The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Real-world effectiveness and factors associated with increased mortality in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving remdesivir

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on the effectiveness of remdesivir when used in real-life clinical practice is controversial. This study aims to analyse its effectiveness and the factors associated with increased mortality in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who require supplemental low-flow oxygen and received remdesivir.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) which included all patients treated with remdesivir in our institution during the second pandemic breakout in Spain, from August to November 2020. Treatment with remdesivir was limited to non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring low-flow supplemental oxygen, with a treatment duration of 5 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1757 patients were admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia during the study period, of which 281 non-critically ill patients were treated with remdesivir and included in the analysis. Mortality at 28 days after initiation of treatment was 17.1%. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (6-15). 104 (37.0%) patients had complications during hospitalisation, with renal failure being the most frequent (31 patients; 36.5%). After adjustment for confounding factors, high-flow oxygen therapy was associated with increased 28-day mortality (HR 2.77; 95% CI 1.39 to 5.53; p=0.004) and decreased 28-day clinical improvement (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.85; p=0.008). A significant difference in survival and clinical improvement was identified between patients treated with high and low-flow oxygen.

CONCLUSION

The 28-day mortality rate in patients treated with remdesivir needing low-flow oxygen therapy was higher than that published in clinical trials. Age and increased oxygen therapy needed after the beginning of treatment were the main risk factors associated with mortality.

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.

Effectiveness of oseltamivir in reducing COVID-19-related in-hospital deaths: A pharmacoepidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Oseltamivir is a low-cost antiviral agent that could support or complement treatment of COVID-19. This study assessed whether oseltamivir is effective in reducing COVID-19-related mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated real-world data from a nationwide database of hospitalisation due to severe acute respiratory syndrome in Brazil. Propensity score matching was used to mimic a randomised controlled trial with 'oseltamivir' and 'no antivirals at all' as the intervention and control groups, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 480 and 268 486 patients admitted between February 2020 and January 2023 were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively. After matching, the odds ratio (OR) for death was 0.901 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.873-0.930). The OR (95% CI) for death in patients who were admitted to the ICU, and on non-invasive or invasive ventilation was 0.868 (0.821-0.917), 0.935 (0.893-0.980), and 0.883 (0.814-0.958), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the use of oseltamivir was associated with an attributable risk reduction of 2.50% (95% CI 1.77-3.29). Similar results were observed in patients who were admitted to the ICU, and on non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Oseltamivir is a low-cost potential antiviral treatment for COVID-19.

Optimal initial insulin dosage for managing steroid-induced hyperglycemia in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A retrospective single-center study

Objectives

To determine the optimal initial insulin dosage for controlling hyperglycemia in COVID-19 patients receiving steroids, an area with limited data.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 156 COVID-19 patients with steroid-induced hyperglycemia treated with insulin. Patients were categorized by their total daily dose of subcutaneous insulin therapy when starting dexamethasone ⩾6 mg/day or equivalent dose of glucocorticoid: Group A (⩽0.29 units/kg), Group B (0.3-0.49 units/kg), Group C (0.5-0.69 units/kg), and Group B (⩾0.7 units/kg). Treatment failure was defined as mean blood glucose level > 280 mg/dL for two consecutive days after initiating insulin or any blood glucose ⩾ 400 mg/dL.

Results

The mean age was 64 ± 14 years, with 50% male, and a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 6.9 kg/m2. Most had preexisting type 2 diabetes (62%). Mean admission blood glucose and HbA1c were 233 ± 112 mg/dL and 7.8 ± 2.3%, respectively. Group A had the lowest HbA1c (6.7 ± 1.2%), while group D had the highest (9.8 ± 2.5%). Median daily dexamethasone dosage or equivalent was 36 (IQR 16.72) mg, with no significant differences in among groups. Group A had the lowest treatment failure rate. There were no significant differences in treatment failure rate between Groups B, C, and D. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in mean BG across the groups: Group A 232 ± 42 mg/dL, Group B 247 ± 57 mg/dL, Group C 247 ± 61 mg/dL, and Group D 227 ± 67 mg/dL (p = 0.2). Group D had a significantly higher rate of level 1 hypoglycemia (p = 0.008), while no differences in clinically significant hypoglycemia (level 2 or 3) were observed between groups.

Conclusions

Among patients requiring TDD ⩾ 0.3 units/kg/day, there was no significant difference in treatment failure rate between Groups B, C, and D. Group D had the highest rate of level 1 hypoglycemia. This initial insulin dosage for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on high-dose steroid therapy should be personalized.

The value of Interferon β in multiple sclerosis and novel opportunities for its anti-viral activity: a narrative literature review

Interferon-beta (IFN-β) for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is turning 30. The COVID-19 pandemic rejuvenated the interest in interferon biology in health and disease, opening translational opportunities beyond neuroinflammation. The antiviral properties of this molecule are in accord with the hypothesis of a viral etiology of MS, for which a credible culprit has been identified in the Epstein-Barr Virus. Likely, IFNs are crucial in the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as demonstrated by inherited and acquired impairments of the interferon response that predispose to a severe COVID-19 course. Accordingly, IFN-β exerted protection against SARS-CoV-2 in people with MS (pwMS). In this viewpoint, we summarize the evidence on IFN-β mechanisms of action in MS with a focus on its antiviral properties, especially against EBV. We synopsize the role of IFNs in COVID-19 and the opportunities and challenges of IFN-β usage for this condition. Finally, we leverage the lessons learned in the pandemic to suggest a role of IFN-β in long-COVID-19 and in special MS subpopulations.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

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.

Correlates of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Inpatient Mortality at a Southern California Community Hospital With a Predominantly Hispanic/Latino Adult Population

Background

Studies of inpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality risk factors have mainly used data from academic medical centers or large multihospital databases and have not examined populations with large proportions of Hispanic/Latino patients. In a retrospective cohort study of 4881 consecutive adult COVID-19 hospitalizations at a single community hospital in Los Angeles County with a majority Hispanic/Latino population, we evaluated factors associated with mortality.

Methods

Data on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory and clinical results, and COVID-19 therapeutics were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Cox proportional hazards regression modeled statistically significant, independently associated predictors of hospital mortality.

Results

Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90-3.72), male sex (HR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.07-1.60), renal disease (HR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.18-1.95), cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.45; 95% CI = 1.18-1.78), neurological disease (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.41-2.39), D-dimer ≥500 ng/mL (HR = 2.07; 95% CI = 1.43-3.0), and pulse oxygen level <88% (HR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.13-1.71) were independently associated with increased mortality. Patient household with (1) multiple COVID-19 cases and (2) Asian, Black, or Hispanic compared with White non-Hispanic race/ethnicity were associated with reduced mortality. In hypoxic COVID-19 inpatients, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and convalescent plasma were associated with reduced mortality, and corticosteroid use was associated with increased mortality.

Conclusions

We corroborate several previously identified mortality risk factors and find evidence that the combination of factors associated with mortality differ between populations.

Long-term survival benefit of male and multimorbid COVID-19 patients with 5-day remdesivir treatment

Background

Treatment of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is still challenging due to the lack of evidence-based treatment protocols and continuously changing epidemiological situations and vaccinations. Remdesivir (RDV) is among the few antiviral medications with confirmed efficacy for specific patient groups. However, real-world data on long-term outcomes for a short treatment course are scarce.

Methods

This retrospective observational cohort study included real-life data collected during the second and third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary (September 1, 2020-April 30, 2021) from inpatients at a University Center (n = 947). Participants consisted of two propensity score-matched cohorts (370/370 cases): Group RDV including patients receiving RDV and supplementary oxygen and Group standard of care (SOC) as control. The primary outcome was the effect of 5-day RDV treatment on 30- and 60-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the effect of RDV by different covariates.

Results

Group RDV included significantly more patients from the alpha variant wave, with greater frequency of comorbidities diabetes and anemia, and larger degree of parenchymal involvement. All-cause mortality at 30- and 60-day were significantly lower in Group RDV compared to Group SOC. Significant risk reduction of 60-day all-cause mortality was observed for RDV treatment in men and patients with COPD or multiple comorbidities.

Conclusions

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with 5-day RDV treatment had significantly lower 30- and 60-day all-cause mortality, despite their more severe clinical condition. Men and patients with multiple comorbidities, including COPD, profited the most from RDV treatment in the long term. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, effective treatment regimens are needed for hospitalized patients.

Interpatient variability in the pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and its main metabolite GS-441524 in treated COVID-19 subjects

Background

Remdesivir is the first antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2 approved for use in COVID-19 patients.

Objectives

To study the pharmacokinetic inter-individual variability of remdesivir and its main metabolite GS-441524 in a real-world setting of COVID-19 inpatients and to identify possible associations with different demographic/biochemical variables.

Methods

Inpatients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infections, undergoing standard-dose remdesivir treatment, were prospectively enrolled. Blood samples were collected on day 4, immediately after (C₀) and at 1 h (C₁) and 24 h (C₂₄) after infusion. Remdesivir and GS-441524 concentrations were measured using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS method and the AUC_0–24 was calculated. At baseline, COVID-19 severity (ICU or no ICU), sex, age, BMI and renal and liver functions were assessed. Transaminases and estimated glomerular filtration rate (e-GFR) were also evaluated during treatment. Linear regression, logistic regression and multiple linear regression tests were used for statistical comparisons of pharmacokinetic parameters and variables.

Results

Eighty-five patients were included. The mean (CV%) values of remdesivir were: C₀ 2091 (99.1%) ng/mL, C₁ 139.7 (272.4%) ng/mL and AUC_0–24 2791 (175.7%) ng·h/mL. The mean (CV%) values of GS-441524 were: C₀ 90.2 (49.5%) ng/mL, C₁ 104.9 (46.6%) ng/mL, C₂₄ 58.4 (66.9) ng/mL and AUC_0–24 1976 (52.6%) ng·h/mL. The multiple regression analysis showed that age (P < 0.05) and e-GFR (P < 0.01) were independent predictors of GS-441524 plasma exposure.

Conclusions

Our results showed a high interpatient variability of remdesivir and GS-441524 likely due to both age and renal function in COVID-19 inpatients. Further research is required to understand whether the pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and its metabolites may influence drug-related efficacy or toxic effect.

Update March 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 410 million people worldwide and killed almost 6 million [1, 2]. The predecessors of COVID-19, i.e. the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreaks, had been relatively self-limiting, preventing clinicians and researchers from establishing evidence-based specific therapeutic strategies [3]. Conversely, COVID-19 rapidly proved to be extremely fast spreading, which led stakeholders to encourage, guide, build or fund multidirectional therapeutic research strategies based on both repurposing and development of new agents [4–8]. In parallel, considerable efforts were directed at describing the disease and understanding the underlying mechanisms [9–13]. As a result, there has been a huge generation of evidence, as highlighted by the impressive number of COVID-19 publications (more than 200 000 since the end of 2019). As a consequence, it proved rapidly impossible for any clinician, researcher or decision-maker to gather and analyse all the corresponding literature to derive appropriate guidance [14]. The first step of such a process is to select the relevant high-quality research that can be used to answer the question(s) of interest [15]. Even if limiting the search to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, almost 4000 papers appear in the PubMed database, as of mid-February 2022. In June and July 2020, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) released early guidance on several aspects of COVID-19 management (i.e. rehabilitation, palliative care and acute management); at that time, direct specific evidence was sparse or absent [16–18]. Simultaneously, the ERS launched a living guideline on the management of COVID-19. The format was that of a “short” guideline, as per ERS standards [19, 20], in that the purpose was to release the first iteration within 12 months. However, the number of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions to be addressed (n=12) already exceeded markedly what the ERS considers as being feasible during such a short timeframe (i.e. n=1–2), which was a direct consequence of the high number of unanswered issues in the field of acute COVID-19 management, all corresponding to outstanding clinical needs. The first version of these guidelines was published in March 2021 and addressed the following potential therapeutic options: corticosteroids, interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and both combined, colchicine, lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, interferon-β, anticoagulation and non-invasive ventilatory support [6, 21]. An update of the mortality meta-analyses for corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β was published in December 2021 [22].

The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U

JAK inhibitors and COVID-19

During SARS-CoV-2 infection, the innate immune response can be inhibited or delayed, and the subsequent persistent viral replication can induce emergency signals that may culminate in a cytokine storm contributing to the severe evolution of COVID-19. Cytokines are key regulators of the immune response and virus clearance, and, as such, are linked to the—possibly altered—response to the SARS-CoV-2. They act via a family of more than 40 transmembrane receptors that are coupled to one or several of the 4 Janus kinases (JAKs) coded by the human genome, namely JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2. Once activated, JAKs act on pathways for either survival, proliferation, differentiation, immune regulation or, in the case of type I interferons, antiviral and antiproliferative effects. Studies of graft-versus-host and systemic rheumatic diseases indicated that JAK inhibitors (JAKi) exert immunosuppressive effects that are non-redundant with those of corticotherapy. Therefore, they hold the potential to cut-off pathological reactions in COVID-19. Significant clinical experience already exists with several JAKi in COVID-19, such as baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and nezulcitinib, which were suggested by a meta-analysis (Patoulias et al.) to exert a benefit in terms of risk reduction concerning major outcomes when added to standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Yet, only baricitinib is recommended in first line for severe COVID-19 treatment by the WHO, as it is the only JAKi that has proven efficient to reduce mortality in individual randomized clinical trials (RCT), especially the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) and COV-BARRIER phase 3 trials. As for secondary effects of JAKi treatment, the main caution with baricitinib consists in the induced immunosuppression as long-term side effects should not be an issue in patients treated for COVID-19.

We discuss whether a class effect of JAKi may be emerging in COVID-19 treatment, although at the moment the convincing data are for baricitinib only. Given the key role of JAK1 in both type I IFN action and signaling by cytokines involved in pathogenic effects, establishing the precise timing of treatment will be very important in future trials, along with the control of viral replication by associating antiviral molecules.

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

Objectives

Study Design and Setting

Results

Conclusion

Adrenomedullin Therapy in Moderate to Severe COVID-19

The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is still in progress, and a significant number of patients have presented with severe illness. Recently introduced vaccines, antiviral medicines, and antibody formulations can suppress COVID-19 symptoms and decrease the number of patients exhibiting severe disease. However, complete avoidance of severe COVID-19 has not been achieved, and more importantly, there are insufficient methods to treat it. Adrenomedullin (AM) is an endogenous peptide that maintains vascular tone and endothelial barrier function. The AM plasma level is markedly increased during severe inflammatory disorders, such as sepsis, pneumonia, and COVID-19, and is associated with the severity of inflammation and its prognosis. In this study, exogenous AM administration reduced inflammation and related organ damage in rodent models. The results of this study strongly suggest that AM could be an alternative therapy in severe inflammation disorders, including COVID-19. We have previously developed an AM formulation to treat inflammatory bowel disease and are currently conducting an investigator-initiated phase 2a trial for moderate to severe COVID-19 using the same formulation. This review presents the basal AM information and the most recent translational AM/COVID-19 study.