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

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.

Clinical outcomes and considerations in outpatient with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir therapy

Introduction

This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to assess the outcomes of Covid-19 patients who received remdesivir therapy at the outpatient department of Ziaian Hospital.

Method

A total of 514 eligible patients were included between May and September 2021. Covid-19 diagnosis was confirmed through positive SARS-COV-2 PCR tests or chest CT scans. Due to limited hospital beds, patients received remdesivir on an outpatient basis.

Results

Patients received six daily doses of remdesivir for 5 days. Those referred to a physician within 7 days of symptom onset had similar hospitalization rates compared to later referrals. Lower blood saturation levels were associated with a higher likelihood of hospital admission, indicating that earlier administration of remdesivir may be more effective. Patients with over 50% lung involvement had higher rates of disease progression despite treatment. Corticosteroids did not significantly improve outcomes in patients with saturation above 90%. Discontinuation of remdesivir due to side effects was rare, with only 1% experiencing increased liver enzymes, 1.2% facial redness and tremors, and 1.5% allergies. After 1 week of treatment, patients commonly reported symptoms such as hair loss, fatigue, body pain, lethargy, and anorexia, particularly among hospitalized patients.

Discussion

Patients generally preferred outpatient treatment over hospitalization. Body mass index (BMI) did not significantly impact hospitalization rates, although average weight tended to be higher among inpatients. The study confirmed the effectiveness of remdesivir therapy with a low occurrence of side effects.

Conclusion

This retrospective study evaluated the outcomes of Covid-19 patients receiving remdesivir at an outpatient department. Early administration of remdesivir showed better outcomes, while corticosteroids had limited benefits. Outpatient treatment was favored, and BMI did not significantly influence hospitalization rates. Remdesivir demonstrated efficacy with a low incidence of side effects.

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.

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

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

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSION

The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.

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

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

Effect of remdesivir post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment on pathogenesis of measles in rhesus macaques

Measles is a systemic disease initiated in the respiratory tract with widespread measles virus (MeV) infection of lymphoid tissue. Mortality can be substantial, but no licensed antiviral therapy is available. We evaluated both post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment with remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, using a well-characterized rhesus macaque model of measles. Animals were treated with intravenous remdesivir for 12 days beginning either 3 days after intratracheal infection (post-exposure prophylaxis, PEP) or 11 days after infection at the onset of disease (late treatment, LT). As PEP, remdesivir lowered levels of viral RNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, but RNA rebounded at the end of the treatment period and infectious virus was continuously recoverable. MeV RNA was cleared more rapidly from lymphoid tissue, was variably detected in the respiratory tract, and not detected in urine. PEP did not improve clinical disease nor lymphopenia and reduced the antibody response to infection. In contrast, LT had little effect on levels of viral RNA or the antibody response but also did not decrease clinical disease. Therefore, remdesivir transiently suppressed expression of viral RNA and limited dissemination when provided as PEP, but virus was not cleared and resumed replication without improvement in the clinical disease parameters evaluated.

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

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

Remdesivir Influence on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Viral Load Kinetics in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: A Real-Life Experience

There are still conflicting data on the virological effects of the SARS-CoV-2 direct antivirals used in clinical practice, in spite of the documented clinical efficacy. The aim of this monocentric retrospective study was to compare virologic and laboratory data of patients admitted due to SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to December 2020 treated with either remdesivir (R), a protease inhibitor (lopinavir or darunavir/ritonavir (PI)) or no direct antiviral drugs (NT). Viral load variation was indirectly assessed through PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values on the nasopharyngeal swab, analyzing the results from swabs obtained at ward admission and 7 (±2) days later. Overall, 253 patients were included: patients in the R group were significantly older, more frequently males with a significantly higher percentage of severe COVID-19, requiring more often intensive care admission, compared to the other groups. Ct variation over time did not differ amongst the three treatment groups and did not seem to be influenced by corticosteroid use, even after normalization of the treatment groups for disease severity. Non-survivors had lower Ct on admission and showed a significantly slower viral clearance compared to survivors. CD4 T-lymphocytes absolute count assessed at ward admission correlated with a reduced Ct variation over time. In conclusion, viral clearance appears to be slower in COVID-19 non-survivors, while it seems not to be influenced by the antiviral treatment received.

Population-Based Clinical Studies Using Routinely Collected Data in Hong Kong, China: A Systematic Review of Trends and Established Local Practices

Background: Routinely collected health data are increasingly used in clinical research. No study has systematically reviewed the temporal trends in the number of publications and analyzed different aspects of local research practices and their variations in Hong Kong, China, with a specific focus on research ethics governance and approval.

Methods: PubMed was systematically searched from its inception to March 28, 2023, for studies using routinely collected healthcare data from Hong Kong.

Results: A total of 454 studies were included. Between 2000 and 2009, 32 studies were identified. The number of publications increased from 5 to 120 between 2010 and 2022. Of the investigator-led studies using the Hospital Authority (HA)’s cross-cluster data (n = 393), 327 (83.2%) reported receiving ethics approval from a single cluster/university-based REC, whereas 50 studies (12.7%) did not report approval from a REC. For use of the HA Data Collaboration Lab, approval by a single hospital-based or University-based REC is accepted. Repeated submission of identical ethics applications to different RECs is estimated to cost HK$4.2 million yearly.

Conclusions: Most studies reported gaining approval from a single cluster REC before retrieval of cross-cluster HA data. Substantial cost savings would result if repeated review of identical ethics applications were not required.

D2BOF-COVIDNet: A Framework of Deep Bayesian Optimization and Fusion-Assisted Optimal Deep Features for COVID-19 Classification Using Chest X-ray and MRI Scans

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In 2019, a corona virus disease (COVID-19) was detected in China that affected millions of people around the world. On 11 March 2020, the WHO declared this disease a pandemic. Currently, more than 200 countries in the world have been affected by this disease. The manual diagnosis of this disease using chest X-ray (CXR) images and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is time consuming and always requires an expert person; therefore, researchers introduced several computerized techniques using computer vision methods. The recent computerized techniques face some challenges, such as low contrast CTX images, the manual initialization of hyperparameters, and redundant features that mislead the classification accuracy.

METHODS

In this paper, we proposed a novel framework for COVID-19 classification using deep Bayesian optimization and improved canonical correlation analysis (ICCA). In this proposed framework, we initially performed data augmentation for better training of the selected deep models. After that, two pre-trained deep models were employed (ResNet50 and InceptionV3) and trained using transfer learning. The hyperparameters of both models were initialized through Bayesian optimization. Both trained models were utilized for feature extractions and fused using an ICCA-based approach. The fused features were further optimized using an improved tree growth optimization algorithm that finally was classified using a neural network classifier.

RESULTS

The experimental process was conducted on five publically available datasets and achieved an accuracy of 99.6, 98.5, 99.9, 99.5, and 100%.

CONCLUSION

The comparison with recent methods and t-test-based analysis showed the significance of this proposed framework.

Assessing medication use patterns in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of medication use-that is, dexamethasone; remdesivir; and tocilizumab-in the management of patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study, using routinely collected, linked electronic data from clinical practice in Scotland. Data on drug exposure in secondary care has been obtained from the Hospital Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration System.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients being treated with the drugs of interest and hospitalised for COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 10 November 2021.

OUTCOMES

Identification of patients subject to the treatments of interest; summary of patients' baseline characteristics; description of medication use patterns and treatment episodes. Analyses were descriptive in nature.

RESULTS

Overall, 4063 patients matching the inclusion criteria were identified in Scotland, with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (52-76). Among all patients, 81.4% (n=3307) and 17.8% (n=725) were treated with one or two medicines, respectively; dexamethasone monotherapy accounted for the majority (n=3094, 76.2%) followed by dexamethasone in combination with tocilizumab (n=530, 13.0%). Treatment patterns were variable over time but roughly followed the waves of COVID-19 infections; however, the different drugs were used to varying degrees during the study period.The median (IQR) treatment duration differed by medicine: dexamethasone 5 days (2-9); remdesivir 5 days (2-5); and tocilizumab 1 day (1-1). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay among all patients included in the study cohort was 9 days (5-17); 24.7% of patients died in hospital.

CONCLUSION

The use of adjuvant medicines in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 appears in line with evolving evidence and changing treatment guidelines. In-hospital electronic prescribing systems are a valuable source of information, providing detailed patient-level data on in-hospital drug use.

Real-world effectiveness of early molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 without supplemental oxygen requirement on admission during Hong Kong's omicron BA.2 wave: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data on the effectiveness of oral antivirals in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are urgently needed. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical and virological outcomes associated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use in hospitalised patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during a pandemic wave dominated by the omicron BA.2 subvariant.

METHODS

We analysed data from a territory-wide retrospective cohort of patients in Hong Kong who were hospitalised with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 26 and April 26, 2022. Data were extracted from the Hospital Authority, the Department of Health, and the Hong Kong Death Registry. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their admission date was within 3 days before or after confirmation of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Those who were admitted to hospital more than 5 days after symptom onset, were younger than 18 years, had a history of oral antiviral use before admission, required supplemental oxygen on admission, had drug-related contraindications to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use, or had severe renal or severe liver impairment were excluded. Patients who received the oral antivirals molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of disease progression (all-cause mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or the need for oxygen therapy) and each of these individual disease progression outcomes, and time to reaching a low viral burden (RT-PCR cycle threshold value ≥30). For each event outcome, crude incidence rates were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox regression models.

FINDINGS

We identified 40 776 patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, with a mean follow-up of 41·3 days (total 925 713 person-days). After exclusions and propensity-score matching, we included 1856 molnupiravir recipients and 1856 matched controls, and 890 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 890 matched controls. A lower risk of all-cause mortality was observed in molnupiravir recipients (crude incidence rate per 10 000 person-days 19·98 events [95% CI 16·91-23·45]) versus matched controls (38·07 events [33·85-42·67]; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·40-0·59], p<0·0001) and in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients (10·28 events [7·03-14·51]) versus matched controls (26·47 events [21·34-32·46]; HR 0·34 [0·23-0·50], p<0·0001). Oral antiviral recipients also had lower risks of the composite disease progression outcome (molnupiravir HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·52-0·69], p<0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·57 [0·45-0·72], p<0·0001) and need for oxygen therapy (molnupiravir 0·69 [0·57-0·83], p=0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·73 [0·54-0·97], p=0·032) compared with controls. Time to achieving a low viral burden was significantly shorter among oral antiviral recipients than matched controls (molnupiravir HR 1·38 [95% CI 1·15-1·64], p=0·0005; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 1·38 [1·07-1·79], p=0·013). Significant differences in initiation of IMV and ICU admission were not found.

INTERPRETATION

During a wave of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2, initiation of novel oral antiviral treatments in hospitalised patients not requiring oxygen therapy on admission showed substantial clinical benefit. Our findings support the early use of oral antivirals in this population of patients.

FUNDING

Health and Medical Research Fund (Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region).

TRANSLATION

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

Evolution and Control of COVID-19 Epidemic in Hong Kong

Hong Kong SAR has adopted universal masking, social distancing, testing of all symptomatic and high-risk groups for isolation of confirmed cases in healthcare facilities, and quarantine of contacts as epidemiological control measures without city lockdown or border closure. These measures successfully suppressed the community transmission of pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants or lineages during the first to the fourth wave. No nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection was documented among healthcare workers in the first 300 days. The strategy of COVID-19 containment was adopted to provide additional time to achieve population immunity by vaccination. The near-zero COVID-19 situation for about 8 months in 2021 did not enable adequate immunization of the eligible population. A combination of factors was identified, especially population complacency associated with the low local COVID-19 activity, together with vaccine hesitancy. The importation of the highly transmissible Omicron variant kickstarted the fifth wave of COVID-19, which could no longer be controlled by our initial measures. The explosive fifth wave, which was partially contributed by vertical airborne transmission in high-rise residential buildings, resulted in over one million cases of infection. In this review, we summarize the epidemiology of COVID-19 and the infection control and public health measures against the importation and dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 until day 1000.

Impact of Remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 Clearance in a Real-Life Setting: A Matched-Cohort Study

Background

Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV.

Methods

This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) at admission, and at least one NPS during follow-up. Patients who received RDV (cases) and those who did not (controls) were matched in a 1:2 ratio by age, sex, and PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F) values at admission. NPSs were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Time to VC (within 30 days after hospital discharge) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to determine factors associated with VC.

Results

There were 648 patients enrolled in the study (216 cases and 432 controls). VC was observed in 490 patients (75.6%), with a median time of 25 (IQR 16-34) days. Overall, time to VC was similar between cases and controls (p = 0.519). However, time to VC was different when considering both RDV treatment status and age (p = 0.007). A significant finding was also observed when considering both RDV treatment status and P/F values at admission (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed that VC was associated with a younger age (aHR = 0.990, 95% CI 0.983-0.998 per every 10-year increase in age; p = 0.009) and a higher baseline P/F ratio (aHR=1.275, 95% CI 1.029-1.579; p=0.026), but not with RDV treatment status.

Conclusion

Time to VC was similar in cases and controls. However, there was a benefit associated with using RDV in regard to time to VC in younger patients and in those with a P/F ratio ≤200 mmHg at hospital admission.

Remdesivir-related cost-effectiveness and cost and resource use evidence in COVID-19: a systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global health emergency since December 2019, leading to millions of deaths worldwide and placing significant pressures, including economic burden, on individual patients and healthcare systems. As of February 2022, remdesivir is the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for severe COVID-19. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarise economic evaluations, and cost and resource use (CRU) evidence related to remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, reference lists, congresses and grey literature were performed in May 2021. Articles were reviewed for relevance against pre-specified criteria by two independent reviewers and study quality was assessed using published checklists.

Results

Eight studies reported resource use and five reported costs related to remdesivir. Over time, the prescription rate of remdesivir increased and time from disease onset to remdesivir initiation decreased. Remdesivir was associated with a 6% to 21.3% decrease in bed occupancy. Cost estimates for remdesivir ranged widely, from $10 to $780 for a 10-day course. In three out of four included economic evaluations, remdesivir treatment scenarios were cost-effective, ranging from ~ 8 to ~ 23% of the willingness-to-pay threshold for the respective country.

Conclusions

Economic evidence relating to remdesivir should be interpreted with consideration of the broader clinical context, including patients’ characteristics and the timing of its administration. Nonetheless, remdesivir remains an important option for physicians in aiming to provide optimal care and relieve pressure on healthcare systems through shifting phases of the pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01930-8.

Therapeutic effects of herbal-medicine combined therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background/Aim: Since 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating disease affecting global health to a great extent. Some countries have added on herbal medicines as a complementary treatment for combating COVID-19 due to the urgency of stopping the spread of this viral disease. However, whether these herbal medicines are effective is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA Statement and without language restrictions. Seven databases were searched from inception through December 2021. All selected studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy with conventional western medicine, including improvement of clinical symptoms, chest CT images, viral conversion rate, C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6. Cochrane criteria were applied to examine the methodological quality of the enrolled trials; and meta-analysis software (RevMan 5.4.1) was used for data analysis. Results: In total, the data of 5,417 participants from 40 trials were included in this systematic review; and 28 trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The trials had medium-to-high quality based on GRADE system. Meta-analysis showed that combining herbal medicine vs conventional treatment in 1) coughing (1.43 95% CI:1.21, 1.71, p = 0.0001), 2) fever (1.09 95% CI:1.00, 1.19, p = 0.06), 3) fatigue (1.21 95% CI:1.10, 1.33, p = 0.0001); 4) CT images (1.26 95% CI:1.19, 1.34, P ≤ 0.00001), 5) viral conversion rates (1.22 95% CI:1.06, 1.40, p = 0.005) and 6) viral conversion times (-3.72 95% CI: -6.05, -1.40, p = 0.002), 7) IL6 change (1.97 95% CI: -0.72, 4.66, p = 0.15) and 8) CRP change (-7.92 95% CI: -11.30, -4.53, P ≤ 0.00001). Conclusion: Herbal medicine combined therapy significantly reduces COVID-19 clinical symptoms, improving CT images and viral conversion rates. Reported adverse events are mild. However, for certain biases in the included studies, and the need for further study on effective components of herbal medicine. Further large trials with better randomized design are warranted to definite a more definite role of herbal medicine.

Evaluation of Remdesivir for Mildly to Moderately Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Single-Arm, Single-Center, Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Remdesivir (RDV) is the first antiviral agent approved in Japan for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of RDV treatment in mildly to moderately ill patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: A single-center, retrospective study was performed in Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital. Patients admitted to our hospital from June to October 2021 for RDV treatment against COVID-19 were enrolled. The primary end point was clinical status on days 10 and 14, using a 6-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 6) to discharge (category 1). Adverse events were assessed and graded using the Japanese version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Results: In total, 47 COVID-19 patients receiving RDV treatment were assessed during the study period. Thirty-four (72.3%) out of 47 patients required oxygen therapy. Out of these 34 patients, 30 (88.2%) showed a 2-point clinical improvement on day 14 after RDV was initiated. Serum alanine aminotransferase levels were elevated in three patients (6.4%) (CTCAE Grade 3) and neutropenia was detected in one patient (2.1%) out of the 47 patients. Conclusions: RDV may be highly effective, with good safety profiles, in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen therapy.

Remdesivir use and risks of acute kidney injury and acute liver injury among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a self-controlled case series study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To investigate and quantify the risks of AKI and ALI associated with remdesivir use, given the underlying diseases of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

This self-controlled case series (SCCS) study was conducted using electronic hospital records between 23 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 as retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority which manages all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong. Outcomes of AKI and ALI were defined using the KDIGO Guideline and Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for AKI and ALI following the administration of remdesivir (exposure) in comparison to a non-exposure period were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Of 860 COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir during hospitalisation, 334 (38.8%) and 137 (15.9%) had incident ALI and AKI, respectively. Compared with the baseline period, both ALI and AKI risks were increased significantly during the pre-exposure period (ALI: IRR = 6.169, 95% CI = 4.549-8.365; AKI: IRR = 7.074, 95% CI = 3.763-13.298) and remained elevated during remdesivir treatment. Compared to the pre-exposure period, risks of ALI and AKI were not significantly higher in the first 2 days of remdesivir initiation (ALI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.915-1.737; AKI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.889-1.789) and between days 2 and 5 of remdesivir treatment (ALI: IRR = 1.087, 95% CI = 0.793-1.489; AKI: IRR = 1.152, 95% CI = 0.821-1.616).

CONCLUSION

The increased risks of AKI and ALI associated with intravenous remdesivir treatment for COVID-19 may be due to the underlying SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks of AKI and ALI were elevated in the pre-exposure period, yet no such increased risks were observed following remdesivir initiation when compared to the pre-exposure period.

Initiation of Tocilizumab or Baricitinib Were Associated With Comparable Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Treated With Dexamethasone

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone.

Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models.

Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173).

Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.

Slower Recovery with Early Lopinavir/Ritonavir use in Pediatric COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

There was initially insufficient understanding regarding suitable pharmacological treatment for pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) was originally used for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. It was also used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) with positive results. Nonetheless, results from recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies on COVID-19 patients were unfavorable. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 933 COVID-19 patients aged ≤ 18 years were admitted between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was receiving LPV/r within the first two days of admission. Time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, seroconversion and hyperinflammatory syndrome, cumulative costs, and hospital length of stay were assessed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and linear models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

LPV/r users were associated with longer time to clinical improvement (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001), hospital discharge (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001) and seroconversion (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; p < 0.001) when compared with controls. LPV/r users were also associated with prolonged hospital length of stay (6.99 days, 95% CI 6.23-7.76; p < 0.001) and higher costs at 30 days (US$11,709 vs US$8270; p < 0.001) as opposed to controls.

CONCLUSION

Early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients was associated with longer time to clinical improvement. Our study advocates the recommendation against LPV/r use for pediatric patients across age groups.

Remdesivir significantly reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load on nasopharyngeal swabs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective case-control study

Remdesivir is a broad‐spectrum antiviral agent able to inhibit the RNA polymerase of SARS‐CoV‐2. At present, studies focusing on the effect of remdesivir on viral load (VL) are few and with contrasting results. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on SARS‐CoV‐2 VL from nasopharyngeal swabs (cycle threshold criterion) in a sample of patients treated with the drug, compared with patients who did not receive the antiviral treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with (1) real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis and (2) availability of at least two positive nasopharyngeal swabs analysed with the same analytic platform (ORF target gene, Ingenius ELITe, ELITechGroup, Puteaux, France). Upper respiratory specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at admission (T0) and 7–14 days after treatment, upon clinical decision. A total of 27 patients treated with remdesivir (Group A) met the inclusion criteria and were compared with 18 patients (Group B) treated with standard care, matched for baseline clinical characteristics. At baseline, both remdesivir‐treated and nontreated patients showed comparable VLs (21.73 ± 6.81 vs. 19.27 ± 5.24, p = 0.348). At the second swab, remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper VL reduction with respect to controls (34.28 ± 7.73 vs. 27.22 ± 3.92; p < 0.001). Longitudinal linear model estimated a mean decrease in cycle threshold equal to 0.61 (SE: 0.09) per day in remdesivir‐treated versus 0.33 (SE: 0.10) per day in remdesivir nontreated patients (p for heterogeneity = 0.045). The present study shows that the administration of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients significantly reduces the VL on nasopharyngeal swabs.

Remdesivir's effect on viral load has not been extensively studied

Remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper viral load reduction compared to controls

This could impact on the optimal timing of administration to prevent disease progression

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.