Nipah Virus Therapeutics: A Systematic Review to Support Prioritisation for Clinical Trials
Authors: Chan Xin Hui S , Haeusler Ilsa L , Choy Bennett J K , Hassan Md Zakiul , Takata Junko , Hurst Tara P , Jones Luke M , Loganathan Shanghavie , Harriss Elinor , Dunning Jake , Tarning Joel , Carroll Miles W , Horby Peter W , Olliaro Piero L 
Published: March 2024

Nipah virus disease is a bat-borne zoonosis with person-to-person transmission, a case fatality rate of 38-75%, and recognised pandemic potential. The first reported outbreak occurred in Malaysia and Singapore in 1998, since followed by multiple outbreaks in Bangladesh and India. No therapeutics or vaccines have been licensed to date, and only few candidates are in development. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of therapeutic options (monoclonal antibodies and small molecules) for Nipah virus and other henipaviral diseases in order to support candidate prioritisation for further evaluation in clinical trials. At present, there is sufficient evidence to trial only m102.4 and remdesivir (singly and/or in combination) for prophylaxis and early treatment of Nipah virus disease. In addition to well-designed clinical efficacy trials,in vivopharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies to optimise selection and dosing of therapeutic candidates in animal challenge and natural human infection are needed.

Research in context

Evidence before this study

Nipah virus infection is a bat-borne zoonosis with person-to-person transmission, a case fatality rate of 38-75%, and recognised pandemic potential. No therapeutics or vaccines have been licensed to date, and only few candidates are in development. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of therapeutic options (monoclonal antibodies and small molecules) for Nipah virus and other henipaviral diseases to support candidate prioritisation for further evaluation in clinical trials.

We searched bibliographic databases for journal articles, conference abstracts, and patents: PubMed, Ovid Embase, Ovid CAB Abstracts, Ovid Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science (all databases), and the WHO Global Index Medicus. “Henipavirus” or “Nipah” or “Hendra” along with “therapeutics” or “monoclonal” were the title, abstract, and subject heading keywords, with synonyms and variant spellings as additional search terms. We searched trial registries for clinical trials of Henipavirus, Nipah virus, and Hendra virus at all stages of recruitment: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched the Trip database and WHO website for guidelines and reports. All searches were conducted on 30 May 2022. We did not apply language or publication date limits.

Studies were included if they contained primary data on the safety and/or efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (in vivo)or small molecules (in vivoorin vitro) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of Nipah, Hendra, and relatedHenipaviridae. Almost all had critical or high risk of bias.

Added value of this study

This is the most detailed systematic review and analysis of the Nipah virus therapeutics landscape to date, including all availablein vivoand relatedin vitrodata on the safety, efficacy, and pharmaco-kinetics of monoclonal antibodies and small molecules with the specific aim of supporting prioritisation for clinical trials. We also present a roadmap for howin vivodevelopment of Nipah therapeutics could be strengthened to achieve greater equity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Implications of the available evidence

At present, there is sufficient evidence to trial only m102.4 and remdesivir for prophylaxis and early treatment of Nipah virus infection. Well-designed clinical efficacy trials as well asin vivopharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies to optimise selection and dosing of therapeutic candidates in animal challenge and natural human infection are needed.