4.7 Article

Dose- and schedule-dependent protective efficacy of celgosivir in a lethal mouse model for dengue virus infection informs dosing regimen for a proof of concept clinical trial

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 96, 期 1, 页码 32-35

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2012.07.008

关键词

Dengue virus; Antiviral; AG129 lethal infection mouse model; Pharmacokinetics

资金

  1. Duke-NUS Signature Research Program
  2. Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
  3. Ministry of Health, Singapore
  4. National Medical Research Council of Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Celgosivir (6-O-butanoyl castanospermine), a pro-drug of the naturally occurring castanospermine, is an inhibitor of alpha-glucosidase I and II that is found to be a potent inhibitor of several enveloped viruses including all four serotypes of dengue virus. We showed previously that the compound fully protected AG129 mice from lethal infection with a mouse adapted dengue virus at a dose of 50 mg/kg twice daily (BID) for 5 days and was effective even after 48 h delayed treatment. Here we show that the protection by celgosivir is dose- and schedule-dependent and that a twice-a-day regimen of 50, 25 or 10 mg/kg is more protective than a single daily dose of 100 mg/kg. Treatment with 50 mg/kg BID castanospermine had comparable efficacy as 25 mg/kg BID celgosivir, suggesting that celgosivir is approximately twice as potent as castanospermine with respect to in vivo antiviral efficacy. Pharmacokinetics (PK) studies of celgosivir in mice showed that it rapidly metabolized to castanospermine. Simulation of the PK data with the survival data for the various doses of celgosivir tested suggests that the steady-state minimum concentration is a critical parameter to note in choosing dose and schedule. These results influenced the selection of the dose regimen for a proof-of-concept clinical trial of celgosivir as a treatment against dengue fever. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据