77 µM in Vero E6 cells [39,40]. Vero E6suggested: RRID:CVCL_XD71)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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.16.21258981: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Experimental Models: Cell Lines Sentences Resources However, our estimate of 0.17 µM is well within the range of reported pseudo-EC50 values of 0.01 µM in isolated human epithelial airway cells, 0.28 µM in Calu cells and 1.65 µM or 0.77 µM in Vero E6 cells [39,40]. Vero E6suggested: RRID:CVCL_XD71)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: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
