Clinical outcomes of using remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: A prospective randomised study

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparing Molnupiravir to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression by 88% compared to placebo, while Molnupiravir reduced it by 31%. However, these two agents have not been compared head-to-head. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of both agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients.

METHODS

We identified 240 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Patients were matched using a 1:2 ratio based on age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65) and type of cancer. The collected data included demographics, comorbidities, and treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable characteristics and presenting symptoms. However, dyspnea was more prevalent in the Molnupiravir group, while sore throat was more prevalent in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir group. The rate of disease progression was comparable in both groups by univariate and multivariable analysis. Treatment with Molnupiravir versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir revealed no significant difference in disease progression by multivariable analysis (adjusted OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.14, p = 0.70). Patients who received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, however, were significantly more prone to having drug-drug interactions/adverse events (30% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in cancer patients, Molnupiravir was comparable to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in preventing progression to severe disease/death and rebound events, and it had a superior safety profile.

The effects of remdesivir on mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review stratified by disease severity

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.

RESULTS

A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

Assessment of the available therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The study aimed to evaluate severe COVID-19 treatment approaches. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) with standard of care (SoC) as a control group and/or placebo. Database searching was performed separately for severe COVID-19 treatment such as anakinra, remdesivir, baricitinib, ivermectin, ritonavir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab. The results are presented as Risk Ratio (RR), 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and heterogeneity (I2). We obtained the most statistically significant outcomes favorable tocilizumab compared to SoC for death incidents RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.80, 0.95], overall effect p = 0.002, heterogeneity p = 0.85, I2 = 0%, need for mechanical ventilation RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.68, 0.89], overall effect p = 0.0004, heterogeneity p = 0.55, I2 = 0%, and number of patients discharged from hospital. RR 1.13 [95% CI 1.07, 1.20], overall effect p < 0.00001, heterogeneity p = 0.009, I2 = 85%. This meta-analysis has revealed that a considerable amount of research characterized by a very diverse methodology is available. Despite the limited data that met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, we showed that the available treatment options for severe COVID-19 are effective.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir in Treating Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: A Propensity Score Analysis of Real-Life Data from a Monocentric Observational Study in Times of Health Emergency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir is an antiviral agent, which was shown to be safe and effective in treating early COVID-19, but its favourable impact in hospitalised patients with non-critical disease is still under investigation. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir as a treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 by a propensity score analysis of observational data.

METHODS

In this monocentric retrospective cohort study, the effectiveness and safety of a 5-day course of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously at Day 1, then 100 mg from Days 2-5) in association with the standard of care were assessed in comparison with the standard of care only. The primary endpoint was the proportion of recovery on Day 14.

RESULTS

Of 3662 eligible inpatients who tested positive for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 genome by nasopharyngeal swab at admission, 861 (24%) non-critical patients were included in a propensity score analysis and 281 (33%) were exposed to remdesivir. In total, 242/281 (86.1%) and 435/580 (75.0%) patients recovered in exposed and non-exposed, respectively, with a relative improvement of 11.1% (95% CI + 5.8 to 16.5%; unadjusted odds ratio: 2.07, 95% CI 1.40-3.05, p = 0.0001; after adjustment by propensity score weighting, odds ratio: 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83, p = 0.001). In treated patients, 1 (0.03%) anaphylactic reaction and 1 (0.03%) acute reaction during drug injection were reported, and 24 (8.5%) patients stopped the treatment due to adverse reactions. No significant differences were found with respect to the secondary efficacy endpoints (in-hospital all-cause death, need for intensive care treatments, clinical improvement score at Day 28) and safety endpoints (any and serious adverse reactions).

CONCLUSION

A 5-day course of remdesivir in association with the standard of care effectively promoted recovery from COVID-19 among non-critical in-hospital patients and had an acceptable safety profile.

Impact of some antiviral drugs on health care utilization for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the impact of antiviral drugs (fluvoxamine,remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), molnupiravir, andnirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NRV/r)) on health care utilization (HCU) inCOVID-19 patients. We summarized findings from randomized controlledtrials (RCTs) and observational studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched four medical databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library) for COVID-19 studies up to February 15, 2023. A comprehensive review, meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were conducted. Pooled effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for antiviral drugs' impact on hospitalization, mechanical ventilation (MV), and intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 34 studies (584,978 patients). Meta-analysisindicated potential benefits: remdesivir and molnupiravir potentiallyreduced MV risk, and NRV/r correlated with lower hospitalizationrates. However, LPV/r did not notably curb HCU. Remdesivir waspreferable for high-risk COVID-19 patients, while molnupiravir andNRV/r were recommended for those aged 60 and above.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and NRV/r may reduce HCU during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, due to limited study details and significant heterogeneity in effect estimates, further precise evidence is crucial, especially concerning emerging variants.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation.

Setting

Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings.

Methods

Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee.

Results

The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

Limitations

No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified.

Conclusions

The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies.

Future work

Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An Updated Systematic Review on Remdesivir's Safety and Efficacy in Patients Afflicted With COVID-19

Globally, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a significant impact on everyone's lives and put a tremendous strain on healthcare systems. Since the outbreak began, remdesivir has been investigated as a potential treatment for COVID-19 that may be both effective and safe. Remdesivir has had a huge impact on the disease's progression, complications, and mortality. This review provides an updated assessment of the literature regarding remdesivir's efficacy and safety for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. The search was performed through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus for articles published from 2019 to September 20, 2022. Studies that assessed remdesivir's efficacy and safety were included in this review, with clinical improvements as the primary outcome measure. Seventeen studies were identified following the implementation of the search strategy. Among them, 11 corroborated remdesivir's efficacy. Meanwhile, the remaining six studies did not observe a statistically significant difference in clinical improvement. Remdesivir is a potentially safe and effective antiviral that shows clinical improvement especially when used during the early course of the disease. However, current literature still questions its safety in patients who are afflicted with the complications of COVID-19, highlighting the need for studies on a large scale.

Remdesivir Treatment Lacks the Effect on Mortality Reduction in Hospitalized Adult COVID-19 Patients Who Required High-Flow Supplemental Oxygen or Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Background and Objectives: The therapeutic impact of remdesivir on hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients is unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the mortality outcomes of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir therapy to those of patients receiving a placebo based on their oxygen requirements. Materials and Methods: The clinical status of the patients was assessed at the start of treatment using an ordinal scale. Studies comparing the mortality rate of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir vs. those treated with a placebo were included. Results: Nine studies were included and showed that the risk of mortality was reduced by 17% in patients treated with remdesivir. Hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who did not require supplemental oxygen or who required low-flow oxygen and were treated with remdesivir had a lower mortality risk. In contrast, hospitalized adult patients who required high-flow supplemental oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation did not have a therapeutic benefit in terms of mortality. Conclusions: The clinical benefit of mortality reduction in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir was associated with no need for supplemental oxygen or requiring supplemental low-flow oxygen at the start of treatment, especially in those requiring supplemental low-flow oxygen.

Potential treatments of COVID-19: Drug repurposing and therapeutic interventions

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection is caused when Spike-protein (S-protein) present on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cell surface receptor, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This binding facilitates SARS-CoV-2 genome entry into the human cells, which in turn causes infection. Since the beginning of the pandemic, many different therapies have been developed to combat COVID-19, including treatment and prevention. This review is focused on the currently adapted and certain other potential therapies for COVID-19 treatment, which include drug repurposing, vaccines and drug-free therapies. The efficacy of various treatment options is constantly being tested through clinical trials and in vivo studies before they are made medically available to the public.

Acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir is an antiviral agent with positive effects on the prognosis of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). However, there are concerns about the detrimental effects of remdesivir on kidney function which might consequently lead to Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). In this study, we aim to determine whether remdesivir use in COVID-19 patients increases the risk of AKI.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were systematically searched until July 2022, to find Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) that evaluated remdesivir for its effect on COVID-19 and provided information on AKI events. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. The primary outcomes were AKI as a Serious Adverse Event (SAE) and combined serious and non-serious Adverse Events (AE) due to AKI.

RESULTS

This study included 5 RCTs involving 3095 patients. Remdesivir treatment was not associated with a significant change in the risk of AKI classified as SAE (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.43‒1.18, p = 0.19, low-certainty evidence) and AKI classified as any grade AEs (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52‒1.33, p = 0.44, low-certainty evidence), compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that remdesivir treatment probably has little or no effect on the risk of AKI in COVID-19 patients.

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (p_interaction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.

FUNDING

EU-RESPONSE.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Liver tests abnormalities with licensed antiviral drugs for COVID-19: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Liver involvement in COVID-19 is multifactorial, and the three potential mechanisms are direct hepatocyte viral damage, vascular or cellular damage during the cytokine storm of severe COVID-19 and drug-induced liver injury. To date, three antivirals are licensed for the treatment of COVID-19 by most guidelines: remdesivir, molnupiravir, and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a narrative review about the hepatic safety profile of the three antivirals licensed for COVID-19 treatment. We used data about hepatobiliary adverse events from English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

EXPERT OPINION

Remdesivir was found to be potentially hepatotoxic, and liver biochemistry abnormalities were common (2-34%) but mild and reversible. Molnupiravir exhibits a favorable safety profile and the increase in aminotransferases was usually mild and reversible (up to 11% of patients in one study). Ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir is potentially hepatotoxic, but in the only phase 3 RCT there were no safety issues and aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase levels increase did not exceed 2.4% of patients. All antivirals have a favorable safety profile, but they are not sufficiently studied in patients with underlying chronic kidney or liver disease. In this special populations, antivirals should be used with caution and careful monitoring during treatment should be pursued on a case-by-case basis.

Targeting the Complement-Sphingolipid System in COVID-19 and Gaucher Diseases: Evidence for a New Treatment Strategy

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced disease (COVID-19) and Gaucher disease (GD) exhibit upregulation of complement 5a (C5a) and its C5aR1 receptor, and excess synthesis of glycosphingolipids that lead to increased infiltration and activation of innate and adaptive immune cells, resulting in massive generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and growth factors. This C5a-C5aR1-glycosphingolipid pathway- induced pro-inflammatory environment causes the tissue damage in COVID-19 and GD. Strikingly, pharmaceutically targeting the C5a-C5aR1 axis or the glycosphingolipid synthesis pathway led to a reduction in glycosphingolipid synthesis and innate and adaptive immune inflammation, and protection from the tissue destruction in both COVID-19 and GD. These results reveal a common involvement of the complement and glycosphingolipid systems driving immune inflammation and tissue damage in COVID-19 and GD, respectively. It is therefore expected that combined targeting of the complement and sphingolipid pathways could ameliorate the tissue destruction, organ failure, and death in patients at high-risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

Progress, pitfalls, and path forward of drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment

On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic a public health emergency of international concern. The viral outbreak led in turn to an exponential growth of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, that is, a multiorgan disease that has led to more than 6.3 million deaths worldwide, as of June 2022. There are currently few effective drugs approved for treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 patients. Many of the compounds tested so far have been selected through a drug repurposing approach, that is, by identifying novel indications for drugs already approved for other conditions. We here present an up-to-date review of the main Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs repurposed against SARS-CoV-2 infection, discussing their mechanism of action and their most important preclinical and clinical results. Reviewed compounds were chosen to privilege those that have been approved for use in SARS-CoV-2 patients or that have completed phase III clinical trials. Moreover, we also summarize the evidence on some novel and promising repurposed drugs in the pipeline. Finally, we discuss the current stage and possible steps toward the development of broadly effective drug combinations to suppress the onset or progression of COVID-19.

Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

INTRODUCTION

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

COVID-19 therapies for inpatients: a review and quality assessment of clinical guidelines

Owing to condensed development processes, expanding evidence and differences in healthcare system characteristics, many COVID-19 guidelines differ in their quality and treatment recommendations, which has consequences for clinical practice. This review aimed to identify COVID-19 treatment guidelines, assess their quality and summarise their recommendations. Guidelines were identified for five therapies most commonly used among inpatients with COVID-19 (remdesivir, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab/imdevimab) from 11 countries. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Full details of recommendations and supporting evidence were analysed for high-quality guidelines, defined as those scoring ≥50% in Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) of AGREE-II. Overall, guidelines differed substantially in their quality and, even among high-quality guidelines using the same evidence, recommendations regarding specific therapeutics varied. Potential reasons for this heterogeneity, including the availability and consistency of clinical data, visibility of trial end-points and context-specific factors, are discussed.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.

DATA SOURCES

Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials; all languages.

PARTICIPANTS

All hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

We used the ROB-2 criteria.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.

RESULTS

We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.

Nonsignificant trends in COVID-19 trials: Is there a significance?

Hundreds of clinical trials have been conducted on already available antiviral drugs or natural/herbal substances to repurpose for the treatment of COVID‐19, but with no conclusively consistent statistically significant positive results. Remdesvir, for example, is facing a confusing situation, after the two major large multinational studies SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy concluded that there are no significant survival benefits. In this viewpoint article, we claimed that the inconsistent time to initiate antiviral drugs during the course of COVID‐12 studies is the major contributing factor for this dilemma. We explained that patients already on mechanical ventilation at the study baseline are considered from a biologically different population than other severity groups. We provided a simple meta‐meta‐analysis to show how excluding them from statistical analysis could affect the statistical significance and conclusions.

Major Update 2: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

PURPOSE

To update a living review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

Several electronic U.S. Food and Drug Administration, company, and journal websites from 1 January 2020 through 19 October 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer abstracted, and a second reviewer verified data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Since the last update (search date 9 August 2021), 1 new RCT and 1 new subtrial comparing a 10-day course of remdesivir with control (placebo or standard care) were identified. This review summarizes and updates the evidence on the cumulative 5 RCTs and 2 subtrials for this comparison. Our updated results confirm a 10-day course of remdesivir, compared with control, probably results in little to no mortality reduction (5 RCTs). Updated results also confirm that remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the proportion of patients recovered by day 29 (4 RCTs) and may reduce time to clinical improvement (2 RCTs) and hospital length of stay (4 RCTs). New RCTs, by increasing the strength of evidence, lead to an updated conclusion that remdesivir probably results in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at specific follow-up times (4 RCTs). New RCTs also alter the conclusions for harms-remdesivir, compared with control, may lead to a small reduction in serious adverse events but may lead to a small increase in any adverse event.

LIMITATION

The RCTs differed in definitions of COVID-19 severity and outcomes reported.

CONCLUSION

In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the findings confirm that remdesivir probably results in little to no difference in mortality and increases the proportion of patients recovered. Remdesivir may reduce time to clinical improvement and may lead to small reductions in serious adverse events but may result in a small increase in any adverse event.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.

METHODS

We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.

RESULTS

Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups.

INTERPRETATION

Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Methods:

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls.

Results:

A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = −0.01 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09).

Conclusions:

The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

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

Objective

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

Study Design and Setting

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Interaction Between Pulmonary Fibrosis and COVID-19 and the Application of Related Anti-Fibrotic Drugs

COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory disease, which mainly affects the lungs. Critically ill patients are easily complicated by cytokine storms, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and respiratory failure, which seriously threaten their lives. Pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is a common interstitial lung disease, and its pathogenesis may involve the participation of a variety of immune cells and inflammatory factors. Current studies have shown that patients with COVID-19 may be complicated by pulmonary fibrosis, and patients with pulmonary fibrosis may also be at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 than healthy people. Pulmonary fibrosis is an important risk factor leading to the aggravation of COVID-19 disease. COVID-19 complicated by cytokine storm and ARDS mechanism pathways are similar to the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis. The potential interaction between pulmonary fibrosis and COVID-19 can cause acute exacerbation of the patient's condition, but the potential mechanism between the two has not been fully elucidated. Most of the drug treatment programs for COVID-19-related pulmonary fibrosis are currently formulated about the relevant guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and there is no clear drug treatment program recommendation. This article aims to summarize the relevant mechanism pathways of COVID-19 and pulmonary fibrosis, explore the interrelationships and possible mechanisms, and discuss the value and risks of existing and potential COVID-19-related pulmonary fibrosis treatment drugs, to provide reference for anti-fibrosis treatment for patients.

Prevalence of co-morbidities and its association with mortality in Indian patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Background and Aims:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) has spread to every corner of the world and has led to significant health consequences, especially in patients with co morbidities. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of co morbidities among COVID 19 patients in the Indian population and their association with mortality.

Methods:

PubMed, Google Scholar, and World Health Organization website were searched for Indian studies on COVID 19 published from February 2020 up to 20 May 2021. English language publications from India, studies reporting epidemiological characteristics, prevalence of co morbidities and in hospital mortality were included in the meta analysis.

Results:

34 studies were identified with a total of 23,034 patients. The pooled prevalence for co morbidities in COVID 19 patients was 18.1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.3 to 24.3%] for hypertension, 17.7% (95% CI, 12.2 to 25.1%) for diabetes, 7.9% (95% CI, 4.6 to 13.4%) for hypothyroidism and 7.7%(95% CI, 4.8 to 12. 1%) for cardiovascular diseases. For chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular diseases, asthma, chronic liver disease, tuberculosis and cancer, the pooled prevalence was less than 4%. Additionally, the mortality risk was increased significantly in patients with CKD [odds ratio (OR) = 4.1], COPD (OR = 3.9), diabetes (OR = 3.7), cardiovascular diseases (OR = 4.07), tuberculosis (OR = 6.11), chronic liver disease (OR = 8.5), malignancy (OR = 1.89) and hypertension (OR = 2.9). Cerebrovascular diseases, hypothyroidism and asthma were not associated with increased mortality.

Conclusion:

Co-morbidities are more prevalent in COVID 19 hospitalised patients and the presence of co morbidities is associated with increased risk of mortality in Indian COVID 19 patients.

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

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.

Quantitative correlation of colony forming units of Acinetobacter baumannii obtained from endotracheal tube aspirate culture with clinical pulmonary infection score

Background and Aims:

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common healthcare-associated infection in adult critical care units. The reason behind the different levels of severity and the outcome in different individuals is not established yet.Co-morbidities and age may be a valid reason.In an attempt to find out the reason behind the different levels of severity of VAP in different individuals, we conducted a studywith the primary objective being to assess the quantitative correlation between the colony forming units (CFU) of Acinetobacter baumannii in the endotracheal tube aspirate and the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) in mechanically ventilated patients without co-morbidities. The secondary objective was to see whether the severity of VAP depends on the number of CFU(>10⁵/ml).

Methods:

This observational study was conducted in a 27-bedded intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital in northern India. Endotracheal tube aspirate was collected from patients with suspected VAP.A total of 81 patients without any prior co-morbidity and having Acinetobacter baumannii in their endotracheal tube aspirate were included in the study group. Quantification of Acinetobacter baumannii was done by counting CFU.The CPIS was calculated for all Acinetobacter baumannii positive patients. Correlation between CFU of Acinetobacter baumannii and CPIS was assessed using Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient.

Results:

Among 81 patients having Acinetobacter baumannii infection, only 61.9% had a CPIS >4. There was an insignificant correlation between the quantity of CFUs of Acinetobacter baumannii and CPIS (P value = 0.784).

Conclusion:

Number of CFU >10⁵/ml in an endotracheal tube aspirate culture bears no relation to the severity of VAP as predicted by the CPIS.

Characteristics of published/registered clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, many countries have designed clinical trials to find efficient treatments. We aimed to critically report the characteristics of all the registered and published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on COVID-19, and summarize the evaluation of potential therapies developed in various regions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases to retrieve all the relevant studies up to July 19, 2021, in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. We included all English-language published/registered RCTs on COVID-19, and excluded non-RCT, in-vitro/in-vivo, editorials, and review studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated all the records, and then analyzed by using SPSS 17.

RESULTS

Within 3018 included studies, 2801 (92.8%) and 217 (7.2%) were registered or published RCTs consisting of about 600 synthetic drugs. Herbal medicines have been studied in 23 trials (10.6%) among the published RCTs and in 357 registered RCTs (12.7%). Hydroxychloroquine 23 (10.6%) and convalescent plasma 194 (6.9%) alone or in combination with other agents were the most frequently used interventions in published and registered RCTs, respectively. Most published RCTs have been conducted in Western Pacific Region (WPRO) (50 trials, 23.0%) including 45 trials from China. Also, a greater proportion of registered RCTs have been conducted in the Region of the Americas (PAHO) (885 trials, 31.6%) including 596 RCTs from the United States (U.S). Globally, 283 registered trials have been conducted to assess new developed vaccines for COVID or previously established for other disorders.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlighted the wide range of potential therapeutic agents in published and registered COVID-19 clinical trials across a wide range of regions. However, it is urgently required to global coordination in order to conduct more well-designed trials and progress in discovering safe and effective treatments.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

A Meta-Analysis of Association between Remdesivir and Mortality among Critically-Ill COVID-19 Patients

Background

The World Health Organization guidelines did not make a recommendation on use of remdesivir based on disease severity. Little is known regarding effectiveness of remdesivir in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This has led to a state of dilemma for doctors leaving them skeptical of whether they should continue to recommend the drug or not.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search adhering to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted from inception until February 20, 2020. Electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Cochrane database, Scopus, Embase) were included. Using dichotomous data for select values, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated applying Mantel Haenszel (M-H) using random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in ventilated and non-ventilated patients.

Results

The Remdesivir arm was associated with similar rates of 28-day all-cause mortality (OR: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 - 1.08; P = 0.33). Remdesivir was not found to be favorable for ventilated patients. Non ventilated COVID-19 patients showed a significant lower in-hospital mortality rate as compared with patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support (OR: 6.86, 95% CI: 5.39 - 268.74; P <0.0001)

Conclusion

Non-ventilated patients were associated with significant lower all-cause mortality rates. Prudent use of remdesivir is recommended in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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