Evaluation of the Effects of Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine on Viral Clearance in COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Escalated complement activation during hospitalization is associated with higher risk of 60-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients

BACKGROUND

The complement system, an upstream recognition system of innate immunity, is activated upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. To gain a deeper understanding of the extent and duration of this activation, we investigated complement activation profiles during the acute phase of COVID-19, its persistence post-recovery and dynamic changes in relation to disease severity.

METHODS

Serial blood samples were obtained from two cohorts of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 457). Systemic complement activation products reflecting classical/lectin (C4d), alternative (C3bBbP), common (C3bc) and terminal pathway (TCC and C5a) were measured during hospitalization (admission, days 3-5 and days 7-10), at 3 months and after 1 year. Levels of activation and temporal profiles during hospitalization were related to disease severity defined as respiratory failure (PO2/FiO2 ratio <26.6 kPa) and/or admission to intensive care unit, 60-day total mortality and pulmonary pathology after 3 months.

FINDINGS

During hospitalization, TCC, C4d, C3bc, C3bBbP and C5a were significantly elevated compared to healthy controls. Severely ill patients had significantly higher levels of TCC and C4d (p < 0.001), compared to patients with moderate COVID-19. Escalated levels of TCC and C4d during hospitalization were associated with a higher risk of 60-day mortality (p < 0.001), and C4d levels were additionally associated with chest CT changes at 3 months (p < 0.001). At 3 months and 1 year, we observed consistently elevated levels of most complement activation products compared to controls.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients display prominent and long-lasting systemic complement activation. Optimal targeting of the system may be achieved through enhanced risk stratification and closer monitoring of in-hospital changes of complement activation products.

Extracellular matrix remodelling pathway in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from severe COVID-19 patients: an explorative study

There is a reciprocal relationship between extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling and inflammation that could be operating in the progression of severe COVID-19. To explore the immune-driven ECM remodelling in COVID-19, we in this explorative study analysed these interactions in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. RNA sequencing and flow analysis were performed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Inflammatory mediators in plasma were measured by ELISA and MSD, and clinical information from hospitalised COVID-19 patients (N=15) at admission was included in the analysis. Further, we reanalysed two publicly available datasets: (1) lung tissue RNA-sequencing dataset (N=5) and (2) proteomics dataset from PBCM. ECM remodelling pathways were enriched in PBMC from COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls. Patients treated at the intensive care unit (ICU) expressed distinct ECM remodelling gene profiles compared to patients in the hospital ward. Several markers were strongly correlated to immune cell subsets, and the dysregulation in the ICU patients was positively associated with plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines and negatively associated with B-cell activating factors. Finally, our analysis of publicly accessible datasets revealed (i) an augmented ECM remodelling signature in inflamed lung tissue compared to non-inflamed tissue and (ii) proteomics analysis of PBMC from severe COVID-19 patients demonstrated an up-regulation in an ECM remodelling pathway. Our results may suggest the presence of an interaction between ECM remodelling, inflammation, and immune cells, potentially initiating or perpetuating pulmonary pathology in severe 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 randomised 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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) among hospitalised 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, hospitalisation 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 (100mg daily, over 10 days) significantly improved clinical progression (RR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), but did not significantly reduce hospitalisation 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 hospitalisation days and all-cause mortality, further RCTs to prove fewer hospitalisation 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.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

Experiences and challenges with the new European Clinical Trials Regulation

BACKGROUND

The new European Medicines Agency (EMA) Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), based on the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR EU 536/2014), came into full effect on 31 January 2022 and was intended to provide an easier, more streamlined approach to the registration of clinical trials taking place in Europe. Using the experience gained on the new regulatory framework from three multi-national European clinical research studies of outbreak-prone infectious diseases, this article describes the advantages and shortcomings of the new clinical trial submission procedure.

METHODS

We report the time to approval, size of the application dossier, and number of requests for information (RFIs) for each study. We also explore the experience of each study within the regulatory framework and its use of CTIS to document the real-world, practical consequences of the system on individual studies. The study assesses the experience of three multi-country studies conducted in Europe working within the EU and non-EU regulatory environments.

RESULTS

While the time to regulatory and ethical approval has improved since the implementation of the new regulation, the timelines for approvals are still unacceptably slow, particularly for studies being conducted in the context of an evolving outbreak. Within the new regulatory approval procedure, there is evidence of conflicting application requirements, increased document burden, barriers to submitting important modifications, and debilitating technical hurdles.

CONCLUSIONS

CTIS promised to lower the administrative bar, but unfortunately this has not been achieved. There are challenges that need to be urgently confronted and addressed for international research collaborators to effectively manage health crises in the future. While the value of multi-national outbreak research is clear, the limitations and delays imposed by the system, which raise challenging ethical questions about the regulation, are prejudicial to all clinical research, especially publicly funded academic studies. This report is relevant to both regulators and clinical researchers. It is hoped that these findings can help improve pan-European clinical trials, especially for the purpose of epidemic preparedness and response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This paper references experiences gained during management of three pan-European trials: EU-SolidAct's Bari-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500385-99-00 - 15 March 2022) and AXL-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500363-12-00 - 19 April 2022), and MOSAIC (CT No. 2022-501132-42-00 - 22 June 2022).

Coagulopathy and adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: results from the NOR-Solidarity trial

Background

Several studies have examined parameters of increased thrombogenicity in COVID-19, but studies examining their association with long-term outcome and potential effects of antiviral agents in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are scarce.

Objectives

To evaluate plasma levels of hemostatic proteins during hospitalization in relation to disease severity, treatment modalities, and persistent pulmonary pathology after 3 months.

Methods

In 165 patients with COVID-19 recruited into the NOR-Solidarity trial (NCT04321616) and randomized to treatment with hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or standard of care, we analyzed plasma levels of hemostatic proteins during the first 10 days of hospitalization (n = 160) and at 3 months of follow-up (n = 100) by enzyme immunoassay.

Results

Our main findings were as follows: (i) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) were increased in patients with severe disease (ie, the combined endpoint of respiratory failure [Po2-to-FiO2 ratio, <26.6 kPa] or need for treatment at an intensive care unit) during hospitalization. Compared to patients without severe disease, tPA levels were a median of 42% (P < .001), 29% (P = .002), and 36% (P = .015) higher at baseline, 3 to 5 days, and 7 to 10 days, respectively. For TFPI, median levels were 37% (P = .003), 25% (P < .001), and 10% (P = .13) higher in patients with severe disease at these time points, respectively. No changes in thrombin-antithrombin complex; alpha 2-antiplasmin; a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13; or antithrombin were observed in relation to severe disease. (ii) Patients treated with remdesivir had lower levels of TFPI than those in patients treated with standard of care alone. (iii) TFPI levels during hospitalization, but not at 3 months of follow-up, were higher in those with persistent pathology on chest computed tomography imaging 3 months after hospital admission than in those without such pathology. No consistent changes in thrombin-antithrombin complex, alpha 2-antiplasmin, ADAMTS-13, tPA, or antithrombin were observed in relation to pulmonary pathology at 3 months of follow-up.

Conclusion

TFPI and tPA are associated with severe disease in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For TFPI, high levels measured during the first 10 days of hospitalization were also associated with persistent pulmonary pathology even 3 months after hospital admittance.

Impact of Remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19: Findings of an event-monitoring study

Introduction

Remdesivir is currently approved for treating hospitalised patients with COVID-19. However, it is a priority to monitor its safety and effectiveness in various clinical settings. This study was undertaken to assess the impact of remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19.

Materials and Methods

A hospital-based prospective longitudinal study was conducted over two months comprising event monitoring of COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir as per standard guidelines. The demographic details, risk factors and all baseline parameters were collected. The patients were followed up for the appearance of any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after the start of remdesivir therapy from Day 1 to discharge or death every day. Repeat Lab tests were done on days 2, 4, 6 and 10 days to assess the impact of remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19 over time. Significant predictors of survival in the cohort were also assessed.

Results

A total of 60 COVID-19 patients were administered remdesivir. The mean age of the patients was 59.2 (+13.7) years. There was a significant improvement in the serum creatinine (decreased from 0.9 to 0.7 mg/dL), lymphocyte count {decreased from 9.2 to 7.3 (109 cells/L)} and serum sodium (increased from 134.6 to 137.4) of the patients over six days after the administration of remdesivir. The significant survival predictors were multiple organ failure (P 0.046) and WBC count on Day 10 (P 0.001).

Conclusion

Remdesivir administration improved the prognostic biomarker profile in COVID-19 patients.

Circulating markers of extracellular matrix remodelling in severe COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Abnormal remodelling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) has generally been linked to pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis and may also play a role in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19. To further elucidate the role of ECM remodelling and excessive fibrogenesis in severe COVID-19, we examined circulating levels of mediators involved in various aspects of these processes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Serial blood samples were obtained from two cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients (n = 414). Circulating levels of ECM remodelling mediators were quantified by enzyme immunoassays in samples collected during hospitalisation and at 3-month follow-up. Samples were related to disease severity (respiratory failure and/or treatment at the intensive care unit), 60-day total mortality and pulmonary pathology after 3-months. We also evaluated the direct effect of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 on the release of the different ECM mediators in relevant cell lines.

RESULTS

Several of the measured markers were associated with adverse outcomes, notably osteopontin (OPN), S100 calcium-binding protein A12 and YKL-40 were associated with disease severity and mortality. High levels of ECM mediators during hospitalisation were associated with computed tomography thorax pathology after 3-months. Some markers (i.e. growth differential factor 15, galectin 3 and matrix metalloproteinase 9) were released from various relevant cell lines (i.e. macrophages and lung cell lines) in vitro after exposure to inactivated SARS-CoV-2 suggesting a direct link between these mediators and the causal agent of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight changes to ECM remodelling and particularly a possible role of OPN, S100A12 and YKL-40 in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19.

Effects of remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics and mortality in viraemic patients hospitalized for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Studies on the antiviral effects of remdesivir have shown conflicting results. SARS-CoV-2 viraemia could identify patients in whom antiviral treatment may be particularly beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate antiviral effects and clinical outcomes of remdesivir treatment in viraemic patients.

METHODS

Viraemic patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of ≤300, symptom duration ≤10 days, and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min were included in a cohort. The rate of serum viral clearance and serum viral load decline, 60 day mortality and in-hospital outcomes were estimated. A subgroup analysis including patients with symptom duration ≤7 days was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 318 viraemic patients were included. Thirty-three percent (105/318) received remdesivir. The rate of serum viral clearance [subhazard risk ratio (SHR) 1.4 (95% CI 0.9-2.0), P = 0.11] and serum viral load decline (P = 0.11) were not significantly different between remdesivir-treated patients and controls. However, the rate of serum viral clearance was non-significantly higher [SHR 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.7), P = 0.051] and the viral load decline was faster (P = 0.03) in remdesivir-treated patients with symptom duration ≤7 days at admission. The 60 day mortality [HR 1.0 (95% CI 0.6-1.8), P = 0.97] and adverse in-hospital outcomes [OR 1.4 (95% CI 0.8-2.4), P = 0.31] were not significantly different between remdesivir-treated patients and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir treatment did not significantly change the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viraemia, decline of serum viral load, 60 day mortality or in-hospital adverse outcomes in patients with ≤10 days of symptoms at admission. Remdesivir appeared to reduce the duration of viraemia in a subgroup of patients with ≤7 days of symptoms at admission.

Use of Remdesivir in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Pneumonia: Effect on the Hypoxic and Inflammatory State

Remdesivir is one of the most attractive options for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on the hypoxic and inflammatory state in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. We retrospectively enrolled 112 patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia, requiring low-flow oxygen, 57 treated with remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) and 55 treated only with SoC that were similar for demographic and clinical data. We evaluated changes in hypoxemia and inflammatory markers at admission (Day 0) and after 5 days of treatment (Day 5) and the clinical course of the disease. From Day 0 to Day 5, the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (P/F) increased from 222 ± 62 to 274 ± 97 (p < 0.0001) in the remdesivir group and decreased from 223 ± 62 to 183 ± 76 (p < 0.05) in the SoC group. Interleukine-6 levels decreased in the remdesivir (45.9 to 17.5 pg/mL, p < 0.05) but not in the SoC group. Remdesivir reduced the need for ventilatory support and the length of hospitalization. In conclusion, compared to standard care, remdesivir rapidly improves hypoxia and inflammation, causing a better course of the disease in moderate to severe COVID-19.

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.

Terpenoid phytocompounds from mangrove plant Xylocarpus moluccensis as possible inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2: In silico strategy

COVID-19 shook the world during the pandemic, where the climax it reached was vaccine manufacturing at an unfathomable pace. Alternative promising solutions to prevent infection from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants will remain crucial in the years to come. Due to its key role in viral replication, the major protease (Mpro) enzyme of SARS-CoV-2 can be an attractive therapeutic target. In the present work, natural terpenoids from mangrove medicinal plant Xylocarpus moluccensis (Lam.) M. Roem. were screened using computational methods for inhibition of Mpro protein. Out of sixty-seven terpenoids, Angolensic acid methyl ester, Moluccensin V, Thaixylomolin F, Godavarin J, and Xylomexicanolide A were shortlisted based on their docking scores and interaction affinities (- 13.502 to - 15.52 kcal/mol). The efficacy was validated by the 100 ns molecular dynamics study. Lead terpenoids were within the acceptable range of RMSD and RMSF with a mean value of 2.5 Å and 1.5 Å, respectively indicating that they bound tightly within Mpro and there was minimal fluctuation and stability of Mpro upon binding of these terpenoids. The utmost favorable binding strengths as calculated by MM-GBSA, were of Angolensic acid methyl ester and Moluccensin V with binding free energies (ΔGbind) of - 39.084, and - 43.160 kcal/mol, respectively. The terpenoids showed no violations in terms of Drug Likeliness and ADMET predictions. Overall, the findings indicate that Angolensic acid methyl ester and Moluccensin V are effective terpenoids having strong binding interaction with Mpro protein, which must be tested in vitro as an effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.

Mild antecedent COVID-19 associated with symptom-specific post-acute sequelae

BACKGROUND

The impact of COVID-19 severity on development of long-term sequelae remains unclear, and symptom courses are not well defined.

METHODS

This ambidirectional cohort study recruited adults with new or worsening symptoms lasting ≥3 weeks from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020-December 2021. COVID-19 severity was defined as severe for those requiring hospitalization and mild for those not. Symptoms were collected using standardized questionnaires. Multivariable logistical regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between clinical variables and symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 332 participants enrolled, median age was 52 years (IQR 42-62), 233 (70%) were female, and 172 (52%) were African American. Antecedent COVID-19 was mild in 171 (52%) and severe in 161 (48%). In adjusted models relative to severe cases, mild COVID-19 was associated with greater odds of fatigue (OR:1.83, CI:1.01-3.31), subjective cognitive impairment (OR:2.76, CI:1.53-5.00), headaches (OR:2.15, CI:1.05-4.44), and dizziness (OR:2.41, CI:1.18-4.92). Remdesivir treatment was associated with less fatigue (OR:0.47, CI:0.26-0.86) and fewer participants scoring >1.5 SD on PROMIS Cognitive scales (OR:0.43, CI:0.20-0.92). Fatigue and subjective cognitive impairment prevalence was higher 3-6 months after COVID-19 and persisted (fatigue OR:3.29, CI:2.08-5.20; cognitive OR:2.62, CI:1.67-4.11). Headache was highest at 9-12 months (OR:5.80, CI:1.94-17.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Mild antecedent COVID-19 was associated with highly prevalent symptoms, and those treated with remdesivir developed less fatigue and cognitive impairment. Sequelae had a delayed peak, ranging 3-12 months post infection, and many did not improve over time, underscoring the importance of targeted preventative measures.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Protein structure-based in-silico approaches to drug discovery: Guide to COVID-19 therapeutics

With more than 5 million fatalities and close to 300 million reported cases, COVID-19 is the first documented pandemic due to a coronavirus that continues to be a major health challenge. Despite being rapid, uncontrollable, and highly infectious in its spread, it also created incentives for technology development and redefined public health needs and research agendas to fast-track innovations to be translated. Breakthroughs in computational biology peaked during the pandemic with renewed attention to making all cutting-edge technology deliver agents to combat the disease. The demand to develop effective treatments yielded surprising collaborations from previously segregated fields of science and technology. The long-standing pharmaceutical industry's aversion to repurposing existing drugs due to a lack of exponential financial gain was overrun by the health crisis and pressures created by front-line researchers and providers. Effective vaccine development even at an unprecedented pace took more than a year to develop and commence trials. Now the emergence of variants and waning protections during the booster shots is resulting in breakthrough infections that continue to strain health care systems. As of now, every protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been structurally characterized and related host pathways have been extensively mapped out. The research community has addressed the druggability of a multitude of possible targets. This has been made possible due to existing technology for virtual computer-assisted drug development as well as new tools and technologies such as artificial intelligence to deliver new leads. Here in this article, we are discussing advances in the drug discovery field related to target-based drug discovery and exploring the implications of known target-specific agents on COVID-19 therapeutic management. The current scenario calls for more personalized medicine efforts and stratifying patient populations early on for their need for different combinations of prognosis-specific therapeutics. We intend to highlight target hotspots and their potential agents, with the ultimate goal of using rational design of new therapeutics to not only end this pandemic but also uncover a generalizable platform for use in future pandemics.

The kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 viremia in COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum, viremia, has been linked to disease severity and outcome. The kinetics of viremia in patients receiving remdesivir has not been thoroughly studied and could help predict treatment response and outcome. We investigated the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 viremia and factors associated with baseline viremia, viral clearance and 30-day mortality in patients receiving remdesivir. An observational study including 378 hospitalised patients (median age 67 years, 67% male) sampled with serum SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR within ± 24 h of initiation of remdesivir treatment. Baseline viremia was present in 206 (54%) patients with a median Ct value of 35.3 (IQR = 33.3-37.1). In patients with baseline viremia, the estimated probability of viral clearance was 72% by day 5. Ct values decreased significantly during remdesivir treatment for viremic patients, indicating an increase in viral load. In total, 44 patients (12%) died within 30 days, and mortality was significantly associated with viremia at baseline (OR = 2.45, p = 0.01) and lack of viral clearance by day 5 (OR = 4.8, p =  < 0.01). Viral clearance was not associated with any individual risk factor. Viremia appears to be a prognostic marker before and during remedesivir treatment. The resolution of viremia was similar to patients not receiving remdesivir in other studies, and the decrease in Ct values during treatment questions the antiviral capacity of remdesivir in vivo. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

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.

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.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Hydroxychloroquine for Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Hospitalization in Early Outpatient COVID-19 Infection

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. At the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, we conducted a phase 2 prospective parallel group randomized placebo-controlled trial (NCT04342169) to determine whether hydroxychloroquine given early in disease reduces the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding. We enrolled nonhospitalized adults (≥18 years of age) with a recent positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (within 72 h of enrollment) and adult household contacts. Participants received either 400 mg hydroxychloroquine by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg by mouth twice daily on days 2 to 5 or oral placebo with the same schedule. We performed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) on oropharyngeal swabs on days 1 to 14 and 28 and monitored clinical symptomatology, rates of hospitalization, and viral acquisition by adult household contacts. We identified no overall differences in the duration of oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio of viral shedding time comparing hydroxychloroquine to placebo, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91, 1.62). Overall, 28-day hospitalization incidence was similar between treatments (4.6% hydroxychloroquine versus 2.7% placebo). No differences were seen in symptom duration, severity, or viral acquisition in household contacts between treatment groups. The study did not reach the prespecified enrollment target, which was likely influenced by a steep decline in COVID-19 incidence corresponding to the initial vaccine rollout in the spring of 2021. Oropharyngeal swabs were self-collected, which may introduce variability in these results. Placebo treatments were not identical to hydroxychloroquine treatments (capsules versus tablets) which may have led to inadvertent participant unblinding. In this group of community adults early in the COVID-19 pandemic, hydroxychloroquine did not significantly alter the natural history of early COVID-19 disease. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04342169). IMPORTANCE Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine received attention as a possible early treatment; however, quality prospective studies were lacking. We conducted a clinical trial to test the ability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19.

SEVERE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019: FROM PATHOGENESIS TO THERAPY

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to propose efficient therapies. Because severe SARS-CoV2 infection is a viral sepsis eventually followed by an immunological autoinflammatory phenomenon, many approaches have been inspired by the previous attempts made in bacterial sepsis, while specific antiviral strategies (use of interferon or specific drugs) have been additionally investigated. We summarize our current thinking on the use of SARS-CoV-2 antivirals, corticosteroids, anti-IL-1, anti-IL-6, anti-C5a, as well as stem cell therapy in severe COVID-19. Patient stratification and appropriate time window will be important to be defined to guide successful treatment.

Treating diabetes with combination of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine-a possible prevention strategy for COVID-19?

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the major risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease and the resultant devastating morbidity and mortality. The key features of T2D are hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, and impaired insulin secretion. Patients with diabetes and myocardial infarction have worse prognosis than those without T2D. Moreover, obesity and T2D are recognized risk factors in developing severe form of COVID-19 with higher mortality rate. The current lines of drug therapy are insufficient to control T2D and its serious cardiovascular complications. Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) is a cGMP specific enzyme, which is the target of erectile dysfunction drugs including sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil. Cardioprotective effects of PDE5 inhibitors against ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury were reported in normal and diabetic animals. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a widely used antimalarial and anti-inflammatory drug and its hyperglycemia-controlling effect in diabetic patients is also under investigation. This review provides our perspective of a potential use of combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitor with HCQ to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and myocardial I/R injury in T2D. We previously observed that diabetic mice treated with tadalafil and HCQ had significantly reduced fasting blood glucose and lipid levels, increased plasma insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 levels, and improved insulin sensitivity, along with smaller myocardial infarct size following I/R. The combination treatment activated Akt/mTOR cellular survival pathway, which was likely responsible for the salutary effects. Therefore, pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitor and HCQ may be a potentially useful therapy not only for controlling T2D but also reducing the rate and severity of COVID-19 infection in the vulnerable population of diabetics.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID-19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants.

METHODS

Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49-69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI - 0.1% [- 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (- 3.2% [- 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 ).

Plitidepsin in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission: A long-term follow-up analysis

Introduction

The APLICOV-PC study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of plitidepsin in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In this follow-up study (E-APLICOV), the incidence of post-COVID-19 morbidity was evaluated and any long-term complications were characterized.

Methods

Between January 18 and March 16, 2022, 34 of the 45 adult patients who received therapy with plitidepsin in the APLICOV-PC study were enrolled in E-APLICOV (median time from plitidepsin first dose to E-APLICOV enrollment, 16.8 months [range, 15.2-19.5 months]). All patients were functionally autonomous with regard to daily living (Barthel index: 100) and had normal physical examinations.

Results

From the APLICOV-PC date of discharge to the date of the extension visit, neither Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5) grade 3-4 complications nor QT prolongation or significant electrocardiogram (EKG) abnormalities were reported. Five (14.7%) patients had another COVID-19 episode after initial discharge from APLICOV-PC, and in 2 patients (5.9%), previously unreported chest X-ray findings were documented. Spirometry and lung-diffusion tests were normal in 29 (85.3%) and 27 (79.4%) patients, respectively, and 3 patients needed additional oxygen supplementation after initial hospital discharge. None of these patients required subsequent hospital readmission for disease-related complications.

Discussion

In conclusion, plitidepsin has demonstrated a favorable long-term safety profile in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. With the constraints of a low sample size and a lack of control, the rate of post-COVID-19 complications after treatment with plitidepsin is in the low range of published reports. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05121740; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121740).

Peginterferon lambda for the treatment of hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19: A pilot phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Methods

In this study (NCT04343976), patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab were randomly assigned within 48 h to receive peginterferon lambda or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Participants were subcutaneously injected with a peginterferon lambda or saline placebo at baseline and day 7 and were followed up until day 14.

Results

We enrolled 14 participants; 6 participants (85.7%) in the peginterferon lambda group and 1 participant (14.3%) in the placebo group were treated with remdesivir prior to enrollment. Fifty percent of participants were SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative at baseline although they tested SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive within 48 h of randomization. Among participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at baseline, 2 out of 5 participants (40%) in the peginterferon lambda group became negative at day 14, while 0 out of 2 participants (0%) in the placebo group achieved negativity for SARS-CoV-2 by day 14 (p > 0.05). The median change in viral load (log copies per ml) was +1.72 (IQR -2.78 to 3.19) in the placebo group and -2.22 (IQR -3.24 to 0.55) in the peginterferon lambda group at day 14 (p = 0.24). Symptomatic changes did not differ between the two groups. Peginterferon lambda was well tolerated with a few treatment-related adverse effects.

Conclusion

Peginterferon lambda appears to accelerate SARS-CoV-2 viral load decline and improve plasma disease progression markers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DNA Repair Mechanisms are Activated in Circulating Lymphocytes of Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients

Purpose

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are an important part of the inflammatory response during infection but can also promote DNA damage. Due to the sustained inflammation in severe Covid-19, we hypothesized that hospitalized Covid-19 patients would be characterized by increased levels of oxidative DNA damage and dysregulation of the DNA repair machinery.

Patients and Methods

Levels of the oxidative DNA lesion 8-oxoG and levels of base excision repair (BER) proteins were measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from patients (8-oxoG, n = 22; BER, n = 17) and healthy controls (n = 10) (Cohort 1). Gene expression related to DNA repair was investigated in two independent cohorts of hospitalized Covid-19 patients (Cohort 1; 15 patents and 5 controls, Cohort 2; 15 patients and 6 controls), and by publicly available datasets.

Results

Patients and healthy controls showed comparable amounts of oxidative DNA damage as assessed by 8-oxoG while levels of several BER proteins were increased in Covid-19 patients, indicating enhanced DNA repair in acute Covid-19 disease. Furthermore, gene expression analysis demonstrated regulation of genes involved in BER and double strand break repair (DSBR) in PBMC of Covid-19 patients and expression level of several DSBR genes correlated with the degree of respiratory failure. Finally, by re-analyzing publicly available data, we found that the pathway Hallmark DNA repair was significantly more regulated in circulating immune cells during Covid-19 compared to influenza virus infection, bacterial pneumonia or acute respiratory infection due to seasonal coronavirus.

Conclusion

Although beneficial by protecting against DNA damage, long-term activation of the DNA repair machinery could also contribute to persistent inflammation, potentially through mechanisms such as the induction of cellular senescence. However, further studies that also include measurements of additional markers of DNA damage are required to determine the role and precise molecular mechanisms for DNA repair in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

Using time-weighted average change from baseline of SARS-CoV-2 viral load to assess impact of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19

Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for either postexposure prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using data from these studies, we calculated the time-weighted average change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load and demonstrated that HCQ did not affect viral clearance.

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

BACKGROUND

Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Persistent T-cell exhaustion in relation to prolonged pulmonary pathology and death after severe COVID-19: Results from two Norwegian cohort studies

BACKGROUND

T-cell activation is associated with an adverse outcome in COVID-19, but whether T-cell activation and exhaustion relate to persistent respiratory dysfunction and death is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether T-cell activation and exhaustion persist and are associated with prolonged respiratory dysfunction and death after hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODS

Plasma and serum from two Norwegian cohorts of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n = 414) were analyzed for soluble (s) markers of T-cell activation (sCD25) and exhaustion (sTim-3) during hospitalization and follow-up.

RESULTS

Both markers were strongly associated with acute respiratory failure, but only sTim-3 was independently associated with 60-day mortality. Levels of sTim-3 remained elevated 3 and 12 months after hospitalization and were associated with pulmonary radiological pathology after 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest prolonged T-cell exhaustion is an important immunological sequela, potentially related to long-term outcomes after severe 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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

No effect of remdesivir or betamethasone on upper respiratory tract SARS-CoV-2 RNA kinetics in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The viral kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 has been considered clinically important. While remdesivir and corticosteroids are recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support, there is a limited number of published reports on viral kinetics in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir or corticosteroids.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study by collecting longitudinal samples from the nasopharynx/throat of 123 hospitalised patients (median age 55 years, 74% male) with COVID-19, to evaluate the effects of remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment on viral RNA levels. The subjects were divided into four groups: those receiving remdesivir (n = 25), betamethasone (n = 41), both (n = 15), or neither (n = 42). Time to viral RNA clearance was analysed using Kaplan-Meier plots, categorical data were analysed using Fisher's exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous data. Viral RNA decline rate was analysed using a mixed effect model.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 RNA decline rate or time to SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance between the groups. Moreover, clinical status at baseline was not correlated with time to viral clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA kinetics was not affected by treatment, repeated sampling from the upper respiratory tract cannot be used to evaluate treatment response.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

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.

Markers of cellular senescence is associated with persistent pulmonary pathology after COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND

The lungs are the organ most likely to sustain serious injury from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the mechanisms for long-term complications are not clear. Patients with severe COVID-19 have shorter telomere lengths and higher levels of cellular senescence, and we hypothesized that circulating levels of the telomere-associated senescence markers chitotriosidase, β-galactosidase, cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide and stathmin 1 (STMN1) were elevated in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to controls and could be associated with pulmonary sequelae following hospitalization.

METHODS

Ninety-seven hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent assessment for pulmonary sequelae at three-month follow-up were included in the study. β-Galactosidase and chitotriosidase were analysed by fluorescence; stathmin 1 and cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide were analysed by enzyme immuno-assay in plasma samples from the acute phase and after three-months. In addition, the classical senescence markers cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A and 2A were analysed by enzyme immuno-assay in peripheral blood mononuclear cell lysate after three months.

RESULTS

We found elevated plasma levels of the senescence markers chitotriosidase and stathmin 1 in patients three months after hospitalization with COVID-19, and these markers in addition to protein levels of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A in cell lysate, were associated with pulmonary pathology. The elevated levels of these markers seem to reflect both age-dependent (chitotriosidase) and age-independent (stathmin 1, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A) processes.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that accelerated ageing or senescence could be important for long-term pulmonary complications of COVID-19, and our findings may be relevant for future research exploring the pathophysiology and management of these patients.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

Results

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

Conclusions

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

High Circulating Levels of the Homeostatic Chemokines CCL19 and CCL21 Predict Mortality and Disease Severity in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Immune dysregulation is a major factor in the development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The homeostatic chemokines CCL19 and CCL21 have been implicated as mediators of tissue inflammation, but data on their regulation in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is limited. We thus investigated the levels of these chemokines in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Serial blood samples were obtained from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 414). Circulating CCL19 and CCL21 levels during hospitalization and 3-month follow-up were analyzed. In vitro assays and analysis of RNAseq data from public repositories were performed to further explore possible regulatory mechanisms.

RESULTS

A consistent increase in circulating levels of CCL19 and CCL21 was observed, with high levels correlating with disease severity measures, including respiratory failure, need for intensive care, and 60-day all-cause mortality. High levels of CCL21 at admission were associated with persisting impairment of pulmonary function at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight CCL19 and CCL21 as markers of immune dysregulation in COVID-19. This may reflect aberrant regulation triggered by tissue inflammation, as observed in other chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Determination of the source and regulation of these chemokines and their effects on lung tissue is warranted to further clarify their role in COVID-19.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04321616 and NCT04381819.

The IDentif.AI-x pandemic readiness platform: Rapid prioritization of optimized COVID-19 combination therapy regimens

IDentif.AI-x, a clinically actionable artificial intelligence platform, was used to rapidly pinpoint and prioritize optimal combination therapies against COVID-19 by pairing a prospective, experimental validation of multi-drug efficacy on a SARS-CoV-2 live virus and Vero E6 assay with a quadratic optimization workflow. A starting pool of 12 candidate drugs developed in collaboration with a community of infectious disease clinicians was first narrowed down to a six-drug pool and then interrogated in 50 combination regimens at three dosing levels per drug, representing 729 possible combinations. IDentif.AI-x revealed EIDD-1931 to be a strong candidate upon which multiple drug combinations can be derived, and pinpointed a number of clinically actionable drug interactions, which were further reconfirmed in SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta). IDentif.AI-x prioritized promising drug combinations for clinical translation and can be immediately adjusted and re-executed with a new pool of promising therapies in an actionable path towards rapidly optimizing combination therapy following pandemic emergence.

Respiratory dysfunction three months after severe COVID-19 is associated with gut microbiota alterations

BACKGROUND

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is primarily a respiratory infection, mounting evidence suggests that the gastrointestinal tract is involved in the disease, with gut barrier dysfunction and gut microbiota alterations being related to disease severity. Whether these alterations persist and are related to long-term respiratory dysfunction remains unknown.

METHODS

Plasma was collected during hospital admission and after 3 months from the NOR-Solidarity trial (n = 181) and analyzed for markers of gut barrier dysfunction and inflammation. At the 3-month follow-up, pulmonary function was assessed by measuring the diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DL_CO ). Rectal swabs for gut microbiota analyses were collected (n = 97) and analyzed by sequencing the 16S rRNA gene.

RESULTS

Gut microbiota diversity was reduced in COVID-19 patients with respiratory dysfunction, defined as DL_CO below the lower limit of normal 3 months after hospitalization. These patients also had an altered global gut microbiota composition, with reduced relative abundance of 20 bacterial taxa and increased abundance of five taxa, including Veillonella, potentially linked to fibrosis. During hospitalization, increased plasma levels of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) were strongly associated with respiratory failure, defined as pO₂ /fiO₂ (P/F ratio) <26.6 kPa. LBP levels remained elevated during and after hospitalization and were associated with low-grade inflammation and respiratory dysfunction after 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Respiratory dysfunction after COVID-19 is associated with altered gut microbiota and persistently elevated LBP levels. Our results should be regarded as hypothesis generating, pointing to a potential gut-lung axis that should be further investigated in relation to long-term pulmonary dysfunction and long COVID.

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

BACKGROUND

The Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-β1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date.

METHODS

Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-β1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.

FINDINGS

Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings.

INTERPRETATION

Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).

FUNDING

WHO.