The antiviral effects of <scp>RSV</scp> fusion inhibitor, <scp>MDT</scp>‐637, on clinical isolates, vs its achievable concentrations in the human respiratory tract and comparison to ribavirin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) viral load and disease severity associate, and the timing of viral load and disease run in parallel. An antiviral must be broadly effective against the natural spectrum of RSV genotypes and must attain concentrations capable of inhibiting viral replication within the human respiratory tract. Objectives We evaluated a novel RSV fusion inhibitor, MDT‐637, and compared it with ribavirin for therapeutic effect in vitro to identify relative therapeutic doses achievable in humans. Method MDT‐637 and ribavirin were co‐incubated with RSV in HEp‐2 cells. Quantitative PCR assessed viral concentrations; 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50) were compared to achievable human MDT‐637 and ribavirin peak and trough concentrations. Results and conclusions The IC50 for MDT‐637 and ribavirin (against RSV‐A Long) was 1.42 and 16 973 ng/mL, respectively. The ratio of achievable peak respiratory secretion concentration to IC50 was 6041‐fold for MDT‐637 and 25‐fold for aerosolized ribavirin. The ratio of trough concentration to IC50 was 1481‐fold for MDT‐637 and 3.29‐fold for aerosolized ribavirin. Maximal peak and trough levels of oral or intravenous ribavirin were significantly lower than their IC50s. We also measured MDT‐637 IC50s in 3 lab strains and 4 clinical strains. The IC50s ranged from 0.36 to 3.4 ng/mL. Achievable human MDT‐637 concentrations in respiratory secretions exceed the IC50s by factors from hundreds to thousands of times greater than does ribavirin. Furthermore, MDT‐637 has broad in vitro antiviral activity on clinical strains of different RSV genotypes and clades. Together, these data imply that MDT‐637 may produce a superior clinical effect compared to ribavirin on natural RSV infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".