## 2 Results
### Structural Proteins
By day 6, the number of samples is significantly lower for the active cohort (\(p=0.07\)). The study used wild-type viruses and resistant-induced viruses. Symptom resolution of the pleconaril cohort was quicker than the placebo one if they were exposed to the wild type (\(p<0.0001\)) but not favorable with an exposition to the resistance strain. Some resistance issues can explain this result. In the early 2000s, three studies were conducted to evaluate pleconaril efficacy against enteroviral sepsis, CVB infections, both in newborns, and the common cold due to rhinovirus infections in children and adults [30; 31; 35]. They are either randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 of clinical trials or clinical application studies. Respectively, 61 were suspected of being infected, sepsis detected in four, and 311 patients receiving viral inoculations were recruited to receive the drug (respectively 5 mg/kg three times per day, 5 mg/kg per day, and 12 mg/dose twice daily) or placebo by the oral route for newborns and nasal route for children and adults. For these studies, few significant results were identified. Any result was associated or published after the end of the first trial. The onset of disease symptoms was \(\leq\)10 days prior to administration of the first medication dose. Even if it suggests a beneficial effect in combination with earlier treatment during the clinical application, no clear proof was identified that only pleconaril, as compassionate or last-line treatment, without reported delay between inclusion and treatment, decreases CVB symptoms. Finally, both drug and placebo cohorts had the same levels of RV PCR-positive colols (\(p\) = 0.973) in the third study, with a prophylactic use of pleconaril. As a result, no positive effect was identified in this case. * Vapendavir  
The last promising capsid binder, evaluated against enteroviruses, particularly rhinoviruses, was the compound BTA798 (Altesa Biosciences, Inc. & Biota Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Vaxart), also named vapendavir ([PERSON] et al., 2018). In 2008, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial on 240 inoculated male patients to evaluate its efficacy against the common cold ([PERSON] et al., 2018). The prophylactic treatment was given to subjects on day 0, 1 or 2 h after the virus challenge. Vapendavir was only once administrated by the oral route with 25, 100, or 200 mg of the drug. The result of this study identified a dose-dependent decrease in the incidence of RV-A39 infections. However, most of these infections were asymptomatic, which does not enable an evaluation of the protection against upper respiratory tract illness. The drug was well-tolerated even if one patient was excluded from the study due to neutropopic sepsis, which can be caused by the drug. This study was prematurely ended. In 2010, a second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of vapendavir against rhinoviral infections ([PERSON] et al., 2018). Suspected infected patients were recruited among adults, ranging from 18 to 70 years. No delay between the patient's inclusion and treatment is reported in the accessible data. They receive twice daily a non-specified dose. The drug-treated cohort had lower cold symptoms and impact scores than the placebo cohort (\(p\) = 0.020). In 2015, vapendavir was evaluated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials against asthma due to suspected RV infections ([PERSON] et al., 2018; [PERSON] et al., 2018). For the first study, it was administered as oral capsules to 480 patients, including 24 patients over 65 years old. Each capsule contains 132 mg of the drug. Two cohorts were formed, receiving only once 264 (2 doses) or 528 mg (4 doses). These two cohorts had better clinical scores than placebo one (\(p\) = 0.319), individually and combined.