MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282943600 · doi:10.1111/cts.13350

A randomized, placebo‐controlled study to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics of inhaled ribavirin

2022· article· en· W4282943600 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Couroux, Alexandre Brkovic, Jason L. Vittitow, Robert J. Israel, Chinna Pamidi, Jignesh Patel, Maxime Barakat

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsBausch Health (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsRibavirinMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pharmacology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineVirologyAlternative medicineChemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ribavirin is an inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase inhibitor. Studies suggest ribavirin aerosol could be a safe and efficacious treatment option in the fight against coronaviruses. However, current treatment is long (12–18 h per day, 3–7 days), limiting clinical utility. A reduction in treatment time would reduce treatment burden. We aimed to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of four, single‐dose regimens of ribavirin aerosol in healthy volunteers. Thirty‐two subjects were randomized, to four cohorts of aerosolized ribavirin (active) or placebo. Cohort 1 received 50 mg/ml ribavirin/placebo (10 ml total volume); cohort 2, 50 mg/ml ribavirin/placebo (20 ml total volume); cohort 3, 100 mg/ml ribavirin/placebo (10 ml total volume); and cohort 4, 100 mg/ml ribavirin/placebo (20 ml total volume). Intense safety monitoring and PK sampling took place on days 1, 2, 3, and 40. Subjects were (mean ± SD, active vs. placebo) aged 57 ± 4.5 vs. 60 ± 2.5 years; 83% vs. 88% were female; and 75% vs. 50% were Caucasian. Some 12.5% (3/24) and 25% (2/8) experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE) (two moderate; five mild) in the active and placebo groups, respectively. No clinically significant safety concerns were reported. Mean maximum observed concentration ( C max ) and area under the curve (AUC) values were higher in cohort 4, whereas cohorts 2 and 3 showed similar PK values. Ribavirin absorption reached C max within 2 h across cohorts. Four single‐dose regimens of ribavirin aerosol demonstrated systemic exposure with minimal systemic effects. Results support continued clinical development of ribavirin aerosol as a treatment option in patients with coronaviruses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational ScienceSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207