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

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Immunocompromised Patient

Improving short- and long-term outcomes in immunosuppressed patients, including patients with cancer, solid-organ transplant recipients, and patients with short- and long-term steroid treatment, has led to a paradigm shift in intensive care unit admission policies. Approximately 20% of patients currently admitted to the ICU carry a diagnosis of immune deficiency. In this population, acute respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome are the most frequent causes of ICU admission. Intensivists should therefore be aware of etiologies, diagnostics, and management strategies unique to this population.

How Immunocompromised Hosts Were Left Behind in the Quest to Control the COVID-19 Pandemic

The immunocompromised population was disproportionately affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. However, these individuals were largely excluded from clinical trials of vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecule antivirals. Although the community of scientists, clinical researchers, and funding agencies have proven that these therapeutics can be made and tested in record time, extending this progress to vulnerable and medically complex individuals from the start has been a missed opportunity. Here, we advocate that it is paramount to plan for future pandemics by investing in specific clinical trial infrastructure for the immunocompromised population to be prepared when the need arises.

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.

Does early combination vs. Monotherapy improve clinical outcomes of clinically extremely vulnerable patients with COVID-19? Results from a retrospective propensity-weighted analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential efficacy of early combination therapy, based on an antiviral plus a monoclonal antibody, for COVID-19 in severely immunocompromised patients is matter of debate.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to describe the impact on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 treatments in severely immunocompromised individuals, evaluating differences between a combination and a monotherapy.

METHODS

We included severely immunocompromised outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received an early treatment (either monotherapy with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir or the combination of an antiviral plus sotrovimab). We then assessed differences between the two treatment strategies on three main outcomes (30-day mortality, access to emergency department, hospitalization), separately and as a composite by using a propensity score weighted (PSW) approach.

RESULTS

Eighty one severely immunocompromised patients were included, 39 receiving early combination therapy and 42 receiving monotherapy. No significant difference was observed in the 30-day mortality rate and hospitalization rate between subjects in the two groups, while access to the emergency department following treatment administration was significantly higher in people who received a combination therapy. After applying the PSW, it was observed that combination therapy impacted favourably on the composite outcome, in a statistically significant fashion. In addition, PSW approach for mortality showed that age was the only significant factor influencing the death as stand-alone outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Early combination therapy showed a favourable impact on a composite outcome (including mortality, hospitalizations and access to emergency department) in severely immunocompromised hosts who were all vaccinated. However, further studies are needed to support our results.

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.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir Use in COVID-19 Patients with Neutropenia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic poses severe risks for immunocompromised patients, especially those with neutropenia due to chemotherapy. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir use in COVID-19 patients with neutropenia.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 98,763 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of neutropenia. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We compared common adverse effects of remdesivir in neutropenic patients before and after a 5-day regimen. A slight decrease in heart rate was observed but lacked clinical significance. There were no significant differences observed in hemoglobin, liver function tests, and blood glucose levels. After propensity score matching of COVID-19 patients with neutropenia according to gender, age, dexamethasone use, oxygen use, MASCC score, and WHO ordinal scale, no significant differences were found in length of stay, intubation rate, or ICU admission rate between the matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found remdesivir to be safe for COVID-19 patients with neutropenia, with no common adverse reactions observed. However, its effectiveness for these patients remains uncertain.

Eco-Friendly Synchronous Spectrofluorimetric Method for Simultaneous Determination of Remdesivir and Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Spiked Human Plasma

Remdesivir and acetyl salicylic acid are often co-administered medications in the treatment of COVID-19, specifically targeting the viral infection and thromboembolism associated with the condition. Hence, it is essential to establish a technique that enables the concurrent quantification of these pharmaceutical compounds in plasma while also keeping environmentally friendly methods. Accordingly, the aim of this work is to simultaneously determine remdesivir and acetyl salicylic acid through a bioanalytical validated synchronous spectrofluorimetric method with applying principles of green chemistry. Since, the two drugs showed severe overlap after excitation at 242.0 nm, 284.0 nm for remdesivir and acetyl salicylic acid, respectively. The overlap was effectively overcome by using synchronous mode with a wavelength difference (Δλ) of 160.0 nm for remdesivir and 100.0 nm for acetyl salicylic acid. Different parameters have been optimized such as Δλ, solvent, pH and surfactant. A linear calibration was obtained over the concentration range 0.01-4.00 µg/mL for remdesivir and 0.01-3.00 µg/mL for acetyl salicylic acid and the method was precise and accurate. The method was successfully used for the investigation of pharmaceutical formulation and the quantification of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of the two drugs. The method has been evaluated as an excellent green analytical method based on three greenness assessment tools.

Clinical outcomes and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, with or without severe renal impairment

BACKGROUND

The use of remdesivir in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe renal impairment has been approved; however, limited clinical data exist. Accordingly, we aimed to compare outcomes and adverse events associated with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with and without severe renal impairment.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing a 5-day remdesivir course at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from April 1 to July 31, 2022, were enrolled. Comparative analysis of outcomes and safety between patients with or without severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were conducted. Prognostic factors associated with 28-day mortality in patients with severe renal impairment were investigated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 671 hospitalized patients, including 132 patients with severe renal impairment, who received a 5-day course of remdesivir were analyzed. The 28-day mortality was higher in patients with severe renal impairment than in patients without severe renal impairment (15.2% vs. 7.8%). The proportion of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and deteriorated liver function after completing remdesivir therapy was similar between the patients with and without severe renal impairment, and the recovery rate of AKI was similar in both groups. The sequential organ failure assessment score was an independent factor associated with 28-day mortality in patients with severe renal impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir was well-tolerated in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, regardless of renal function. Our findings support the recent recommendation to administer remdesivir in patients with severe renal impairment.

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.

COVID-19 pneumonia in lung transplant recipients: understanding risk factors and treatment outcomes in Japan

Lung transplant (LTx) recipients face a significant risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with elevated hospitalization mortality rates even post-vaccination. While severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) typically induces pneumonia in even healthy individuals, it can also infect the transplanted lungs of LTx recipients, potentially leading to graft dysfunction. Despite the prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia in LTx recipients, data on its characteristics and associated risk factors remain limited. This retrospective study analyzed data from LTx recipients at Tohoku University Hospital between January 2001 and November 2023. COVID-19 cases were identified, and patient records, including thoracic computed tomography (CT) evaluations, were reviewed. Patient characteristics, vaccination history, immunosuppressant use, and comorbidities were assessed. Descriptive analysis was utilized for data presentation. Among 172 LTx recipients, 39 (22.7%) contracted COVID-19, with 9 (23%) developing COVID-19 pneumonia. COVID-19 incidence in LTx recipients aligned with national rates, but pneumonia risk was elevated. Delayed antiviral therapy initiation was noted in pneumonia cases. Remdesivir was uniformly administered and remained the primary treatment choice. LTx recipients are susceptible to COVID-19 pneumonia, warranting vigilance and tailored management strategies. Pre-transplant vaccination and prompt COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment are imperative for optimizing outcomes in this population.

Retrospective, Observational Analysis on the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron in Hospitalized Immunocompromised Patients in a German Hospital Network-The VISAGE Study

AIMS

Endemic SARS-CoV-2 infections still burden the healthcare system and represent a considerable threat to vulnerable patient cohorts, in particular immunocompromised (IC) patients. This study aimed to analyze the in-hospital outcome of IC patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study, analyzed administrative data from inpatient cases (n = 146,324) in 84 German Helios hospitals between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 with regard to in-hospital outcome and health care burden in IC patients during the first 12 months of Omicron dominance. As the primary objective, in-hospital outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) were analyzed by comparing patients with (n = 2037) and without IC diagnoses (n = 14,772). Secondary analyses were conducted on IC patients with (n = 2037) and without COVID-19-related SARI (n = 129,515). A severe in-hospital outcome as a composite endpoint was defined per the WHO definition if one of the following criteria were met: intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, mechanical ventilation (MV), or in-hospital death.

RESULTS

In total, 12% of COVID-related SARI cases were IC patients, accounting for 15% of ICU admissions, 15% of MV use, and 16% of deaths, resulting in a higher prevalence of severe in-hospital courses in IC patients developing COVID-19-related SARI compared to non-IC patients (Odds Ratio, OR = 1.4, p < 0.001), based on higher in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.4, p < 0.001), increased need for ICU treatment (OR = 1.3, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.2, p < 0.001). Among IC patients, COVID-19-related SARI profoundly increased the risk for severe courses (OR = 4.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the vulnerability of IC patients to severe COVID-19. The persistently high prevalence of severe outcomes in these patients in the Omicron era emphasizes the necessity for continuous in-hospital risk assessment and monitoring of IC patients.

COVID-19 infection is mild and has minimal impact on lung function in well vaccinated and widely treated lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has become a common infection affecting lung transplant recipients (LTR), who are at high risk for poor outcomes. Outcomes early in the pandemic were poor, but since the rollout of vaccination and novel COVID-19 treatments, outcomes of LTR have not been well described. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on the clinical course and lung function trajectory in an Australian cohort of LTR.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from LTR with confirmed COVID-19 managed at Alfred Health, between August 2020 and December 2022. Baseline demographics, COVID-19 disease details (including severity) and spirometry pre- and postinfection have been analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 279 LTR were included. The cohort was comorbid, but well vaccinated, with 275/279 (98.6%) having ≥2 COVID-19 vaccines at symptom onset. Severe disease occurred in only 17 cases (6%) and overall mortality was very low (4%). Prompt treatment with antivirals, particularly remdesevir (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.81, p = 0.02) and vaccination (OR 0.24, CI 0.08-0.81, p = 0.01), was protective. There was not a clinically significant drop in lung function post-COVID-19 with the median absolute decline in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) being 40 ml (IQR 5-120 ml, p < 0.001), with a decline of >10% occurring in only 42 patients (17%). After multivariate adjustment, only rejection before COVID-19 was significantly associated with FEV1 decline afterward (OR 3.74, 1.12-11.86, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In our highly COVID-19 vaccinated, promptly treated LTR, the majority of COVID-19 infections were mild and did not result in a clinically significant decline in lung function.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Therapeutic strategy in the transplanted patient

The SARS-CoV-2 infection prognosis has dramatically changed as a result of population vaccination and the surge of omicron. However, there are still specific populations at risk of progression to severe diseases that require hospitalization or even at risk of death. The kidney transplant population is one of them. Consequently, when compatible symptoms appear, an early diagnosis should be sought in order to start specific antiviral treatment as soon as possible to avoid clinical deterioration of the patient. Antivirals have shown, in transplant patients, a decrease in the rate of hospitalization and death, especially with their early administration.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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