WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium. Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses

Development of iminosugar-based glycosidase inhibitors as drug candidates for SARS-CoV-2 virus via molecular modelling and in vitro studies

We developed new iminosugar-based glycosidase inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2. Known drugs (miglustat, migalastat, miglitol, and swainsonine) were chosen as lead compounds to develop three classes of glycosidase inhibitors (α-glucosidase, α-galactosidase, and mannosidase). Molecular modelling of the lead compounds, synthesis of the compounds with the highest docking scores, enzyme inhibition tests, and in vitro antiviral assays afforded rationally designed inhibitors. Two highly active α-glucosidase inhibitors were discovered, where one of them is the most potent iminosugar-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent to date (EC90 = 1.94 µM in A549-ACE2 cells against Omicron BA.1 strain). However, galactosidase inhibitors did not exhibit antiviral activity, whereas mannosidase inhibitors were both active and cytotoxic. As our iminosugar-based drug candidates act by a host-directed mechanism, they should be more resilient to drug resistance. Moreover, this strategy could be extended to identify potential drug candidates for other viral infections.

Safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and severe renal impairment: experience at a large medical center

BACKGROUND

Literature on the safety of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe renal impairment is limited. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received remdesivir between April 2022 and October 2022. Outcomes were compared between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 groups. The primary safety outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI) and bradycardia, while the primary effectiveness outcomes included mortality in COVID-19-dedicated wards and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included laboratory changes, disease progression, and recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 1,343 patients were recruited, with 307 (22.9%) in the eGFR <30 group and 1,036 (77.1%) in the eGFR ≥30 group. Patients with an eGFR <30 had higher risks of AKI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.92, 95% CI 1.93-4.44) and hospital mortality (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.05) but had comparable risks of bradycardia (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85-1.56) and mortality in dedicated wards (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 0.90-2.28) than patients with an eGFR ≥30. Risk of disease progression was higher in the eGFR <30 group (adjusted odds ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.16-2.26). No difference between the two groups in laboratory changes and recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir with severe renal impairment had an increased risk of AKI, hospital mortality, and COVID-19 disease progression compared to patients without severe renal impairment.

Comparative effectiveness of combination therapy with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir versus monotherapy with remdesivir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) were reported to improve the outcome of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Preclinical data suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir might be more effective than remdesivir alone or in combination with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for people at high risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of combining remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with using each drug alone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this target trial emulation study, we used electronic health records of patients aged 18 years or older who received either combination treatment of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir or monotherapy of either drug between March 16 and Dec 31, 2022, within 5 days of hospitalisation for COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance baseline patient characteristics across the treatment groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting weighting was used to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or ventilatory support for 90 days of follow-up between groups.

FINDINGS

Between March 16 and Dec 31, 2022, 18 196 participants were identified from electronic health records and assigned to receive remdesivir (n=4232), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n=13 656), or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir (n=308). By applying an inverse probability of treatment weighting, a weighted sample composed of 18 410 recipients of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir combination treatment, 18 178 recipients of remdesivir monotherapy, and 18 287 recipients of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy was obtained. After a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 45-90), risk of mortality was lower in patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·18 [95% CI 0·15 to 0·20]; absolute risk reduction [ARR] -16·33% [95% CI -16·98 to -15·68]) or remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·49 to 0·89]; ARR -6·52% [95% CI -7·29 to -5·74]) than in patients who received remdesivir monotherapy. Similar results were observed for ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy: HR 0·09 [95% CI 0·07 to 0·11]; ARR -10·04% [95% CI -10·53 to -9·56]; combination therapy: HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·42 to 1·12]; ARR -3·24% [95% CI -3·84 to -2·64]). Compared with combination therapy, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir monotherapy was associated with lower risk of mortality (HR 0·27 [95% CI 0·20 to 0·37]; ARR -9·81% [95% CI -10·39 to -9·24]) and ICU admission or ventilatory support (HR 0·13 [95% CI 0·08 to 0·22]; ARR -6·80% [95% CI -7·22 to -6·39]).

INTERPRETATION

Our study highlighted the potential for reduced risk of mortality, ICU admission, or the need for ventilatory support in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as a monotherapy compared with treatment regimens based on nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and remdesivir combination therapy or remdesivir monotherapy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to support the validity of the current results.

FUNDING

The Health and Medical Research Fund Commissioned Research on COVID-19.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

How international guidelines recommend treating children who have severe COVID-19 or risk disease progression

AIM

This study reviewed the current knowledge and guidelines on managing COVID-19 in children and proposed a practical approach to drug treatment.

METHODS

We analysed international guidelines from four prominent scientific bodies on treating COVID-19 in children. These were the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the American National Institutes of Health, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19.

RESULTS

Most paediatric patients with COVID-19 only require symptomatic treatment. There was limited evidence on treatment recommendations for children with severe COVID-19 or at risk of disease progression. However, several drugs are available for children and we have summarised the guidelines, in order to provide a concise, practical format for clinicians. All the guidelines agree that nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir or remdesivir can be used as prophylaxis for severe COVID-19 in high-risk patients. Remdesivir can also be used for severe COVID-19 cases. Glucocorticosteroids are recommended, particularly in patients requiring oxygen therapy. Tocilizumab or baricitinib should be reserved for patients with progressive disease and/or signs of systemic inflammation.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines provide useful advice and a degree of consensus on specific drug treatment for children with severe COVID-19 or at risk of progression.

The structure of lipopeptides impacts their antiviral activity and mode of action against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Microbial lipopeptides are synthesized by nonribosomal peptide synthetases and are composed of a hydrophobic fatty acid chain and a hydrophilic peptide moiety. These structurally diverse amphiphilic molecules can interact with biological membranes and possess various biological activities, including antiviral properties. This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity and antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) of 15 diverse lipopeptides to understand their structure-activity relationships. Non-ionic lipopeptides were generally more cytotoxic than charged ones, with cationic lipopeptides being less cytotoxic than anionic and non-ionic variants. At 100 µg/mL, six lipopeptides reduced SARS-CoV-2 RNA to undetectable levels in infected Vero E6 cells, while six others achieved a 2.5- to 4.1-log reduction, and three had no significant effect. Surfactin, white line-inducing principle (WLIP), fengycin, and caspofungin emerged as the most promising anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. Detailed analysis revealed that these four lipopeptides affected various stages of the viral life cycle involving the viral envelope. Surfactin and WLIP significantly reduced viral RNA levels in replication assays, comparable to neutralizing serum. Surfactin uniquely inhibited viral budding, while fengycin impacted viral binding after pre-infection treatment of the cells. Caspofungin demonstrated a lower antiviral effect compared to the others. Key structural traits of lipopeptides influencing their cytotoxic and antiviral activities were identified. Lipopeptides with a high number of amino acids, especially charged (preferentially anionic) amino acids, showed potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. This research paves the way for designing new lipopeptides with low cytotoxicity and high antiviral efficacy, potentially leading to effective treatments.

IMPORTANCE

This study advances our understanding of how lipopeptides, which are molecules mostly produced by bacteria, with both fat and protein components, can be used to fight viruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). By analyzing 15 different lipopeptides, researchers identified key structural features that make some of these molecules particularly effective at reducing viral levels while being less harmful to cells. Specifically, lipopeptides with certain charged amino acids were found to have the strongest antiviral effects. This research lays the groundwork for developing new antiviral treatments that are both potent against viruses and safe for human cells, offering hope for better therapeutic options in the future.

Immunity and Coagulation in COVID-19

Discovered in late 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has caused the largest pandemic of the 21st century, claiming more than seven million lives. In most cases, the COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is relatively mild and affects only the upper respiratory tract; it most often manifests itself with fever, chills, cough, and sore throat, but also has less-common mild symptoms. In most cases, patients do not require hospitalization, and fully recover. However, in some cases, infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus leads to the development of a severe form of COVID-19, which is characterized by the development of life-threatening complications affecting not only the lungs, but also other organs and systems. In particular, various forms of thrombotic complications are common among patients with a severe form of COVID-19. The mechanisms for the development of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 remain unclear. Accumulated data indicate that the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 is based on disruptions in the functioning of various innate immune systems. The key role in the primary response to a viral infection is assigned to two systems. These are the pattern recognition receptors, primarily members of the toll-like receptor (TLR) family, and the complement system. Both systems are the first to engage in the fight against the virus and launch a whole range of mechanisms aimed at its rapid elimination. Normally, their joint activity leads to the destruction of the pathogen and recovery. However, disruptions in the functioning of these innate immune systems in COVID-19 can cause the development of an excessive inflammatory response that is dangerous for the body. In turn, excessive inflammation entails activation of and damage to the vascular endothelium, as well as the development of the hypercoagulable state observed in patients seriously ill with COVID-19. Activation of the endothelium and hypercoagulation lead to the development of thrombosis and, as a result, damage to organs and tissues. Immune-mediated thrombotic complications are termed "immunothrombosis". In this review, we discuss in detail the features of immunothrombosis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential underlying mechanisms.

Does Remdesivir Lower COVID-19 Mortality? A Subgroup Analysis of Hospitalized Adults Receiving Supplemental Oxygen

The first Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) showed that remdesivir improved COVID-19 recovery time compared with placebo in hospitalized adults. The secondary outcome of mortality was almost significant overall (p = 0.07) and highly significant for people receiving supplemental oxygen at enrollment (p = 0.002), suggesting a mortality benefit concentrated in this group. We explore analysis methods that are helpful when a single subgroup benefits from treatment and apply them to ACTT-1, using baseline oxygen use to define subgroups. We consider two questions: (1) is the remdesivir effect for people receiving supplemental oxygen real, and (2) does this effect differ from the overall effect? For Question 1, we apply a Bonferroni adjustment to subgroup-specific hypothesis tests and the Westfall and Young permutation test, which is valid when small cell counts preclude normally distributed test statistics (a frequently unexamined condition in subgroup analyses). For Question 2, we introduce Qmax, the largest standardized difference between subgroup-specific effects and the overall effect. Qmax simultaneously tests whether any subgroup effect differs from the overall effect and identifies the subgroup benefitting most. We demonstrate that Qmax strongly controls the familywise error rate (FWER) when test statistics are normally distributed with no mean-variance relationship. We compare Qmax to a related permutation test, SEAMOS, which was previously proposed but not extensively applied or tested. We show that SEAMOS can have inflated Type 1 error under the global null when control arm event rates differ between subgroups. Our results support a mortality benefit from remdesivir in people receiving supplemental oxygen.

Effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 and severe renal insufficiency: a nationwide cohort study in Japan

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe renal insufficiency remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether remdesivir reduces the risk of mortality or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) in this population.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study utilising the COVID-19 Registry Japan (COVIREGI-JP) included noncritical patients with COVID-19 and severe renal insufficiency (defined as serum creatinine levels ≥3 mg/dL, on maintenance dialysis, or kidney transplant recipients) admitted to Japanese hospitals within 7 days of symptom onset between January 1, 2020 and May 8, 2023. Patients were classified into the remdesivir group if remdesivir was initiated within the first 2 days of admission. We estimated the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality and initiation of IMV/ECMO using landmark analysis to address immortal time bias.

RESULTS

Among the 1,449 patients included in the landmark analysis (median age, 74 years [interquartile range 62-84 years]; 992 [68.5%] were male), 272 initiated remdesivir within the first 2 days of admission. During the 28 days from the landmark timepoint, 19 (7.0%) and 136 (11.6%) patients in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively, had an outcome. The remdesivir group had a lower risk of mortality or IMV/ECMO initiation than the control group (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In noncritical patients with COVID-19 and severe renal insufficiency at admission, initiating remdesivir early after disease onset, within the first 2 days of admission, led to a lower risk of mortality or IMV/ECMO initiation, compared with non-initiation of remdesivir.

National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel: Perspectives and Lessons Learned

DESCRIPTION

In March 2020, the White House Coronavirus Task Force determined that clinicians in the United States needed expert treatment guidelines to optimally manage patients with COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease caused by a new pathogen for which no specific treatments were known to be effective.

METHODS

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) take the lead in expeditiously convening a panel of experts to create "living" guidelines that would be widely accessible and capable of frequent updating as important new information became available.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this article is to expand on the experiences of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) over the past 4 years, summarize the Panel's final recommendations for COVID-19, highlight some challenges and unanswered questions about COVID-19 management, and inform future responses to public health emergencies. The Panel was formed in March 2020, and the first iteration of the guidelines was released in April 2020. Now that the public health emergency has ended, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines have sunsetted. This role will now fall to professional societies and organizations, such as the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the World Health Organization, all of which have been active in this area.

The winding road: Infectious disease considerations for CAR-T and other novel adoptive cellular therapies in the era of COVID-19

Adoptive cellular therapies (ACT) are novel, promising treatments for life-threatening malignancies. In addition to the better known chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, ACTs include tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), cancer antigen-specific T cell receptors (TCRs), and CAR-NK (natural killer) cells. In key historic milestones, several adoptive therapies recently received FDA approvals, including 6 CAR-T products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and the first TIL therapy for the treatment for metastatic melanoma. The rapid pace of clinical trials in the field and the discoveries they provide are ushering in a new era of cancer immunotherapy. However, the potential complications of these therapies are still not fully understood. In particular, patients receiving ACT may be at increased risk for severe infections due to immunocompromise resulting from their underlying malignancies, which are further compounded by the immune derangements that develop in the setting of cellular immunotherapy and/or the preconditioning treatment needed to enhance ACT efficacy. Moreover, these treatments are being readily implemented at a time following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it remains unclear what additional risks these patients may face from SARS-CoV-2 and similar infections. Here, we examine the evidence for infectious complications with emerging adoptive therapies, and provide a focused review of the epidemiology, complications, and clinical management for COVID-19 in CAR-T recipients to understand the risk this disease may pose to recipients of other forms of ACT.

What are the clinical and research lessons learned from immunomodulators and other therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The development and use of immunomodulators and other therapies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provided several lessons with respect to these therapies, and to how medical researchers and clinicians should approach the next pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

New or repurposed therapies, particularly immunomodulator treatments, for the treatment of an infectious disease will always be associated with inherent patient risk and this was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concomitant development and use of effective antimicrobial therapies along with close monitoring for secondary infections is paramount for patient safety and treatment success. The development of immunomodulators and other therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards for medical research for all potential treatment with large double-blind placebo-controlled trials and peer review being the best mode of disseminating medical results rather than social media outlets.

SUMMARY

The next new and emerging pandemic will undoubtedly share many of the same challenges posed by COVID-19. It is important that researchers and clinicians learn from this experience, adhere to tried and true clinical care, all the while conducting high quality research aimed at developing definitive treatments.

The first five years of SARS-CoV-2: inpatient treatment updates and future directions

INTRODUCTION

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in adults with pneumonia in Wuhan, China.

AREAS COVERED

It is now believed that several billion humans have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more than ten million have died from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

EXPERT OPINION

The first five years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been marked by unfathomable suffering as well as remarkable scientific progress. This manuscript examines what has been learned about the treatment of inpatients with COVID-19 and explores how the therapeutic approach may evolve in the years ahead.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Leronlimab in Mild-To-Moderate COVID-19

PURPOSE

Early in the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic it was hypothesised that host genetics played a role in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 including a suggestion that the CCR5-Δ32 mutation may be protective in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Leronlimab is an investigational CCR5-specific humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody currently in development for HIV-1 infection. We aimed to explore the impact of leronlimab on the severity of disease symptoms among participants with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

The TEMPEST trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in participants with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous leronlimab (700 mg) or placebo on days 0 and 7. The primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by change in total symptom score based on fever, myalgia, dyspnea, and cough, at end of treatment (day 14).

FINDINGS

Overall, 84 participants were randomized and treated with leronlimab (n = 56) or placebo (n = 28). No difference was observed in change in total symptom score (P = 0.8184) or other pre-specified secondary endpoints between treatments. However, in a post hoc analysis, 50.0% of participants treated with leronlimab demonstrated improvements from baseline in National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) at day 14, compared with 20·8% of participants in the placebo group (post hoc; p = 0.0223). Among participants in this trial with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 adverse events rates were numerically but not statistically significantly lower in leronlimab participants (33.9%) compared with placebo participants (50.0%).

IMPLICATIONS

At the time the TEMPEST trial was designed although CCR5 was known to be implicated in COVID-19 disease severity the exact pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection was poorly understood. Today it is well accepted that SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic-to-mild cases is primarily characterized by viral replication, with a heightened immune response, accompanied by diminished viral replication in moderate-to-severe disease and a peak in inflammatory responses with excessive production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in critical disease. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that no differences between treatments were observed in the primary endpoint or in pre-specified secondary endpoints among participants with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. However, the results of the exploratory post hoc analysis showing that participants in the leronlimab group had greater improvement in NEWS2 assessment compared to placebo provided a suggestion that leronlimab may be associated with a lower likelihood of people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 progressing to more severe disease and needs to be confirmed in other appropriately designed clinical trials.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number, NCT04343651 https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT04343651.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Nucleocapsid Antigen Are Blood Biomarkers Associated With Severe Disease Outcomes That Improve in Response to Remdesivir

BACKGROUND

Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1, which randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo.

METHODS

Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 patients with COVID-19 were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed.

RESULTS

Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/mL vs 1.04 (95% CI, .76-1.42) for levels <245 pg/mL. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04280705 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

SARS-CoV-2 viral load is linked to remdesivir efficacy in severe Covid-19 admitted to intensive care

Remdesivir therapy has been declared as efficient in the early stages of Covid-19. Of the 339 patients (males 55.8%, age 71(59;77) years) with a detectable viral load, 140 were treated with remdesivir (of those 103 in the ICU and 57 immunosuppressed) and retrospectively compared with 199 patients (of those 82 in the ICU and 28 immunosuppressed) who were denied therapy due to advanced Covid-19. The viral load was estimated by detecting nucleocapsid antigen in serum (n = 155, median 217(28;1524)pg/ml), antigen in sputum (n = 18, COI 18(4.6;32)), nasopharyngeal antigen (n = 44, COI 17(8;35)) and the real-time PCR (n = 122, Ct 21(18;27)). After adjustment for confounders, patients on remdesivir had better 12-month survival (HR 0.66 (0.44;0.98), p = 0.039), particularly when admitted to the ICU (HR 0.49 (0.29;0.81), p = 0.006). For the immunocompromised patients, the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.55 (0.18;1.69), p = 0.3). The other most significant confounders were age, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, leukocyte/lymphocyte ratio, admission creatinine and immunosuppression. The impact of monoclonal antibodies or previous vaccinations was not significant. Despite frequent immune suppression including haemato-oncology diseases, lymphopenia, and higher inflammatory markers in the remdesivir group, the results support remdesivir administration with respect to widely available estimates of viral load in patients with high illness severity.

Antiviral effect of Evusheld in COVID-19 hospitalized patients infected with pre-Omicron or Omicron variants: a modelling analysis of the randomized DisCoVeRy trial

BACKGROUND

The antiviral efficacy of Evusheld (AZD7442) in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 is unknown.

METHODS

We analysed the evolution of both the nasopharyngeal viral load and the serum neutralization activity against the variant of infection in 199 hospitalized patients (109 treated with Evusheld, 90 treated with placebo) infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and included in the randomized, double-blind, trial DisCoVeRy (NCT04315948). Using a mechanistic mathematical model, we reconstructed the trajectories of viral kinetics and how they are modulated by the increase in serum neutralization activity during Evusheld treatment.

RESULTS

Our model identified that the neutralization activity was associated with viral kinetics. Reflecting the variant-dependent neutralization activity of Evusheld, the antiviral activity of Evusheld was larger in patients infected with pre-Omicron or Omicron BA.2 variants than in patients infected with Omicron BA.1 variant. More specifically, the model predicted that Evusheld reduced the median time to viral clearance compared with placebo-treated patients by more than 5 days in patients infected by pre-Omicron (median: 5.9; 80% PI: 2.1-13.6) or Omicron BA.2 (median: 5.4; 80% PI: 2.0-12.4), respectively. The effect was more modest in patients infected by the Omicron BA.1 variant, reducing the median time to viral clearance by 2 days (median: 2.2; 80% PI: 0.4-8.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients treated with Evusheld had a shorter median time to SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. As Evusheld antiviral activity is mediated by the level of neutralization activity, its impact on viral clearance varies largely according to the variant of infection.

Repurposed Drugs during the Outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19: A Mini-Review on Their Molecular Structures and Hit-and-Trial Results

One of the most significant threats to global public health in the 21st century is the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. It rapidly turned into a global pandemic after it was identified in late 2019, and the World Health Organization announced the end of the pandemic on May 5, 2023. Current strategies for managing this disease include vaccination and repurposing antimalarial and antibiotic medications to alleviate symptoms like fever and throat pain, which are associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Antiviral drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, and favipiravir have been repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. They were previously recommended for treating SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. However, the inefficacy and adverse side effects of these repurposed drugs led to a decrease in their widespread use in treating COVID-19 patients. The lack of approved drugs for combating this coronavirus and its unpredictable variants remains a significant challenge.

High viral loads combined with inflammatory markers predict disease severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Results from the NOR-Solidarity trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate temporal changes in the association between SARS-CoV2 viral load (VL) and markers of inflammation during hospitalization, as well as the ability of these markers alone or in combination to predict severe outcomes.

METHODS

Serial oropharyngeal and blood samples were obtained from hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 160). Levels of inflammatory markers and oropharyngeal VL were measured during hospitalization (admission, days 3-5, and days 7-10) and related to severe outcomes (respiratory failure/intensive care unit admission).

RESULTS

Elevated admission levels of IL (interleukin)-6, IL-33, IL-8, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), interferon-γ-induced protein 10 (IP-10), IL-1β, and IL-1Ra were associated with severe outcomes during hospitalization. Although no inflammatory markers correlated with VL at baseline, there was a significant correlation between VL and levels of IP-10 and MCP-1 at days 3-5, accompanied by IL-8 and IL-6 at days 7-10. Finally, there was a seemingly additive effect of IP-10, MCP-1, and IL-6 in predicting severe outcomes when combined with high VL at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

An increasing number of inflammatory markers were associated with VL during the first 10 days of hospitalization, and several of these markers were associated with severe outcomes, in particular when combined with elevated VL. Future studies should assess the potential for combining antiviral and immunomodulatory treatment, preferably guided by viral and inflammatory biomarkers, for the selection of high-risk patients.

Short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

We studied the short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC with imatinib. Imatinib dosage was 400 mg daily until discharge (max 14 days). Primary outcomes were mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included recovery, quality of life and long COVID symptoms at 1 year. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials studying imatinib for 30-day mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

We randomized 156 patients (73 in SoC and 83 in imatinib). Among patients on imatinib, 7.2% had died at 30 days and 13.3% at 1 year, and in SoC, 4.1% and 8.2% (adjusted HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.47-3.90). At 1 year, self-reported recovery occurred in 79.0% in imatinib and in 88.5% in SoC (RR 0.91, 0.78-1.06). We found no convincing difference in quality of life or symptoms. Fatigue (24%) and sleep issues (20%) frequently bothered patients at one year. In the meta-analysis, imatinib was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 0.73 (0.32-1.63; low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence raises doubts regarding benefit of imatinib in reducing mortality, improving recovery and preventing long COVID symptoms in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical trial design, end-points, and emerging therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have led to the approval of several effective treatments that improve symptoms, exercise capacity and clinical outcomes. In phase 3 clinical trials, primary end-points must reflect how a patient "feels, functions or survives". In a rare disease like PAH, with an ever-growing number of treatment options and numerous candidate therapies being studied, future clinical trials are now faced with challenges related to sample size requirements, efficiency and demonstration of incremental benefit on traditional end-points in patients receiving background therapy with multiple drugs. Novel clinical trial end-points, innovative trial designs and statistical approaches and new technologies may be potential solutions to tackle the challenges facing future PAH trials, but these must be acceptable to patients and regulatory bodies while preserving methodological rigour. In this World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension task force article, we address emerging trial end-points and designs, biomarkers and surrogate end-point validation, the concept of disease modification, challenges and opportunities to address diversity and representativeness, and the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence in PAH clinical trials.

Among Patients with COVID-19, should Remdesivir be Used for Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Remdesivir is an intravenously administered antiviral drug that inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. In vitro studies have shown that remdesivir can inhibit the growth of the COVID-19 virus in infected Vero cells and can inhibit infection in human cell lines.

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in treating patients with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic medical literature databases was done from inception until September 4, 2022. Search for ongoing studies and preprints was also done. Risk of bias assessment was done using Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2.0. Measures of effect used were relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis by disease severity was preplanned. The estimates for efficacy and safety of remdesivir was calculated using Review Manager 5.4 software.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials with 13,085 participants were identified. Eight of the included studies recruited confirmed COVID-19 patients needing hospitalization, while one study limited recruitment to non-hospitalized patients. Remdesivir showed significant benefit for outpatients with mild to moderate disease with at least one risk factor for disease progression in terms of COVID 19-related hospitalization (RR 0.13 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59), all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.75), and need for medically-attended visits (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.56). For hospitalized patients, remdesivir had a slight benefit in reducing all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98). Subgroup analysis by disease severity showed a trend towards reduction in mortality among those with severe disease (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.07), with no effect on those with critical disease (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04), and inconclusive effect for those with mild-moderate disease (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.11). Remdesivir showed benefit in decreasing clinical deterioration (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.89), improving recovery rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), and reducing the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90). There was inconclusive effect on the need for ICU admission (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.22). No increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06), including serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.03), was seen.

Discussion

Based on the available evidence, remdesivir shows benefit in the treatment for patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 infection. However, there was no benefit in mortality noted among those with critical disease requiring mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir demonstrated a good safety profile, with no increased risk of adverse events compared to control. These results are consistent with the international agencies' recommendations for the use of remdesivir among patients with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 infection, but not for those with critical infection.

Conclusion

Current evidence supports the use of remdesivir as treatment for selected patients with COVID-19.

Identification of lysosomotropism using explainable machine learning and morphological profiling cell painting data

Lysosomotropism is a phenomenon of diverse pharmaceutical interests because it is a property of compounds with diverse chemical structures and primary targets. While it is primarily reported to be caused by compounds having suitable lipophilicity and basicity values, not all compounds that fulfill such criteria are in fact lysosomotropic. Here, we use morphological profiling by means of the cell painting assay (CPA) as a reliable surrogate to identify lysosomotropism. We noticed that only 35% of the compound subset with matching physicochemical properties show the lysosomotropic phenotype. Based on a matched molecular pair analysis (MMPA), no key substructures driving lysosomotropism could be identified. However, using explainable machine learning (XML), we were able to highlight that higher lipophilicity, basicity, molecular weight, and lower topological polar surface area are among the important properties that induce lysosomotropism in the compounds of this subset.

Update on efficacy of the approved remdesivir regimen for treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains unclear. We updated our published systematic review to better inform on the use of remdesivir for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance, random-effects model, presenting relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic. In addition, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). Outcomes with additional data were clinical progression, hospitalization days, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (12,876 individuals). Three trials each were of a low, unclear, and a high risk of bias. Compared with no treatment/placebo, remdesivir (100 mg daily, over 10 days) significantly improved clinical progression (RR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), but did not significantly reduce hospitalization days (MD -0.48, CI -2.18-1.21) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, CI 0.84-1.01). TSA suggested that further information is not required to conclude on the efficacy of remdesivir in improving clinical progression, and that, while more information is required for hospitalization days and all-cause mortality, further RCTs to prove fewer hospitalization days may be futile, as efficacy of remdesivir for this outcome is unlikely.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir appeared promising for COVID-19, but there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy. High quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.

The effect of early remdesivir administration in COVID-19 disease progression in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Antiviral drugs have become crucial in managing COVID-19, reducing complications and mortality. Remdesivir has emerged as an effective therapeutic drug for hospitalized patients at risk of disease progression, especially when alternative treatments are infeasible. While the recommended treatment duration of remdesivir extends up to 7 days post-symptom onset, this study examines how early remdesivir administration impacts clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using clinical data from consecutively PCR confirmed SARS-CoV‑2 adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received remdesivir during their hospitalization at the department of infectious diseases, Klinik Favoriten in Vienna. The data covered the period from July 1, 2021, to April 31, 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of remdesivir administration: an early group (0-3 days since symptom onset) and a late group (≥ 4 days since symptom onset). The primary outcome was in-hospital disease progression, assessed using the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale (≥ 1 point increase). Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, SARS-CoV‑2 variant, and COVID-19 vaccination status, was used to assess clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 219 patients were included of whom 148 (67.6%) were in the early group and 71 (32.4%) were in the late group. The average age was 66.5 (SD: 18.0) years, 68.9% of the patients were vaccinated, and 72.6% had the Omicron virus variant. Late remdesivir administration was associated with a significantly higher probability of needing high-flow oxygen therapy (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.40-4.52, p = 0.002) and ICU admission (OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.38-13.67, p = 0.012) after adjusting for confounders. In the late group there was a trend towards a higher risk of clinical worsening (OR 2.13, 95% CI 0.98-4.64, p = 0.056) and need for any oxygen therapy (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94-3.64, p = 0.074).

CONCLUSION

Compared to patients who received remdesivir within the first 3 days after symptom onset, administering remdesivir after day 3 in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is associated with higher risk for complications, such as the need for high-flow oxygen therapy and ICU admission.

Comprehensive Review of COVID-19: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Advancement in Diagnostic and Detection Techniques, and Post-Pandemic Treatment Strategies

At present, COVID-19 remains a public health concern due to the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and its prevalence in particular countries. This paper provides an updated overview of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19, with a focus on the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the phenomenon known as 'long COVID'. Meanwhile, diagnostic and detection advances will be mentioned. Though many inventions have been made to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, some outstanding ones include multiplex RT-PCR, which can be used for accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ELISA-based antigen tests also appear to be potential diagnostic tools to be available in the future. This paper also discusses current treatments, vaccination strategies, as well as emerging cell-based therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 underscores the necessity for us to continuously update scientific understanding and treatments for it.

Fixing the Achilles Heel of Pfizer's Paxlovid for COVID-19 Treatment

Nirmatrelvir (PF-07321332), a first-in-class inhibitor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease (Mpro), was developed by Pfizer under intense pressure during the pandemic to treat COVID-19. A weakness of nirmatrelvir is its limited metabolic stability, which led to the development of a combination therapy (paxlovid), involving coadministration of nirmatrelvir with the cytochrome P450 inhibitor ritonavir. However, limitations in tolerability of the ritonavir component reduce the scope of paxlovid. In response to these limitations, researchers at Pfizer have now developed the second-generation Mpro inhibitor PF-07817883 (ibuzatrelvir). Structurally related to nirmatrelvir, including with the presence of a trifluoromethyl group, albeit located differently, ibuzatrelvir manifests enhanced oral bioavailability, so it does not require coadministration with ritonavir. The development of ibuzatrelvir is an important milestone, because it is expected to enhance the treatment of COVID-19 without the drawbacks associated with ritonavir. Given the success of paxlovid in treating COVID-19, it is likely that ibuzatrelvir will be granted approval as an improved drug for treatment of COVID-19 infections, so complementing vaccination efforts and improving pandemic preparedness. The development of nirmatrelvir and ibuzatrelvir dramatically highlights the power of appropriately resourced modern medicinal chemistry to very rapidly enable the development of breakthrough medicines. Consideration of how analogous approaches can be used to develop similarly breakthrough medicines for infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria is worthwhile.

Prevalence and perception of pre-morbid lifestyle-related risk factors among covid-19 survivors in Lagos state and Abuja capital city of Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the prevalence and perception of premorbid lifestyle-related risk factors among Covid-19 Survivors in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria.

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used to collect data from 522 consenting adult Covid-19 survivors in Abuja (274) and Lagos (248), Nigeria, using a self-developed, close-ended and validated questionnaire called the Lifestyle-related Factors in Covid-19 Questionnaire (LFC-19 Questionnaire) through a multistage sampling technique. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) with P value set at ≤ 0.05. Ethical approval was obtained for the study.

RESULTS

A significant number of Covid-19 Survivors were overweight/obese (67.8%) and had a history of physical inactivity (73.8%). A small proportion had premorbid chronic diseases (23.8%) as well as pre-existing lifestyle-related risk factors such as inadequate consumption of fruits (67.2%) and vegetables (60.0%) and physical inactivity (73.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that most Covid-19 survivors residing in Lagos State and in Abuja capital city of Nigeria were either overweight or obese. This was due to physical inactivity, an unhealthy diet consisting of low fruit and vegetable consumption and poor sleep. Additionally, the study showed that patients' perceptions of their risk factors were often inaccurate as it differed from what was measured. The findings from this study will assist public health professionals and clinicians in designing and implementing more effective Covid-19 management strategies that incorporate healthy lifestyle practices and lifestyle modifications and assist public health promotion and communication specialists in designing appropriate and evidence-based preventive messages.

Seeing the Truth About Double Blinding

Randomized clinical trials provide reassurances that confounding factors are balanced at baseline whereas blinding is essential to assure the balance of extraneous factors thereafter. This article provides a three-part taxonomy of pitfalls that can arise because of inadequate blinding in clinical trials. We introduce a cautionary framework for readers interpreting a blinded randomized trial for evidence-based medicine. Each pitfall is illustrated with a relevant example of a potential bias resulting from knowledge of group assignment. Several pitfalls occur during the conduct of the study including inadequate blinding of the intervention group, control group, or responsible clinicians. Additional pitfalls relate to data analysis including unsubstantiated assertions of blinding and subverted tests for blinding. Further pitfalls arise due to surrounding oversight including unblinding of research ethics boards and scientific reviewers. These caveats are sources of misunderstanding when observing the apparent connection between a clinical intervention and patient outcomes. An awareness of specific pitfalls might help advance the interpretation and application of blinded randomized clinical trials to inform evidence-based medical care.

Enhancing sepsis biomarker development: key considerations from public and private perspectives

Implementation of biomarkers in sepsis and septic shock in emergency situations, remains highly challenging. This viewpoint arose from a public-private 3-day workshop aiming to facilitate the transition of sepsis biomarkers into clinical practice. The authors consist of international academic researchers and clinician-scientists and industry experts who gathered (i) to identify current obstacles impeding biomarker research in sepsis, (ii) to outline the important milestones of the critical path of biomarker development and (iii) to discuss novel avenues in biomarker discovery and implementation. To define more appropriately the potential place of biomarkers in sepsis, a better understanding of sepsis pathophysiology is mandatory, in particular the sepsis patient's trajectory from the early inflammatory onset to the late persisting immunosuppression phase. This time-varying host response urges to develop time-resolved test to characterize persistence of immunological dysfunctions. Furthermore, age-related difference has to be considered between adult and paediatric septic patients. In this context, numerous barriers to biomarker adoption in practice, such as lack of consensus about diagnostic performances, the absence of strict recommendations for sepsis biomarker development, cost and resources implications, methodological validation challenges or limited awareness and education have been identified. Biomarker-guided interventions for sepsis to identify patients that would benefit more from therapy, such as sTREM-1-guided Nangibotide treatment or Adrenomedullin-guided Enibarcimab treatment, appear promising but require further evaluation. Artificial intelligence also has great potential in the sepsis biomarker discovery field through capability to analyse high volume complex data and identify complex multiparametric patient endotypes or trajectories. To conclude, biomarker development in sepsis requires (i) a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach employing the most advanced analytical tools, (ii) the creation of a platform that collaboratively merges scientific and commercial needs and (iii) the support of an expedited regulatory approval process.

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided

Importance

Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society.

Observations

In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale.

Conclusions and Relevance

The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

COVID-19 drug discovery and treatment options

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, and serious social and economic disruptions worldwide. Unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated older individuals with underlying diseases are especially prone to severe disease. In patients with non-fatal disease, long COVID affecting multiple body systems may persist for months. Unlike SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which have either been mitigated or remained geographically restricted, SARS-CoV-2 has disseminated globally and is likely to continue circulating in humans with possible emergence of new variants that may render vaccines less effective. Thus, safe, effective and readily available COVID-19 therapeutics are urgently needed. In this Review, we summarize the major drug discovery approaches, preclinical antiviral evaluation models, representative virus-targeting and host-targeting therapeutic options, and key therapeutics currently in clinical use for COVID-19. Preparedness against future coronavirus pandemics relies not only on effective vaccines but also on broad-spectrum antivirals targeting conserved viral components or universal host targets, and new therapeutics that can precisely modulate the immune response during infection.

Clinical Outcome and 7-Day Virological Clearance in High-Risk Patients with Mild-Moderate COVID-19 Treated with Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Remdesivir

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effectiveness and virological clearance (VC) at day 7 (T7) post-treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high risk (HR) for clinical progression.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study enrolling HR patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Jan-Oct 2022) treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir or 3 days of remdesivir. We investigated clinical recovery at T7 (resolution of symptoms for ≥ 72 h or all-cause death), VC at T7 (PCR/antigenic negative nasopharyngeal swab), and median time to VC (days from symptom onset to the first negative swab). Factors associated with VC were investigated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the study, 92/376 (43.8%) patients received molnupiravir, 150/376 (24.7%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 134/376 (31.5%) remdesivir. Forty-nine (13%) patients were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were younger and presented immunodeficiencies more frequently; remdesivir was used more commonly in patients hospitalized for other diseases. A high proportion of patients obtained clinical recovery without differences among the therapies (97.5% for molnupiravir, 98.3% for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 93.6% for remdesivir); 12 (3.7%) patients died. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher proportion of T7 VC and a shorter time to VC compared to molnupiravir/remdesivir, also after adjustment for age and immunodeficiency (AOR 0.445 RDV vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.240-0.826, p = 0.010; AOR 0.222 MNP vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.105-0.472, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 antiviral treatments are an excellent therapeutic strategy in HR patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed a higher proportion of VC as early as 7 days after treatment, confirming its likely superiority in indirect comparisons.

Exploring the immune characteristions of CRKP pneumonia at single-cell level

The immune dysregulation associated with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) severity was investigated through single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of 5 peripheral blood samples from 3 patients with moderate and severe CRKP pneumonia. Additionally, scRNA-seq datasets from two individuals with COVID-19 were included for comparative analysis. The dynamic characterization and functional properties of each immune cell type were examined by delineating the transcriptional profiles of immune cells throughout the transition from moderate to severe conditions. Overall, most immune cells in CRKP patients exhibited a robust interferon-α response and inflammatory reaction compared to healthy controls, mirroring observations in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, cell signatures associated with NK cells, macrophages, and monocytes were identified in CRKP progression including PTPRCAP for NK cells, C1QB for macrophages, and S100A12 for both macrophages and monocytes. In summary, this study offers a comprehensive scRNA-seq resource for illustrating the dynamic immune response patterns during CRKP progression, thereby shedding light on the associations between CRKP and COVID-19.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Antiviral therapies for the management of persistent coronavirus disease 2019 in immunocompromised hosts: A narrative review

Antiviral agents with activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have played a critical role in disease management; however, little is known regarding the efficacy of these medications in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients, particularly in the management of persistent SARS-CoV-2 positivity. This narrative review discusses the management of persistent coronavirus disease 2019 in immunocompromised hosts, with a focus on antiviral therapies. We identified 84 cases from the literature describing a variety of approaches, including prolonged antiviral therapy (n = 11), combination antivirals (n = 13), and mixed therapy with antiviral and antibody treatments (n = 60). A high proportion had an underlying haematologic malignancy (n = 67, 80%), and were in receipt of anti-CD20 agents (n = 51, 60%). Success was reported in 70 cases (83%) which varied according to the therapy type. Combination therapies with antivirals may be an effective approach for individuals with persistent SARS-CoV-2 positivity, particularly those that incorporate treatments aimed at increasing neutralizing antibody levels. Any novel approaches taken to this difficult management dilemma should be mindful of the emergence of antiviral resistance.

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.

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: treatment of COVID-19 in special populations

Remdesivir (RDV) is the mainstay antiviral therapy for moderate to severe COVID-19. Although remdesivir was the first drug approved for COVID-19, information about its efficacy and safety profile is limited in a significant segment of the population, such as people with underlying diseases, the elderly, children, and pregnant and lactating women. The efficacy and safety profile of RDV in disease progression, renal impairment, liver impairment, immunosuppression, geriatrics, pediatrics, pregnancy, and breastfeeding in COVID-19 patients was evaluated. The databases searched included Embase, Scopus, and PubMed. Only English language studies enrolling specific subpopulations with COVID-19 and treated with RDV were included. Thirty-nine clinical trials, cohorts, cross-sectional studies, and case series/reports were included. Most supported the benefits of RDV therapy for COVID-19 patients, such as lessening the duration of hospitalization, alleviating respiratory complications, and reducing mortality. Adverse effects of RDV, including liver and kidney impairment, were, for the most part, moderate to mild, supporting the safety profile of RDV therapy. RDV therapy was well tolerated, no new safety signals were detected, and liver function test abnormalities were the most common adverse events. Moreover, RDV, for the most part, was effective in managing the complications of COVID-19 and reducing mortality in these patients, except for patients with kidney impairment. Future studies, including RCTs, should include these subpopulations of patients to avoid delays associated with receiving proper medication through compassionate use programs.

Differential Cytokine Responses of APOE3 and APOE4 Blood-brain Barrier Cell Types to SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins

SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in mice and affect the integrity of human BBB cell models. However, the effects of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins in relation to sporadic, late onset, Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk have not been extensively investigated. Here we characterized the individual and combined effects of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunits S1 RBD, S1 and S2 on BBB cell types (induced brain endothelial-like cells (iBECs) and astrocytes (iAstrocytes)) generated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) harboring low (APOE3 carrier) or high (APOE4 carrier) relative Alzheimer's risk. We found that treatment with spike proteins did not alter iBEC integrity, although they induced the expression of several inflammatory cytokines. iAstrocytes exhibited a robust inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein treatment, with differences found in the levels of cytokine secretion between spike protein-treated APOE3 and APOE4 iAstrocytes. Finally, we tested the effects of potentially anti-inflammatory drugs during SARS-CoV-2 spike protein exposure in iAstrocytes, and discovered different responses between spike protein treated APOE4 iAstrocytes and APOE3 iAstrocytes, specifically in relation to IL-6, IL-8 and CCL2 secretion. Overall, our results indicate that APOE3 and APOE4 iAstrocytes respond differently to anti-inflammatory drug treatment during SARS-CoV-2 spike protein exposure with potential implications to therapeutic responses.

Real-world evidence of survival benefit of remdesivir: study of 419 propensity score-matched patients hospitalized over the alpha and delta waves of COVID-19 in New Orleans, LA

Background

The direct acting antiviral remdesivir (RDV) has shown promising results in randomized clinical trials. This study is a unique report of real clinical practice RDV administration for COVID-19 from alpha through delta variant circulation in New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA). Patients in NOLA have among US worst pre-COVID health outcomes, and the region was an early epicenter for severe COVID.

Methods

Data were directly extracted from electronic medical records through REACHnet. Of 9,106 adults with COVID, 1,928 were admitted to inpatient care within 7 days of diagnosis. The propensity score is based upon 22 selected covariates, related to both RDV assignment and outcome of interest. RDV and non-RDV patients were matched 1:1 with replacement, by location and calendar period of admission. Primary and secondary endpoints were, death from any cause and inpatient discharge, within 28 and 14 days after inpatient admission.

Results

Of 448 patients treated with RDV, 419 (94%) were successfully matched to a non-RDV patient. 145 (35%) patients received RDV for < 5 days, 235 (56%) for 5 days, and 39 (9%) for > 5 days. 96% of those on RDV received it within 2 days of admission. RDV was more frequently prescribed in patients with pneumonia (standardized difference: 0.75), respiratory failure, hypoxemia, or dependence on supplemental oxygen (0.69), and obesity (0.35) within 5 days prior to RDV initiation or corresponding day in non-RDV patients (index day). RDV patients were numerically more likely to be on steroids within 5 days prior to index day (86 vs. 82%) and within 7 days after inpatient admission (96 vs. 87%). RDV was significantly associated with lower risk of death within 14 days after admission (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.69, p = 0.002) but not within 28 days (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.07, p = 0.08). Discharge within 14 days of admission was significantly more likely for RDV patients (p < 0.001) and numerically more likely within 28 days after admission (p = 0.06).

Conclusion

Overall, our findings support recommendation of RDV administration for COVID-19 in a highly comorbid, highly impoverished population representative of both Black and White subjects in the US Gulf South.

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.

Clinical Course and Factors Associated With Hospital Admission and Mortality among Sars-Cov 2 Patients within Nairobi Metropolitan Area

This study aims to investigate the clinical course and factors associated with hospital admission and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 patients within the Nairobi Metropolitan Area. The study utilizes a multicenter retrospective cohort design, collecting clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters of hospitalized patients from March 2020 to May 2022. Data analysis includes percentages, frequencies, chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier analysis, pairwise comparisons, and multivariate regression models. Ethical considerations are observed throughout the research process. The study findings highlight significant associations between comorbidities, such as hypertension, and increased mortality risk due to COVID-19. Symptoms including fever, cough, dyspnea, chest pain, sore throat, and loss of smell/taste are also identified as predictors of mortality. Abnormal laboratory parameters, such as oxygen saturation, procalcitonin, glucose levels, serum creatinine, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, are associated with mortality. However, demographic factors and certain vital signs do not exhibit significant associations. Recommendations based on this study suggest increased monitoring and management of comorbidities, early identification and management of symptoms, regular monitoring of laboratory parameters, continued research and collaboration, and implementation of preventive measures. Overall, a multidisciplinary approach involving healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public is crucial to improve COVID-19 outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Adaptation of strategies based on emerging evidence and resource allocation is essential for effective management of the pandemic.

Efficacy of Remdesivir on Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan

Background

As of October 3, 2023, the global COVID-19 case tally exceeded 696 million, with almost 7 million fatalities. Remdesivir, approved for treatment of COVID-19 by regulatory bodies, has seen varying recommendations by the World Health Organization over time. Despite certain studies questioning its efficacy, others highlight potential benefits. The objective of this study was to gauge the impact of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in a Pakistani tertiary care hospital.

Methods

An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 108 COVID-19 patients at Mayo Hospital Lahore between September 2020 and August 2021. Of these, 52 received remdesivir. The study employed a structured proforma for data collection, with analyses conducted using SPSS version 26, considering a p-value of less than 0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

Demographic distribution between remdesivir-treated and untreated groups was similar. Significant improvement was observed in the remdesivir cohort in terms of oxygen saturation (58%), ferritin levels (58.2%), chest X-ray results (67.8%), and discharge rates (66.7%) when compared to the untreated group. Stratification based on disease severity showed that remdesivir was particularly beneficial for moderate illness cases in several parameters.

Conclusion

This study suggests that remdesivir can be associated with improved outcomes, especially in patients with moderate COVID-19 severity. The data emphasizes the importance of the disease stage when considering therapeutic interventions and calls for more region-specific research to guide health responses amid diverse epidemiological landscapes.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has accounted for more than 1 000 000 deaths in the United States alone. In May 2020, the Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization to allow the investigational use of intravenous remdesivir for the treatment of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized children and adults. Several other agents, such as hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and tocilizumab have been investigated as potential treatment options; however, dexamethasone is currently the only agent that has been proven to reduce mortality in patients who require supplemental oxygen. The purpose of this study was to determine if initiation of remdesivir treatment in patients who presented with early symptoms of COVID-19 (defined as symptom onset < 7 days) had a significant impact on in-patient all-cause mortality compared to initiation of remdesivir treatment in patients who presented with symptom onset of at least 7 days.

Methods

This ethics-committee-approved, retrospective, multicenter, double-arm study was conducted across 10 facilities in the HCA Healthcare West Florida Division. Adult inpatients age 18 and older with confirmed COVID-19 and administered intravenous remdesivir from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020, were included. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years of age, the concomitant use of hydroxychloroquine or tocilizumab for any indication, or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 milliliters per minute. The primary outcome of this study was in-patient all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included total length of stay, time to discharge, oxygen requirements, and number of ventilator days.

Results

A total of 217 patients from facilities in the HCA Healthcare West Florida Division were evaluated for inclusion. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality occurred in 34.9% of patients with symptom onset of fewer than 7 days versus 31.0% of patients with symptom onset of at least 7 days (P = .57). There were no statistical differences found among the secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Time since symptom onset did not result in a statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality in patients who received intravenous remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

Real life experience on the use of Remdesivir in patients admitted to COVID-19 in two referral Italian hospital: a propensity score matched analysis

Remdesivir (RDV) was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for COVID-19, with discordant data on efficacy in reducing mortality risk and disease progression. In the context of a dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic landscape, the utilization of real-world evidence is of utmost importance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RDV on patients who have been admitted to two university referral hospitals in Italy due to COVID-19. All patients older than 18 years and hospitalized at two different universities (Bari and Palermo) were enrolled in this study. To minimize the effect of potential confounders, we used propensity score matching with one case (Remdesivir) and one control that never experienced this kind of intervention during hospitalization. Mortality was the primary outcome of our investigation, and it was recorded using death certificates and/or medical records. Severe COVID-19 was defined as admission to the intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. After using propensity score matching, 365 patients taking Remdesivir and 365 controls were included. No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of mean age and percentage of females, while patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently active smokers (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently vaccinated against COVID-19. All the other clinical, radiological, and pharmacological parameters were balanced between the two groups. The use of Remdesivir in our cohort was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality during the follow-up period (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.86; p = 0.007). Moreover, RDV was associated with a significantly lower incidence of non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.36). Furthermore, in the 365 patients taking Remdesivir, we observed two cases of mild renal failure requiring a reduction in the dosage of Remdesivir and two cases in which the physicians decided to interrupt Remdesivir for bradycardia and for QT elongation. Our study suggests that the use of Remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a safe therapy associated with improved clinical outcomes, including halving of mortality and with a reduction of around 75% of the risk of invasive ventilation. In a constantly changing COVID-19 scenario, ongoing research is necessary to tailor treatment decisions based on the latest scientific evidence and optimize patient outcomes.

Viral Pneumonia: From Influenza to COVID-19

Respiratory viruses are increasingly recognized as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The implementation of new diagnostic technologies has facilitated their identification, especially in vulnerable population such as immunocompromised and elderly patients and those with severe cases of pneumonia. In terms of severity and outcomes, viral pneumonia caused by influenza viruses appears similar to that caused by non-influenza viruses. Although several respiratory viruses may cause CAP, antiviral therapy is available only in cases of CAP caused by influenza virus or respiratory syncytial virus. Currently, evidence-based supportive care is key to managing severe viral pneumonia. We discuss the evidence surrounding epidemiology, diagnosis, management, treatment, and prevention of viral pneumonia.

K-Means Clustering Identifies Diverse Clinical Phenotypes in COVID-19 Patients: Implications for Mortality Risks and Remdesivir Impact

INTRODUCTION

The impact of remdesivir on mortality in patients with COVID-19 is still controversial. We aimed to identify clinical phenotype clusters of COVID-19 hospitalized patients with highest benefit from remdesivir use and validate these findings in an external cohort.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients hospitalized between February 2020 and February 2021 for COVID-19. The derivation cohort comprised subjects admitted to Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. The validation cohort included patients from Hospital Universitari Mutua de Terrassa (Terrassa) and Hospital Universitari La Fe (Valencia), all tertiary centers in Spain. We employed K-means clustering to group patients according to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values and lymphocyte counts at diagnosis, and pre-test symptom duration. The impact of remdesivir on 60-day mortality in each cluster was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1160 patients (median age 66, interquartile range (IQR) 55-78) were included. We identified five clusters, with mortality rates ranging from 0 to 36.7%. Highest mortality rate was observed in the cluster including patients with shorter pre-test symptom duration, lower lymphocyte counts, and lower Ct values at diagnosis. The absence of remdesivir administration was associated with worse outcome in the high-mortality cluster (10.5% vs. 36.7%; p < 0.001), comprising subjects with higher viral loads. These results were validated in an external multicenter cohort of 981 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COVID-19 exhibit varying mortality rates across different clinical phenotypes. K-means clustering aids in identifying patients who derive the greatest mortality benefit from remdesivir use.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Replication Persists in the Human Lung for Several Weeks after Symptom Onset

Rationale: In the upper respiratory tract, replicating (culturable) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is recoverable for ∼4-8 days after symptom onset, but there is a paucity of data about the frequency and duration of replicating virus in the lower respiratory tract (i.e., the human lung).Objectives: We undertook lung tissue sampling (needle biopsy) shortly after death in 42 mechanically ventilated decedents during the Beta and Delta waves. An independent group of 18 ambulatory patients served as a control group.Methods: Lung biopsy cores from decedents underwent viral culture, histopathological analysis, electron microscopy, transcriptomic profiling, and immunohistochemistry.Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-eight percent (16 of 42) of mechanically ventilated decedents had culturable virus in the lung for a median of 15 days (persisting for up to 4 wk) after symptom onset. Lung viral culture positivity was not associated with comorbidities or steroid use. Delta but not Beta variant lung culture positivity was associated with accelerated death and secondary bacterial infection (P < 0.05). Nasopharyngeal culture was negative in 23.1% (6 of 26) of decedents despite lung culture positivity. This hitherto undescribed biophenotype of lung-specific persisting viral replication was associated with an enhanced transcriptomic pulmonary proinflammatory response but with concurrent viral culture positivity.Conclusions: Concurrent rather than sequential active viral replication continues to drive a heightened proinflammatory response in the human lung beyond the second week of illness and was associated with variant-specific increased mortality and morbidity. These findings have potential implications for the design of interventional strategies and clinical management of patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Specific adverse outcomes associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors use in COVID-19 patients might be potentiated by remdesivir use

BACKGROUND

Due to non-consistent reports in the literature, there are uncertainties about the potential benefits and harms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIM

To investigate associations of SSRIs with clinical characteristics and unwanted outcomes among real-life severe and critical COVID-19 patients and their relationship with remdesivir (RDV) use.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 1558 COVID-19 patients of the white race treated in a tertiary center institution, among them 779 patients treated with RDV and 779 1:1 case-matched patients.

RESULTS

A total of 78 (5%) patients were exposed to SSRIs during hospitalization, similarly distributed among patients treated with RDV and matched patients (5.1 and 4.9%). No significant associations of SSRI use with age, sex, comorbidity burden, and COVID-19 severity were present in either of the two cohorts (p > 0.05 for all analyses). In multivariate analyses adjusted for clinically meaningful variables, SSRI use was significantly associated with higher mortality among RDV (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.0, p = 0.049) and matched patients (aOR 2.22, p = 0.044) and with higher risk for mechanical-ventilation (aOR 2.57, p = 0.006), venous-thromboembolism (aOR 3.69, p = 0.007), and bacteremia (aOR 2.22, p = 0.049) among RDV treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse outcomes associated with SSRI use in COVID-19 patients might be potentiated by RDV use, and clinically significant interactions between these two drug classes might exist. Although our findings raise important considerations for clinical practice, they are limited by retrospective nature of the study, lack of ethnic diversity, and the potential for unmeasured confounding factors. Future studies exploring underlying biological mechanisms are needed.