Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Preventative Measures and Ventilator Bundle Care in a Tertiary Care Hospital's Adult Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

The mitigation of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a vital undertaking in safeguarding patient well-being. The research aimed to evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary, comprehensive monitoring approach on VAP incidence in a tertiary medical-surgical-trauma critical care unit.

METHODOLOGY

The research was conducted within an adult medical-surgical ICU from June 2021 to December 2022. VAP data were collected by prospective targeted surveillance in accordance with the guidelines provided by the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In contrast, a cross-sectional design was used to gather bundle data, according to the defined methodology of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), and the rate of variation in admission prior to the bundle's installation was evaluated.

RESULT

The features of ventilated patients in adult medical-surgical ICUs were studied between 2021 and 2022. Regarding demographics, men comprised 42.6% and 45.3% of VAP patients and 65.3% and 50.7% of bundle care patients, respectively. Notably, 33.1% of patients in VAP and 54.5% in bundle care were over 60 years old. Clinical indicators such as median age (12.6 vs. 8 months for non-VAP vs. VAP patients), antibiotic usage (65% vs. 99% for non-VAP vs. VAP patients), and risk factors like trauma diagnosis (HR: 2.59, 95% CI: 2.07-3.23), and accidental extubation (HR: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.93-8.73) differed significantly between the bundle and non-bundle care groups. A significant increase in bundle compliance was seen from 90% in 2021 to 97% in 2022 (P-value <0.001), which helped to lower VAP rates and highlight the need for ongoing quality improvement in ICU treatment.

CONCLUSION

The use of ventilator bundles at a tertiary care hospital resulted in improvements in ventilator utilization, with an approximate increase of 20% and VAP rates of over 70% for adult critical patients.

Anti-COVID-19 Potential of Withaferin-A and Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester

BACKGROUND

The recent COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic triggered research on the development of new vaccines/drugs, repurposing of clinically approved drugs, and assessment of natural anti-COVID-19 compounds. Based on the gender difference in the severity of the disease, such as a higher number of men hospitalized and in intense care units, variations in sex hormones have been predicted to play a role in disease susceptibility. Cell surface receptors (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; ACE2 and a connected transmembrane protease serine 2- TMPSS2) are upregulated by androgens. Conversely, androgen antagonists have also been shown to lower ACE2 levels, implying their usefulness in COVID-19 management.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we performed computational and cell-based assays to investigate the anti- COVID-19 potential of Withaferin-A and Caffeic acid phenethyl ester, natural compounds from Withania somnifera and honeybee propolis, respectively.

METHODS

Structure-based computational approach was adopted to predict binding stability, interactions, and dynamics of the two test compounds to three target proteins (androgen receptor, ACE2, and TMPRSS2). Further, in vitro, cell-based experimental approaches were used to investigate the effect of compounds on target protein expression and SARS-CoV-2 replication.

RESULTS

Computation and experimental analyses revealed that (i) CAPE, but not Wi-A, can act as androgen antagonist and hence inhibit the transcriptional activation function of androgen receptor, (ii) while both Wi-A and CAPE could interact with ACE2 and TMPRSS2, Wi-A showed higher binding affinity, and (iii) combination of Wi-A and CAPE (Wi-ACAPE) caused strong downregulation of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression and inhibition of virus infection.

CONCLUSION

Wi-A and CAPE possess multimodal anti-COVID-19 potential, and their combination (Wi-ACAPE) is expected to provide better activity and hence warrant further attention in the laboratory and clinic.

Drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 drug therapies and antidepressants

INTRODUCTION

Antidepressants are widely used for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety and mood disorders. Since the eruption of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic and the later development of targeted treatments against COVID-19, inevitably many patients receive antidepressants as well as targeted treatments against COVID-19 against COVID-19. Co-administration of antidepressants with COVID-19 therapeutics has the potential of drug-drug interactions, of varying severity and clinical significance.

AREAS COVERED

This is a curated narrative review of the current state of the art regarding drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 therapeutics and medications licensed for the pharmacotherapy of depression. A systematic search of electronic databases, using as keywords the international nonproprietaty names of currently approved COVID-19 therapeutics and antidepressants was performed, and additionally online interaction checker tools were consulted. Derived data were synthesized for each COVID-19 therapeutic and presented with up-to-date guidance.

EXPERT OPINION

Several COVID-19 therapeutics have potential for drug-drug interactions with antidepressants. Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir have the higher risk, whereas several monoclonal antibodies appear safer. The most serious drug-drug interactions (serotonin syndrome and QTc prolongation) require close monitoring; however, DDI toward reducing the efficacy of antidepressants may be difficult to recognize. As COVID-19 treatment protocols take precedence, psychiatrists should exert flexibility in antidepressant use and proactively monitor treatment progress.

Recent Developments in Semiconductor-Based Photocatalytic Degradation of Antiviral Drug Pollutants

The prevalence of antiviral drugs (ATVs) has seen a substantial increase in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to heightened concentrations of these pharmaceuticals in wastewater systems. The hydrophilic nature of ATVs has been identified as a significant factor contributing to the low degradation efficiency observed in wastewater treatment plants. This characteristic often necessitates the implementation of additional treatment steps to achieve the complete degradation of ATVs. Semiconductor-based photocatalysis has garnered considerable attention due to its promising potential in achieving efficient degradation rates and subsequent mineralization of pollutants, leveraging the inexhaustible energy of sunlight. However, in recent years, there have been few comprehensive reports that have thoroughly summarized and analyzed the application of photocatalysis for the removal of ATVs. This review commences by summarizing the types and occurrence of ATVs. Furthermore, it places a significant emphasis on delivering a comprehensive summary and analysis of the characteristics pertaining to the photocatalytic elimination of ATVs, utilizing semiconductor photocatalysts such as metal oxides, doped metal oxides, and heterojunctions. Ultimately, the review sheds light on the identified research gaps and key concerns, offering invaluable insights to steer future investigations in this field.

Remdesivir treatment and clinical outcome in non-severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a propensity score matching multicenter Italian hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

Remdesivir exerts positive effects on clinical improvement, even though it seems not to affect mortality among COVID-19 patients; moreover, it was associated with the occurence of marked bradycardia.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 989 consecutive patients with non-severe COVID-19 (SpO₂ ≥ 94% on room air) admitted from October 2020 to July 2021 at five Italian hospitals. Propensity score matching allowed to obtain a comparable control group. Primary endpoints were bradycardia onset (heart rate < 50 bpm), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in need of intubation and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients (20.2%) received remdesivir, while 789 standard of care (79.8%). In the matched cohorts, severe ARDS in need of intubation was experienced by 70 patients (17.5%), significantly higher in the control group (68% vs. 31%; p < 0.0001). Conversely, bradycardia, experienced by 53 patients (12%), was significantly higher in the remdesivir subgroup (20% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.0001). During follow-up, all-cause mortality was 15% (N = 62), significantly higher in the control group (76% vs. 24%; log-rank p < 0.0001), as shown at the Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis. KM furthermore showed a significantly higher risk of severe ARDS in need of intubation among controls (log-rank p < 0.001), while an increased risk of bradycardia onset in the remdesivir group (log-rank p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression showed a protective role of remdesivir for both ARDS in need of intubation (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.85; p = 0.01) and mortality (OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.09-0.39; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir treatment emerged as associated with reduced risk of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in need of intubation and mortality. Remdesivir-induced bradycardia was not associated with worse outcome.

Potential use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors to reduce COVID-19 severity

SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clinical manifestations (COVID-19) quickly evolved to a pandemic and a global public health emergency. The limited effectivity of available treatments aimed at reducing virus replication and the lessons learned from other coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV-1 or NL63) that share the internalization process of SARS-CoV-2, led us to revisit the COVID-19 pathogenesis and potential treatments. Virus protein S binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) initiating the internalization process. Endosome formation removes ACE2 from the cellular membrane preventing its counter-regulative effect mediated by the metabolism of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1-7). Internalized virus-ACE2 complexes have been identified for these coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 presents the highest affinity for ACE2 and produces the most severe symptoms. Assuming ACE2 internalization is the trigger for COVID-19 pathogenesis, accumulation of angiotensin II can be viewed as the potential cause of symptoms. Angiotensin II is a strong vasoconstrictor, but has also important roles in hypertrophy, inflammation, remodeling, and apoptosis. Higher levels of ACE2 in the lungs explain the acute respiratory distress syndrome as primary symptoms. Most of the described findings and clinical manifestations of COVID-19, including increased interleukin levels, endothelial inflammation, hypercoagulability, myocarditis, dysgeusia, inflammatory neuropathies, epileptic seizures and memory disorders can be explained by excessive angiotensin II levels. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that previous use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with better prognosis for COVID-19. Therefore, pragmatic trials to assess the potential therapeutic benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors should be urgently promoted by health authorities to widen the therapeutic options for COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir: a retrospective analysis of a large tertiary care center in Germany

PURPOSE

The benefits of antiviral treatment with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain controversial. Clinical analyses are needed to demonstrate which patient populations are most likely to benefit.

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, patients with COVID-19 treated between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 at Hospital St. Georg, Leipzig, Germany were evaluated. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement, and the secondary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching was used for the endpoint analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 839 patients were fully evaluated, 68% of whom received specific COVID-19 drug therapy. Remdesivir was used in 31.3% of the patients, corticosteroids in 61.7%, and monoclonal antibodies in 2.3%. While dexamethasone administration was the most common therapeutic approach during the second pandemic wave, combination therapy with remdesivir and corticosteroids predominated during the third wave. Cox regression analysis revealed that combination therapy was not associated with faster clinical improvement (median: 13 days in both matched groups, HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.77-1.21], P = 0.762). By contrast, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the corticosteroid-remdesivir group (14.8% versus 22.2% in the corticosteroid group, HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], P = 0.03) in the low-care setting. This effect was also demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of patients with remdesivir monotherapy (n = 44) versus standard of care (SOC).

CONCLUSION

In COVID-19 patients with only mild disease (low-flow oxygen therapy and treatment in a normal ward) who received corticosteroids and/or remdesivir in addition to SOC, early administration of remdesivir was associated with a measurable survival benefit.

Impact of perceptions and attitudes on air travel choices in the post-COVID-19 era: A cross-national analysis of stated preference data

The COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent travel restrictions have had an unprecedented impact on the air travel market. However, a rigorous analysis of the potential role of safety perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19 interventions on future air passenger choices has been lacking to date. To investigate this matter, 1469 individuals were interviewed between April and September 2020 in four multi-airport cities (London, New York City, Sao Paulo, Shanghai). The core analysis draws upon data from a set of stated preference (SP) experiments in which respondents were asked to reflect on a hypothetical air travel journey taking place when travel restrictions are lifted but there is still a risk of infection. The hybrid choice model results show that alongside traditional attributes, such as fare, duration and transfer, attitudinal and safety perception factors matter to air passengers when making future air travel choices. The cross-national analysis points towards differences in responses across the cities to stem from culturally-driven attitudes towards interpersonal distance and personal space. We also report the willingness to pay for travel attributes under the expected future conditions and discuss post-pandemic implications for the air travel sector, including video-conferencing as a substitute for air travel.

A sustainable approach for the removal methods and analytical determination methods of antiviral drugs from water/wastewater: A review

In the last years, antiviral drugs especially used for the treatment of COVID-19 have been considered emerging contaminants because of their continuous occurrence and persistence in water/wastewater even at low concentrations. Furthermore, as compared to antiviral drugs, their metabolites and transformation products of these pharmaceuticals are more persistent in the environment. They have been found in environmental matrices all over the world, demonstrating that conventional treatment technologies are unsuccessful for removing them from water/wastewater. Several approaches for degrading/removing antiviral drugs have been studied to avoid this contamination. In this study, the present level of knowledge on the input sources, occurrence, determination methods and, especially, the degradation and removal methods of antiviral drugs are discussed in water/wastewater. Different removal methods, such as conventional treatment methods (i.e. activated sludge), advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), adsorption, membrane processes, and combined processes, were evaluated. In addition, the antiviral drugs and these metabolites, as well as the transformation products created as a result of treatment, were examined. Future perspectives for removing antiviral drugs, their metabolites, and transformation products were also considered.

Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview

Background

Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.

Results

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.

Conclusion

Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.

Remdesivir: an overview of patenting trends, clinical evidence on COVID-19 treatment, pharmacology and chemistry

By December 2021, the COVID-19 caused approximately 6.1 million deaths around the world. Several vaccines have been approved, but there is still a need for non-prophylactic treatments for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug approved for emergency use against COVID-19 in several countries, but one of the first clinical trials was inconclusive about the mortality reduction, although the drug showed a reduction in the recovery time of hospitalized patients. Thus, the present investigation revisits the clinical evidence of using remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment, patent status, pharmacology and chemistry. We found 184 families of patents in the Cortellis database, and concerning the clinical evidence, we retrieved 14 systematic reviews with meta-analysis involving remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19, discussing the reduction of adverse events, hospitalization days, mortality rate and the mechanical ventilation period.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Scoping insight on antiviral drugs against COVID-19

Background

COVID-19 is an ongoing viral pandemic produced by SARS-CoV-2. In light of in vitro efficacy, several medications were repurposed for its management. During clinical use, many of these medications produced inconsistent results or had varying limitations.

Objective

The purpose of this literature review is to explain the variable efficacy or limitations of Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, and Favipiravir in clinical settings.

Method

A study of the literature on the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), safety profile, and clinical trials through academic databases using relevant search terms.

Results & discussion

The efficacy of an antiviral drug against COVID-19 is associated with its ability to achieve therapeutic concentration in the lung and intestinal tissues. This efficacy depends on the PK properties, particularly protein binding, volume of distribution, and half-life. The PK and PD of the model drugs need to be integrated to predict their limitations.

Conclusion

Current antiviral drugs have varying pharmacological constraints that may associate with limited efficacy, especially in severe COVID-19 patients, or safety concerns.

Lung epithelial and endothelial damage, loss of tissue repair, inhibition of fibrinolysis, and cellular senescence in fatal COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by respiratory distress, multiorgan dysfunction, and, in some cases, death. The pathological mechanisms underlying COVID-19 respiratory distress and the interplay with aggravating risk factors have not been fully defined. Lung autopsy samples from 18 patients with fatal COVID-19, with symptom onset-to-death times ranging from 3 to 47 days, and antemortem plasma samples from 6 of these cases were evaluated using deep sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, multiplex plasma protein measurements, and pulmonary gene expression and imaging analyses. Prominent histopathological features in this case series included progressive diffuse alveolar damage with excessive thrombosis and late-onset pulmonary tissue and vascular remodeling. Acute damage at the alveolar-capillary barrier was characterized by the loss of surfactant protein expression with injury to alveolar epithelial cells, endothelial cells, respiratory epithelial basal cells, and defective tissue repair processes. Other key findings included impaired clot fibrinolysis with increased concentrations of plasma and lung plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and modulation of cellular senescence markers, including p21 and sirtuin-1, in both lung epithelial and endothelial cells. Together, these findings further define the molecular pathological features underlying the pulmonary response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and provide important insights into signaling pathways that may be amenable to therapeutic intervention.

Optimal timing of remdesivir initiation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients administered with dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

Evidence is lacking about any additional benefits of introducing remdesivir on top of dexamethasone, and the optimal timing of initiation.

METHODS

In a territory-wide cohort of 10,445 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong who were hospitalized between 21st January 2020 and 31st January 2021, 1544 patients had received dexamethasone during hospitalization. Exposure group consisted of patients who had initiated remdesivir prior to dexamethasone (n=93), or co-initiated the two drugs simultaneously (n=373); whereas non-exposure group included patients who were given remdesivir after dexamethasone (n=149), or those without remdesivir use (n=929). Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting for propensity score were applied and hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Time to clinical improvement (HR=1.23, 95%CI 1.02-1.49, p=0.032) and positive IgG antibody (HR=1.22, 95%CI 1.02-1.46, p=0.029) were significantly shorter in the exposure group than that of non-exposure. The exposure group had a shorter hospital length of stay by 2.65 days among survivors, lower WHO clinical progression scale scores from five days of follow-up onwards, lower risks of in-hospital death (HR=0.59, 95%CI 0.36-0.98, p=0.042) and composite outcomes; and without experiencing an increased risk of ARDS. Differences in the cumulative direct medical costs between groups were no longer significant from 17 days of follow-up onwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of remdesivir prior to or simultaneously with dexamethasone was associated with significantly shorter time to clinical improvement and positive IgG antibody, lower risk of in-hospital death, in addition to shorter length of hospital stay in patients with moderate COVID-19.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting.  We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir were searched via databases and other sources from December 2019 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and assessment of risk bias. Seven studies involving 3686 patients were included.

RESULTS

Treatment with remdesivir was associated with an increase in clinical recovery rate by 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.35) on day 7 and 29% (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.37) on day 14. The likelihoods of requiring high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation in the remdesivir group were lower than in the placebo group by 27% (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and 47% (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.72), respectively. Remdesivir-treated patients showed a 39% (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) reduction in the risk of mortality on day 14 compared to the control group; however, there was no significant difference on day 28. Serious adverse effects (SAEs) were significantly less common in patients treated with remdesivir, with an absolute risk difference of 6% (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite conditional recommendation against its use, remdesivir could still be effective in early clinical improvement; reduction of early mortality and avoiding high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was also well tolerated without significant SAEs compared to placebo, yet available evidence from clinical studies support the need to conduct close monitoring.

Clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020.

RESULTS

Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18-2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90-1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28-2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.

Clinical improvement, outcomes, antiviral activity, and costs associated with early treatment with remdesivir for patients with COVID-19

Background

Evidence remains inconclusive on any significant benefits of remdesivir in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. This study explored the disease progression, various clinical outcomes, changes in viral load, and costs associated with early remdesivir treatment among COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A territory-wide retrospective cohort of 10,419 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized from 21st January 2020 to 31st January 2021 in Hong Kong were identified. Early remdesivir users were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of up to 1:4. Study outcomes were time to clinical improvement on the WHO clinical progression scale of at least 1 score; hospital discharge; recovery; viral clearance; low viral load; positive IgG antibody; in-hospital death; and composite outcomes of in-hospital death, requiring invasive ventilation or intensive care.

Results

After multiple imputation and propensity-score matching, the median follow-up was 14 days for both remdesivir (n=352) and control (n=1,347) groups. Time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group than that of control (hazard ratio (HR)=1.14, 95%CI 1.01-1.29, p=0.038), as well as for achieving low viral load (HR=1.51, 95%CI 1.24-1.83, p<0.001) and positive IgG antibody (HR=1.50, 95%CI 1.31-1.70, p<0.001). Early remdesivir treatment was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death (HR=0.58, 95%CI 0.34-0.99, p=0.045), in addition to a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (difference -2.56 days, 95%CI -4.86 to -0.26, p=0.029), without increasing the risks of composite outcomes for clinical deterioration.

Conclusions

Early remdesivir treatment could be extended to hospitalized patients presenting with moderate COVID-19 and not requiring oxygen therapy on admission.

Efficacy and safety outcomes with remdesivir in COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug having in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and is currently being used on a compassionate basis outside of clinical trials.

AIM

To analyze the efficacy and safety of remdesivir compared with other interventions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

We searched online databases to include randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of remdesivir compared with other interventions in COVID-19 patients. We summarized efficacy and safety data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and used Mantel-Haenszel fixed or random-effect models. We estimated the number needed to treat (NNT) to cause one additional outcome. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for all outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We included four randomized controlled trials. We observed no significant difference in mortality (RR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.57–1.20; I² = 59%) and rate of ventilation (RR: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.41-1.18; I² = 77%) between remdesivir- and placebo-treated patients. Remdesivir showed higher rates of clinical recovery than placebo (RR: 1.10; 95%CI: 1.04–1.16; I² = 0%; NNT: 14.3). We observed no difference in overall adverse events between remdesivir- and placebo-treated patients (RR: 1.05; 95%CI: 0.86–1.27; I² = 77%). We observed less risk of serious adverse events (RR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.63–0.89; I² = 0%) in remdesivir- than placebo-treated patients. The GRADE approach suggested moderate quality of evidence for all efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We observed limited clinical benefit of remdesivir over placebo in the treatment of COVID-19. Our findings could be biased because of the small number of trials.