Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Mortality Among Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 in the United States

Remdesivir is Associated with Reduced Mortality in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Not Requiring Supplemental Oxygen

Background

Remdesivir has demonstrated benefit in some hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen and in nonhospitalized patients breathing room air. The durability of this benefit across time periods with different circulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants of concern (VOC) is unknown. This comparative effectiveness study in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not receiving supplemental oxygen at admission compared those starting remdesivir treatment in the first 2 days of admission with those receiving no remdesivir during their hospitalization across different VOC periods.

Method

Using a large, multicenter US hospital database, in-hospital mortality rates were compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 but not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission between December 2020 and April 2022. Patients receiving remdesivir at hospital admission were matched 1:1 to those not receiving remdesivir during hospitalization, using propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess 14- and 28-day in-hospital mortality rates or discharge to hospice.

Results

Among the 121 336 eligible patients, 58 188 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 17 574 unique patients not receiving remdesivir. Overall, 5.4% of remdesivir-treated and 7.3% in the non-remdesivir group died within 14 days, and 8.0% and 9.8%, respectively, died within 28 days. Remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the in-hospital mortality rate compared with non-remdesivir treatment (14-day and 28-day adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 0.75 [0.68-0.83] and 0.83 [0.76-0.90], respectively). This significant mortality benefit endured across the different VOC periods.

Conclusions

Remdesivir initiation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission was associated with a significantly reduced in-hospital mortality rate. These findings highlight a potential survival benefit when clinicians initiated remdesivir on admission across the dominant variant eras of the evolving pandemic.

Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Circuitry on Remdesivir

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the oxygenator impact on alterations of remdesivir (RDV) in a contemporary neonatal/pediatric (1/4-inch) and adolescent/adult (3/8-inch) extracorporeal membrane -oxygenation (ECMO) circuit including the Quadrox-i oxygenator.

METHODS

One-quarter-inch and a 3/8-inch, simulated closed-loop ECMO circuits were prepared with a Quadrox-i pediatric and Quadrox-i adult oxygenator and blood primed. Additionally, 1/4-inch and 3/8-inch circuits were also prepared without an oxygenator in series. A 1-time dose of RDV was administered into the circuits and serial preoxygenator and postoxygenator concentrations were obtained at 0 to 5 minutes, and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 8-, 12-, and 24-hour time points. The RDV was also maintained in a glass vial and samples were taken from the vial at the same time periods for control purposes to assess for spontaneous drug degradation.

RESULTS

For the 1/4-inch circuits with an oxygenator, there was a 35% to 60% RDV loss during the study period. For the 1/4-inch circuits without an oxygenator, there was a 5% to 20% RDV loss during the study period. For the 3/8-inch circuit with and without an oxygenator, there was a 60% to 70% RDV loss during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

There was RDV loss within the circuit during the study period and the RDV loss was more pronounced with the larger 3/8-inch circuit when compared with the 1/4-inch circuit. The impact of the -oxygenator on RDV loss appears to be variable and possibly dependent on the size of the circuit and -oxygenator. These preliminary data suggest RDV dosing may need to be adjusted for concern of drug loss via the ECMO circuit. Additional single- and multiple-dose studies are needed to validate these findings.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and viral intra- and inter-host evolution in COVID-19 hospitalized patients

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) persistence in COVID-19 patients could play a key role in the emergence of variants of concern. The rapid intra-host evolution of SARS-CoV-2 may result in an increased transmissibility, immune and therapeutic escape which could be a direct consequence of COVID-19 epidemic currents. In this context, a longitudinal retrospective study on eight consecutive COVID-19 patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, from January 2022 to March 2023, was conducted. To characterize the intra- and inter-host viral evolution, whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis were performed on nasopharyngeal samples collected at different time points. Phylogenetic reconstruction revealed an accelerated SARS-CoV-2 intra-host evolution and emergence of antigenically divergent variants. The Bayesian inference and principal coordinate analysis analysis showed a host-based genomic structuring among antigenically divergent variants, that might reflect the positive effect of containment practices, within the critical hospital area. All longitudinal antigenically divergent isolates shared a wide range of amino acidic (aa) changes, particularly in the Spike (S) glycoprotein, that increased viral transmissibility (K417N, S477N, N501Y and Q498R), enhanced infectivity (R346T, S373P, R408S, T478K, Q498R, Y505H, D614G, H655Y, N679K and P681H), caused host immune escape (S371L, S375F, T376A, K417N, and K444T/R) and displayed partial or complete resistance to treatments (G339D, R346K/T, S371F/L, S375F, T376A, D405N, N440K, G446S, N460K, E484A, F486V, Q493R, G496S and Q498R). These results suggest that multiple novel variants which emerge in the patient during persistent infection, might spread to another individual and continue to evolve. A pro-active genomic surveillance of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infected patients is recommended to identify genetically divergent lineages before their diffusion.

Remdesivir versus Favipiravir in Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Remdesivir treatment was associated with a reduced 28-day mortality and recovery time among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Favipiravir is broadly used to treat COVID-19. However, various studies have had conflicting results on the efficacy of favipiravir for COVID-19. We hypothesized that remdesivir is more effective in clinical outcomes regarding the 29-day mortality rates, length of stay, and recovery rate than favipiravir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study that included adult hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients with hypoxemia. Patients were classified into two groups according to the antiviral drugs. Age, oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, and Charlson comorbidity index were used for propensity score matching. The primary objective was to determine whether the type of antiviral agent is associated with 29-day mortality. Other outcomes were the 15-day recovery rate and the length of intensive care unit or hospital stay.

Results

A total of 249 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia were included. With an adjustment for propensity score-matched, there were 204 patients for further analysis (102 patients in each antiviral drug group). Remdesivir patients had higher Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) scores on Chest X-ray (14.32±9.08 vs 11.34±8.46; standardized mean difference =33.9%). The Charlson Comorbidity Index Scores were comparable. The prevalences of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and non-HIV immunocompromised state were higher in the remdesivir group. Regarding the primary outcomes, after adjusting by diabetes, obesity, and RALE score, there was no difference in the 29-day mortality rate between both groups [26 patients (25.5%) in the remdesivir group vs 28 patients (27.5%) in the favipiravir group]. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis at 29 days indicated no significant difference in cumulative survival rate. The two groups' adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.25, p=0.24. A Kaplan-Meier analysis on the 15-day cumulative survival rate observed a trend towards a higher survival rate in the remdesivir group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.84; p= 0.02) The proportion of patients who recovered on day 15, the length of intensive care unit(ICU) stays, and the hospital stay were not different between remdesivir and favipiravir groups (62 patients (60.8%) vs 56 patients (54.9%), p=0.39; 11.48 ± 11.88 days vs 10.87 ± 9.31 days, p=0.69; and 16.64±14.28 days vs 16.59 ±11.31 days, p=0.98, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, Remdesivir did not demonstrate superior benefits over Favipiravir regarding 29-day mortality, 15-day recovery rates, or hospital and ICU stay lengths. However, further investigation into the 15-day cumulative survival rate revealed a trend towards improved survival in the Remdesivir group.

Comparison of lung ultrasound scoring systems for the prognosis of COVID-19 in the emergency department: An international prospective cohort study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the lung ultrasound (LUS) scores applied to an international cohort of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19, and subsequently admitted with proven disease, could prognosticate clinical outcomes.

Methods

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of patients who received LUS and were followed for the composite primary outcome of intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. LUS scores were later applied including two 12-zone protocols ('de Alencar score' and 'CLUE score'), a 12-zone protocol with lung and pleural findings ('Ji score') and an 11-zone protocol ('Tung-Chen score'). The primary analysis comprised logistic regression modelling of the composite primary outcome, with the LUS scores analysed individually as predictor variables.

Results

Between April 2020 to April 2022, 129 patients with COVID-19 had LUS performed according to the protocol and 24 (18.6%) met the composite primary endpoint. No association was seen between the LUS score and the composite primary end point for the de Alencar score [odds ratio (OR) = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.11; P = 0.29], the CLUE score (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96-1.10; P = 0.40), the Ji score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.07; P = 0.40) or the Tung-Chen score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.08).

Discussion

Compared to these earlier studies performed at the start of the pandemic, the negative outcome of our study could reflect the changing scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic, including patient, disease, and system factors. The analysis suggests that the study may have been underpowered to detect a weaker association between a LUS score and the primary outcome.

Conclusion

In an international cohort of adult patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 disease who had LUS performed and were subsequently admitted to hospital, LUS severity scores did not prognosticate the need for invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death.

Risk for diagnosis or treatment of mood or anxiety disorders in adults after SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2020-2022

COVID-19 is associated with increased risks for mood or anxiety disorders, but it remains uncertain how the association evolves over time or which patient groups are most affected. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide database of electronic health records to determine the risk of depressive or anxiety disorder diagnoses after SARS-CoV-2 infection by 3-month blocks from January 2020 to April 2022. The study population comprised 822,756 patients (51.8% female; mean age 42.8 years) with COVID-19 and 2,034,353 patients with other respiratory tract infections (RTIs) (53.5% female, mean age 30.6 years). First time diagnoses of depressive or anxiety disorders 14 days to 3 months after infection, as well as new or new plus recurrent prescriptions of antidepressants or anxiolytics, were compared between propensity score matched cohorts using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, including hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of a new diagnosis or prescription was also stratified by age, sex, and race to better characterize which groups were most affected. In the first three months of the pandemic, patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 had significantly increased risk of depression or anxiety disorder diagnosis (HR 1.65 [95% CI, 1.30-2.08]). October 2021 to January 2022 (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.18]) and January to April 2022 (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.01-1.14]). Similar temporal patterns were observed for antidepressant and anxiolytic prescriptions, when the control group was patients with bone fracture, when anxiety and depressive disorders were considered separately, when recurrent depressive disorder was tested, and when the test period was extended to 6 months. COVID-19 patients ≥65 years old demonstrated greatest absolute risk at the start of the pandemic (6.8%), which remained consistently higher throughout the study period (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.13-1.27]), and overall, women with COVID-19 had greater risk than men (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.30-1.40]).

Why Certain Repurposed Drugs Are Unlikely to Be Effective Antivirals to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Most repurposed drugs have proved ineffective for treating COVID-19. We evaluated median effective and toxic concentrations (EC50, CC50) of 49 drugs, mostly from previous clinical trials, in Vero cells. Ratios of reported unbound peak plasma concentrations, (Cmax)/EC50, were used to predict the potential in vivo efficacy. The 20 drugs with the highest ratios were retested in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells, and their CC50 was determined in an expanded panel of cell lines. Many of the 20 drugs with the highest ratios were inactive in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells. Antivirals effective in controlled clinical trials had unbound Cmax/EC50 ≥ 6.8 in Calu-3 or Caco-2 cells. EC50 of nucleoside analogs were cell dependent. This approach and earlier availability of more relevant cultures could have reduced the number of unwarranted clinical trials.

Effect of Paxlovid in COVID-19 treatment during the periods of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 and BN.1 subvariant dominance in the Republic of Korea: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those aged 60 years and older. Using real-world data, the period during which the BN.1 Omicron variant was dominant was compared to the period dominated by the BA.5 variant.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected regarding 2,665,281 patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between July 24, 2022, and March 31, 2023. Propensity score matching was utilized to match patients who received nirmatrelvir/ ritonavir in a 1:4 ratio between BN.1 and BA.5 variant groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within these groups.

RESULTS

Compared to the prior period, the efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir did not significantly differ during the interval of Omicron BN.1 variant dominance in the Republic of Korea. Among patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, a significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the BN.1 group (odds ratio [OR], 0.698; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.557-0.875) compared to the BA.5 group. However, this treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of severe or critical illness, including death, for those in the BN.1 group (OR, 0.856; 95% CI, 0.728-1.007).

CONCLUSION

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has maintained its effectiveness against COVID-19, even with the emergence of the BN.1 Omicron subvariant. Consequently, we strongly recommend the administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms, irrespective of the dominant Omicron variant or their vaccination status, to mitigate disease severity and decrease the risk of mortality.

Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

SARS-CoV-2 and chronic myeloid leukemia: a systematic review

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus causing the coronavirus disease of 2019. The disease has caused millions of deaths since the first pandemic at the end of 2019. Immunocompromised individuals are more likely to develop severe infections. Numerous mutations had developed in SARS-CoV-2, resulting in strains (Alfa Beta Delta Omicron) with varying degrees of virulence disease severity. In CML (chronic myeloid leukemia) patients, there is a lot of controversy regarding the effect of the treatment on the patient outcome. Some reports suggested potential better outcomes among patients with CML, likely due to the use of TKI; other reports showed no significant effects. Additionally, it is unknown how much protection immunization provides for cancer patients.

Method

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, we conducted a systematic review. Retrospective, prospective studies, reviews, case series, and case reports of chronic myeloid leukemia patients aged above 18 years who had SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. English literature was screened using PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Search terms include chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched the reference lists of the included studies for any new articles. The search included all articles published up to April 20, 2023. The review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022326674).

Results

We reviewed 33 articles of available published literature up to April 2023 and collected data from a total of 682 CML patients with COVID-19. Most patients were in the chronic phase, seven were in the accelerated phase, and eight were in the blast phase. Disease severity was classified according to WHO criteria. Mortality was seen in 45 patients, and there were no reports of thrombotic events. Two hundred seventy-seven patients were in the era before vaccination; among them, eight were in the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality was 30 (11%). There were 405 patients after the era of vaccination; among them, death was reported in 15 (4%) patients and ICU in 13 patients.

Limitations and conclusion

The major limitation of this review is the lack of details about the use or hold of TKIs during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, after the appearance of the different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, few studies mentioned the variant of the virus, which makes it difficult to compare the outcome of the other variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in patients with CML. Despite the limitations of the study, CML patients with COVID-19 have no significant increase in mortality compared to other hematological malignancy. Hematological cancers are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis, which is expected to increase in patients with COVID-19. However, patient with CML has not been reported to have a significant increase in thrombosis risk. The available data indicates that COVID-19's effect on patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) still needs to be better understood due to the limited data.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? RecordID:326674.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Despite the wide availability of effective vaccines, COVID-19 continues to be an infectious disease of global importance. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral and was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for COVID-19. In clinical guidelines, remdesivir is currently the only recommended antiviral for use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with or without a supplemental oxygen requirement. It is also recommended for nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. This narrative review explores the evidence for remdesivir across various clinical outcomes and evolution of clinical guidelines through a survey over time of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. Remdesivir, compared to standard of care, appears to improve survival and disease progression in a variety of patient populations with COVID-19 across a spectrum of disease severity and SARS-CoV-2 variant periods. Remdesivir also appears to improve time to clinical recovery, increase rate of recovery, and reduce time on supplemental oxygen and readmission rates. More recent large, real-world studies further support the early use of remdesivir in a range of patient populations, including those with immunocompromising conditions.

Remdesivir Reduced Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Across Variant Waves: Findings From Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods.

METHODS

Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods.

RESULTS

A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

A randomized, double-blind study on the efficacy of oral domperidone versus placebo for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients in primary health care

INTRODUCTION

The clinical effect of domperidone against COVID-19 has been investigated in a double-blind phase III clinical trial (EudraCT number 2021-001228-17). Domperidone has shown in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential immudolatory properties through the stimulation of prolactin secretion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The efficacy of oral domperidone plus standard of care (SOC; n = 87) versus placebo plus SOC (n = 86) was evaluated in a 28-day randomized double-blind multicentre study in primary health care centres. A total of 173 outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were included. Three daily doses of 10 mg (30 mg/day) of domperidone or placebo were administered for 7 days. Reduction of viral load on day 4 was the primary efficay endpoint. It was estimated in saliva samples by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), as the cycle thresholds detected ORF1ab, N Protein and S Protein genes.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in the viral load was observed (p < 0.001) from baseline to days 4, 7 and 14 of the three genes studied with non-significant differences between domperidone and placebo groups. Twenty-three patients (13.3%) experienced adverse events, 14 patients in the domperidone group (16.1%) and 9 patients in the placebo group (10.5%). No patients needed to be hospitalized.

CONCLUSION

Results do not prove the use of domperidone as antiviral in patients with COVID-19.

Remdesivir Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen Including Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Across SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Background

This comparative effectiveness study investigated the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen including low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation (HFO/NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) across variant of concern (VOC) periods.

Methods

Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 and administered remdesivir upon admission were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients not administered remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by supplemental oxygen requirement upon admission and VOC period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 14- and 28-day mortality.

Results

Patients treated with remdesivir (67 582 LFO, 34 857 HFO/NIV, and 4164 IMV/ECMO) were matched to non-remdesivir patients. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower for remdesivir-treated patients at 14 days (LFO: 6.4% vs. 8.8%; HFO/NIV: 16.8% vs. 19.4%; IMV/ECMO: 27.8% vs. 35.3%) and 28 days (LFO: 9.8% vs. 12.3%; HFO/NIV: 25.8% vs. 28.3%; IMV/ECMO: 41.4% vs. 50.6%). After adjustment, remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality at 14 days (LFO: aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and 28 days (LFO: aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82) compared with non-remdesivir treatment. Lower risk of mortality among remdesivir-treated patients was observed across VOC periods.

Conclusions

Remdesivir treatment is associated with significantly reduced mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen upon admission, including those requiring HFO/NIV or IMV/ECMO with severe or critical disease, across VOC periods.

Clinical outcomes by supplemental oxygen use in remdesivir-treated, hospitalised adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials show different effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes relative to COVID-19 severity at hospital admission; in Europe, there are few real-world data.

METHODS

A multicentre, multinational retrospective cohort study in adult patients hospitalised with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was conducted to understand remdesivir clinical use in different countries and to describe outcomes for patients receiving remdesivir stratified by oxygen use. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalisation duration. Patients were categorised by baseline disease severity: no supplemental oxygen (NSO); low flow oxygen ≤ 6 litres (l)/minute (LFO); high flow oxygen > 6 l/minute (HFO).

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-eight (448) patients (72 [16.1%] HFO; 295 [65.8%] LFO; 81 (18.1%] NSO) were included; median age was 65 years and 64% were male. Mortality was higher in patients on HFO (rate 23.6%) compared to LFO (10.2%; p = 0.001) or NSO (6.2%; p = 0.002). Duration of hospitalisation was longer in patients on HFO (13 days) compared to LFO (9 days; p = 0.003) and NSO (9 days; p = 0.021). Patients who initiated remdesivir ≥ 2 days compared to within a day of hospitalisation had a 4.2 times higher risk of death, irrespective of age, sex, comorbidities, and oxygen support at baseline. Requirement for mechanical ventilation/ECMO and readmission within 28 days of discharge was similar across groups. Remdesivir use and outcomes differed by country.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation was seen in remdesivir-treated COVID-19 patients on HFO compared to LFO and NSO. Initiation of remdesivir upon admission as opposed to delayed initiation has a mortality benefit.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04847622.

Discovery of GS-5245 (Obeldesivir), an Oral Prodrug of Nucleoside GS-441524 That Exhibits Antiviral Efficacy in SARS-CoV-2-Infected African Green Monkeys

Remdesivir 1 is an phosphoramidate prodrug that releases the monophosphate of nucleoside GS-441524 (2) into lung cells, thereby forming the bioactive triphosphate 2-NTP. 2-NTP, an analog of ATP, inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase replication and transcription of viral RNA. Strong clinical results for 1 have prompted interest in oral approaches to generate 2-NTP. Here, we describe the discovery of a 5'-isobutyryl ester prodrug of 2 (GS-5245, Obeldesivir, 3) that has low cellular cytotoxicity and 3-7-fold improved oral delivery of 2 in monkeys. Prodrug 3 is cleaved presystemically to provide high systemic exposures of 2 that overcome its less efficient metabolism to 2-NTP, leading to strong SARS-CoV-2 antiviral efficacy in an African green monkey infection model. Exposure-based SARS-CoV-2 efficacy relationships resulted in an estimated clinical dose of 350-400 mg twice daily. Importantly, all SARS-CoV-2 variants remain susceptible to 2, which supports development of 3 as a promising COVID-19 treatment.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.

Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in treating COVID-19 patients after emergency use authorization study

Background: This study aimed to determine the real-world safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-critical disease in Indonesia. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted at four COVID-19 referral hospitals in Jakarta. A total of 587 patients were included, of whom 243 received remdesivir within 72 h of admission. The safety endpoints were the proportions of patients with any adverse event (AE), any grade 3 AE, and AE of each system organ class. The effectiveness endpoints were ICU admission >24 h from baseline, live discharge and mortality at day 14, live discharge and mortality at day 28, and virologic conversion. Patients who received remdesivir within 72 h of admission were considered the treatment group, and those who did not were the control group. Multivariate adjustments were performed using a modified Poisson regression. Results: The study found no significant differences in safety endpoints between the two groups. However, the effectiveness endpoints showed that remdesivir was associated with a decreased risk of ICU admission >24 h from baseline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.96), an increased probability of live discharge at day 14 (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.74), and an increased probability of live discharge at day 28 (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05-1.57). The rate of virologic conversion was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The study concludes that remdesivir is safe and effective in the treatment of moderate-to-critical COVID-19 in a real-world setting in Indonesia.

Remdesivir Treatment Lacks the Effect on Mortality Reduction in Hospitalized Adult COVID-19 Patients Who Required High-Flow Supplemental Oxygen or Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Background and Objectives: The therapeutic impact of remdesivir on hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients is unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the mortality outcomes of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir therapy to those of patients receiving a placebo based on their oxygen requirements. Materials and Methods: The clinical status of the patients was assessed at the start of treatment using an ordinal scale. Studies comparing the mortality rate of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir vs. those treated with a placebo were included. Results: Nine studies were included and showed that the risk of mortality was reduced by 17% in patients treated with remdesivir. Hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who did not require supplemental oxygen or who required low-flow oxygen and were treated with remdesivir had a lower mortality risk. In contrast, hospitalized adult patients who required high-flow supplemental oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation did not have a therapeutic benefit in terms of mortality. Conclusions: The clinical benefit of mortality reduction in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir was associated with no need for supplemental oxygen or requiring supplemental low-flow oxygen at the start of treatment, especially in those requiring supplemental low-flow oxygen.

Remdesivir Use in the Real-World Setting: An Overview of Available Evidence

In the years of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), various treatment options have been utilized. COVID-19 continues to circulate in the global population, and the evolution of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has posed significant challenges to the treatment and prevention of infection. Remdesivir (RDV), an anti-viral agent with in vitro efficacy against coronaviruses, is a potent and safe treatment as suggested by a plethora of in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials. Emerging real-world data have confirmed its effectiveness, and there are currently datasets evaluating its efficacy and safety against SARS-CoV-2 infections in various clinical scenarios, including some that are not in the SmPC recommendations according for COVID-19 pharmacotherapy. Remdesivir increases the chance of recovery, reduces progression to severe disease, lowers mortality rates, and exhibits beneficial post-hospitalization outcomes, especially when used early in the course of the disease. Strong evidence suggests the expansion of remdesivir use in special populations (e.g., pregnancy, immunosuppression, renal impairment, transplantation, elderly and co-medicated patients) where the benefits of treatment outweigh the risk of adverse effects. In this article, we attempt to overview the available real-world data of remdesivir pharmacotherapy. With the unpredictable course of COVID-19, we need to utilize all available knowledge to bridge the gap between clinical research and clinical practice and be sufficiently prepared for the future.

Novel Therapeutic Target Critical for SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity and Induction of the Cytokine Release Syndrome

We discovered a novel therapeutic target critical for SARS-CoV-2, cellular infectivity and the induction of the cytokine release syndrome. Here, we show that the mammalian enzyme neuraminidase-1 (Neu-1) is part of a highly conserved signaling platform that regulates the dimerization and activation of the ACE2 receptors and the Toll-like receptors (TLRs) implicated in the cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Activated Neu-1 cleaves glycosylated residues that provide a steric hindrance to both ACE2 and TLR dimerization, a process critical to both viral attachment to the receptor and entry into the cell and TLR activation. Blocking Neu-1 inhibited ACE2 receptor dimerization and internalization, TLR dimerization and activation, and the expression of several key inflammatory molecules implicated in the CRS and death from ARDS. Treatments that target Neu-1 are predicted to be highly effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2, given the central role played by this enzyme in viral cellular entry and the induction of the CRS.

Drug treatment of COVID-19 infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 6.6 million deaths globally. Tremendous efforts have been committed for the development of new and repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Although different international and national guidelines share consensus in the management of COVID-19 disease with different levels of severity, new challenges have emerged, steering the need for ongoing research in advancing the clinical management of COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on recent data from randomized trials and postmarketing real-world evidence for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in the outpatient setting and patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with varying level of severity. Relevant data for treatment of the latest omicron sub-variants in people who received vaccination are presented. Challenges in special populations, including immunocompromised hosts, patients with renal failure and pregnant women, are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Treatment of COVID-19 should be personalized according to host characteristics, degree of severity and available treatment options.

Use of anti-viral therapies in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the United Arab Emirates: a cost-effectiveness and health-care resource use analysis

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the antiviral remdesivir, as recommended in the 2021 COVID treatment guidelines for the United Arab Emirates, compared to standard of care (SOC), but also favipiravir (FAVI), which was also recommended for the treatment of hospitalized COVID patients.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was built using published efficacy data for RDV, FAVI and SOC as well as local epidemiology data. The outcomes measured included hospital bed days averted, mortality, costs and cost per outcome over one year. One-way, probabilistic and scenario analyses were undertaken to reflect uncertainty in the estimates.

RESULTS

When modelled over one year, the results indicated that treatment of adults in need of supplemental oxygen with RDV + SOC could result in 11,338 fewer general ward bed days, 7,003 fewer ICU days and 5,451 fewer ICU + MIV bed days compared to SOC alone and similar results when compared with FAVI + SOC. The model results also showed that there were 374 fewer deaths associated with the use of RDV + SOC compared to SOC alone. The model also estimates substantial potential cost-savings associated with RDV + SOC treatment compared with SOC alone (USD 3,454 per patient). The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was sensitive to estimates of length of stay and the cost of hospitalization. Despite this, the model predicted cost-savings in all scenarios versus all comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

The model estimated that using RDV + SOC could result in substantial reductions in HCRU and cost savings regardless of the comparator. However, it should be noted that reliable clinical information on FAVI was limited therefore it is challenging to interpret these results. All the potential benefits modelled here for RDV + SOC can have implications not only for the health of the UAE population but for improving hospital capacity to deal with other conditions.

Use of Remdesivir in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in a Real-Life Setting during the Second and Third COVID-19 Epidemic Waves

In this retrospective comparative study, we evaluated the effectiveness of remdesivir (RDSV) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Individuals hospitalized between March 2020 and August 2022 at S.M. Goretti Hospital, Latina, with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and, concomitantly, pneumonia, were included. The overall survival was the primary endpoint. The composite secondary endpoint included death or progression in severe ARDS at 40 days. The study population was stratified according to treatment into two groups: the RDSV group (patients treated with RDSV-based regimens) and the no-RDSV group (patients treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens). Factors associated with death and progression to severe ARDS or death were assessed by multivariable analysis. A total of 1153 patients (632 belonging to the RDSV group and 521 to the no-RDSV group) were studied. The groups were comparable in terms of sex, PaO2/FiO2 at admission, and duration of symptoms before hospitalization. Further, 54 patients (8.5%) in the RDSV group and 113 (21.7%) in the no-RDSV group (p < 0.001) died. RDSV was associated with a significantly reduced hazard ratio (HR) of death (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.97]; p = 0.03), compared to the no-RDSV group, as well as a significantly reduced OR of progression in severe ARDS or death (OR, 0.70 [95% CI 0.49-0.98]; p = 0.04). An overall significantly higher survival rate was observed in the RDSV group (p < 0.001, by log-rank test). These findings reinforce the survival benefit of RDSV and support its routine clinical use for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Retrospective Analysis of the Effectiveness of Remdesivir in COVID-19 Treatment during Periods Dominated by Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Clinical Settings

Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effectiveness of COVID-19 medicines is required due to the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and the possible emergence of resistance. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze, in a retrospective manner, the outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the pandemic waves dominated by Delta and Omicron variants and treated with remdesivir (RDV) (n = 762) in comparison to a demographically and clinically matched group not treated with any antivirals (n = 1060). A logistic regression analysis revealed that RDV treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of death during both Delta wave (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.29-0.60; p < 0.0001) and Omicron-dominated period (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02). Moreover, RDV-treated groups were characterized by a lower percentage of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, but the difference was not statistically significant. This study is the first real-world evidence that RDV remains effective during the dominance of more pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 variants and those that cause a milder course of the disease, and continues to be an essential element of COVID-19 therapy.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with nosocomial pneumonia between Alpha and Omicron variants

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that has resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who require intubation and develop nosocomial pneumonia, commonly caused by gram-negative bacilli, have a higher mortality rate than those without nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes and associated risk factors of Alpha and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) with nosocomial pneumonia.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective single-center cohort study.

METHODS

This observational study was conducted at Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan from May 2021 to September 2022. Critically ill patients who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and intubated on a MV with bacterial pneumonia were enrolled. Demographic data, laboratory results, and treatment information were collected and analyzed. In addition, clinical outcomes among different SARS-CoV-2 variants were examined.

RESULTS

This study included 94 critically ill COVID-19 patients who required intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The Alpha group had a longer duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding, MV days, and ICU stay, while the Omicron group had older age, more comorbidities, higher APACHE II scores, and higher in-hospital mortality (47.0% versus 25.0%, p = 0.047). However, independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality included malignancy, lower serum albumin levels, and lack of Remdesivir treatment, except for the SARS-CoV-2 variant.

CONCLUSION

Our study discovered a higher in-hospital mortality rate in severe COVID-19 patients with MV and secondary pneumonia infected with the Omicron variant compared to the Alpha variant; however, real independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality are malignancy, lower serum albumin level, and lack of Remdesivir treatment.