Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Survival and Length of Hospital Stay Among US Veterans Hospitalized With COVID-19

Real life experience on the use of Remdesivir in patients admitted to COVID-19 in two referral Italian hospital: a propensity score matched analysis

Remdesivir (RDV) was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for COVID-19, with discordant data on efficacy in reducing mortality risk and disease progression. In the context of a dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic landscape, the utilization of real-world evidence is of utmost importance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RDV on patients who have been admitted to two university referral hospitals in Italy due to COVID-19. All patients older than 18 years and hospitalized at two different universities (Bari and Palermo) were enrolled in this study. To minimize the effect of potential confounders, we used propensity score matching with one case (Remdesivir) and one control that never experienced this kind of intervention during hospitalization. Mortality was the primary outcome of our investigation, and it was recorded using death certificates and/or medical records. Severe COVID-19 was defined as admission to the intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. After using propensity score matching, 365 patients taking Remdesivir and 365 controls were included. No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of mean age and percentage of females, while patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently active smokers (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently vaccinated against COVID-19. All the other clinical, radiological, and pharmacological parameters were balanced between the two groups. The use of Remdesivir in our cohort was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality during the follow-up period (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.86; p = 0.007). Moreover, RDV was associated with a significantly lower incidence of non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.36). Furthermore, in the 365 patients taking Remdesivir, we observed two cases of mild renal failure requiring a reduction in the dosage of Remdesivir and two cases in which the physicians decided to interrupt Remdesivir for bradycardia and for QT elongation. Our study suggests that the use of Remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a safe therapy associated with improved clinical outcomes, including halving of mortality and with a reduction of around 75% of the risk of invasive ventilation. In a constantly changing COVID-19 scenario, ongoing research is necessary to tailor treatment decisions based on the latest scientific evidence and optimize patient outcomes.

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

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

Use of RT-PCR in conjunction with a respiratory pathogen assay to concurrently determine the prevalence of bacteria and SARS-CoV-2 from the nasopharynx of outpatients

Introduction

COVID-19 has emerged as a highly contagious and debilitating disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has claimed the lives of over 7.7 million people worldwide. Bacterial co-infections are one of many co-morbidities that have been suggested to impact the outcome of COVID-19 in patients. The goals of this study are to elucidate the presence of bacteria in the nasopharynx of SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients and to describe demographic categories that may be associated with the detection of these organisms during one of the initial waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

To this end, we investigated SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial co-detection from outpatient RT-PCR testing in Texas.

Results

The results indicate that Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Haemophilus influenzae were the most frequently detected bacteria in both SARS-CoV-2 positive and SARS-CoV-2 negative patients and that these bacteria were present in these two patient populations at similar proportions. We also detected Staphylococcus aureus in a significantly larger proportion of males relative to females and people under 65 years of age relative to those 65 and over. Finally, we observed that SARS-CoV-2 was more commonly detected in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics; however, low disclosure rates make volunteer bias a concern when interpreting the effects of demographic variables.

Discussion

This study describes the bacteria present in the nasopharynx of SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients, highlights associations between patient demographics and SARS-CoV-2 as well as bacterial co-detection. In addition, this study highlights RT-PCR based molecular testing as a tool to detect bacteria simultaneously when SARS-CoV-2 tests are performed.

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.

Changing patterns and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 severe pneumonia treated with remdesivir according to vaccination status: results from a real-world retrospective study

Since the beginning of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many drugs have been purposed for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Remdesivir emerged as an encouraging antiviral drug for patients with documented severe COVID-19-related pneumonia. Although several studies about remdesivir effectiveness exist, no study investigated the effect of the combination of remdesivir with the vaccination status. The aim of this study was to assess whether the administration of remdesivir could show some differences in terms of clinical outcomes in patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 versus those who were not. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were 30-days mortality, the need for ICU admission and for oxygen supplementation. This is a retrospective cohort study including all consecutive adult patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 at the Padua University Hospital (Italy), between September 1st, 2020, and January 31st, 2022, and who received a 5-days course of remdesivir. A total of 708 patients were included, 467 (66%) were male, and the median age was 67 (IQR: 56-79) years. To better estimate the outcomes of interest, a propensity score weighted approach was implemented for vaccination status. A total of 605/708 patients (85.4%) did not complete the vaccination schedule. In-hospital mortality rate was 5.1% (n = 36), with no statistically significant difference between the unvaccinated (n=29, 4.8%) and vaccinated (n=7, 6.8%; p=0.4) patients. After propensity score matching, mortality between the two groups remained similar. However, both the need for ICU and oxygen supplementation were significantly lower in the vaccinated group. Our finding suggests that a complete vaccination course could have an impact in reducing the need for transfer in ICU and for high-flow therapy in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir.

Efficacy of Additional Corticosteroids After Dexamethasone Treatment for Moderate to Severe COVID-19: An Observational Study

Background Previous studies have demonstrated dexamethasone (DEX)'s efficacy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In contrast, patients with residual lung field shading and symptoms after DEX treatment have been observed, and the efficacy of additional corticosteroids (AC) is unknown. Objectives We aimed to investigate the efficacy of AC in patients with COVID-19 with residual respiratory symptoms or who required oxygen therapy or invasive mechanical ventilation after DEX treatment. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective observational study including 261 patients with community-onset COVID-19, aged ≥ 18 years, admitted to our hospital between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021. Finally, 34 patients were included in the study who met all four of the following criteria: (1) required oxygen therapy or invasive ventilation, (2) were treated with DEX, (3) had residual shading on chest imaging after DEX treatment, or (4) had unimproved respiratory symptoms or oxygen saturation < 90%. We reviewed the medical records and clinical courses of 14 patients who received AC therapy (AC group) and 20 patients who did not (non-additional corticosteroids or NC group). Results The 90-day mortality rate was 35.7% in the AC group and 25.0% in the NC group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.797). In addition, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who required oxygen therapy at discharge (64% vs. 35%, p = 0.162). The time from the end of DEX therapy to discharge was significantly longer in the AC group (median 7.5 vs. 33 days, p = 0.019). Regarding serious adverse events, infection was statistically more common in the AC group than in the NC group (p = 0.005). Conclusions AC after DEX treatment does not improve clinical outcomes and may prolong hospital stay.

Real-world use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients admitted to Italian hospitals with COVID-19: the nationwide retrospective FADOI-RECOVER study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is widely used for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir, and their outcomes during hospitalization.

METHODS

This retrospective observational multicenter study included consecutive patients, hospitalized for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (September 2020-September 2021), who were treated with remdesivir.

RESULTS

One thousand four patients were enrolled, all with onset of symptoms occurring less than 10 days before starting remdesivir; 17% of patients had 4 or more concomitant diseases. Remdesivir was well tolerated, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) being reported in 2.3% of patients. In-hospital death occurred in 80 patients (8.0%). The median timing of the first remdesivir dose was 5 days after symptom onset. The following endpoints did not differ according to the time span from the onset of symptoms to the first dose: length of hospitalization, in-hospital death, composite outcome (in-hospital death and/or endotracheal intubation). Advanced age, number of comorbidities ≥ 4, and severity of respiratory failure at admission were associated with poor in-hospital outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, remdesivir proved to be a safe and well-tolerated treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. In patients receiving remdesivir less than 3 or 5 days from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation did not differ from the rest of the sample.

The Relationship Between Patient-Specific Factors and Discharge Destination After COVID-19 Hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the discharge destinations and associated patient-specific factors among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was carried out at a single-site tertiary acute care hospital.

RESULTS

Among 2872 patients, discharge destination included home without services ( n = 2044, 71.2%), home with services ( n = 379, 13.2%), skilled nursing facility (117, 4.1%), long-term acute care hospital ( n = 39, 1.3%), inpatient rehabilitation facility ( n = 97, 3.4%), acute care facility ( n = 23, 0.8%), hospice services ( n = 20, 0.7%), or deceased during hospitalization ( n = 153, 5.3%). Adjusting by covariates, patients had higher odds of discharge to a rehabilitation facility (skilled nursing facility, long-term acute care hospital, or inpatient rehabilitation facility) than home (with or without services) when they were older (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-3.11; P < 0.001), had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (3-6: OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.34-4.15; P = 0.003; ≥7: OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.56-4.86; P < 0.001), were intubated or required critical care (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.48-3.13; P < 0.001), or had a longer hospitalization (3-7 days: OR, 12.48; 95% CI, 3.77-41.32; P < 0.001; 7-14 days: OR, 28.14; 95% CI, 8.57-92.43; P < 0.001). Patients were less likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility if they received remdesivir (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-specific factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalization should be considered by physicians when prognosticating patient rehabilitation.

The Role of Multidimensional Prognostic Index to Identify Hospitalized Older Adults with COVID-19 Who Can Benefit from Remdesivir Treatment: An Observational, Prospective, Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the importance of multidimensional frailty to guide clinical decision making for remdesivir use in older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to evaluate if the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), a multidimensional frailty tool based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), may help physicians in identifying older hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19 who might benefit from the use of remdesivir.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective study of older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in 10 European hospitals, followed-up for 90 days after hospital discharge. A standardized CGA was performed at hospital admission and the MPI was calculated, with a final score ranging between 0 (lowest mortality risk) and 1 (highest mortality risk). We assessed survival with Cox regression, and the impact of remdesivir on mortality (overall and in hospital) with propensity score analysis, stratified by MPI = 0.50.

RESULTS

Among 496 older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 (mean age 80 years, female 59.9%), 140 (28.2% of patients) were treated with remdesivir. During the 90 days of follow-up, 175 deaths were reported, 115 in hospital. Remdesivir treatment significantly reduced the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval CI 0.35-0.83 in the propensity score analysis) in the sample as whole. Stratifying the population, based on MPI score, the effect was observed only in less frail participants (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.96 in propensity score analysis), but not in frailer subjects. In-hospital mortality was not influenced by remdesivir use.

CONCLUSIONS

MPI could help to identify less frail older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who could benefit more from remdesivir treatment in terms of long-term survival.

Bradycardia and Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients on Remdesivir: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background

Antiviral agents, such as remdesivir, have shown promising results in helping reduce the morbidity and healthcare burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospitalized patients. However, many studies have reported a relationship between remdesivir and bradycardia. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the relationship between bradycardia and outcomes in patients on remdesivir.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 2,935 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to seven hospitals in Southern California in the United States between January 2020 and August 2021. First, we did a backward logistic regression to analyze the relationship between remdesivir use and other independent variables. Finally, we did a backward selection Cox multivariate regression analysis on the sub-group of patients who received remdesivir to evaluate the mortality risk in bradycardic patients on remdesivir.

Results

The mean age of the study population was 61.5 years; 56% were males, 44% received remdesivir, and 52% developed bradycardia. Our analysis showed that remdesivir was associated with increased odds of bradycardia (odds ratio (OR): 1.9, P < 0.001). Patients that were on remdesivir in our study were sicker patients with increased odds of having elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR: 1.03, P < 0.001), elevated white blood cell (WBC) on admission (OR: 1.06, P < 0.001), and increased length of hospital stay (OR: 1.02, P = 0.002). However, remdesivir was associated with decreased odds of mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.53, P < 0.001). In the sub-group analysis of patients that received remdesivir, bradycardia was associated with reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Our study showed that remdesivir was associated with bradycardia in COVID-19 patients. However, it decreased the odds of being on a ventilator, even in patients with increased inflammatory markers on admission. Furthermore, patients on remdesivir that developed bradycardia had no increased risk of death. Clinicians should not withhold remdesivir from patients at risk of developing bradycardia because bradycardia in such patients was not found to worsen the clinical outcome.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is being studied and used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically identify, critically evaluate, and summarize the findings of the studies on the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2019 and 2022. We included all full economic evaluations of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data were summarized in a structured and narrative manner.

RESULTS

Out of 616 articles obtained in this literature search, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. The mean score of the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) for the studies was 87.66 (high quality). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (eight studies in the USA and one study in England), except for three studies from middle-to-high-income countries (China, South Africa, and Turkey). Six studies conducted their economic analysis in terms of a health system perspective; five studies conducted their economic analysis from a payer perspective; three studies from the perspective of a health care provider. The results of five studies showed that remdesivir was cost-effective compared to standard treatment. Furthermore, the therapeutic strategy of combining remdesivir with baricitinib was cost-effective compared to remdesivir alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the present study, remdesivir appears to be cost-effective in comparison with the standard of care in China, Turkey, and South Africa. Studies conducted in the United States show conflicting results, and combining remdesivir with baricitinib is cost-effective compared with remdesivir alone. However, the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in low-income countries remains unknown. Thus, more studies in different countries are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of this drug.

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

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

Comparison of methylprednisolone pulse vs conventional dexamethasone for adult cases of COVID-19 requiring oxygen; a Japanese retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although dexamethasone is an effective treatment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen, the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulse is unclear. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of methylprednisolone pulse to those of dexamethasone.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen and no invasive mechanical ventilation treated with methylprednisolone pulse (1 g/day for 3 days) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day orally or 6.6 mg/day intravenously for ≥5 days). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), duration of oxygen requirement, and requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

RESULTS

Twenty two cases of methylprednisolone pulse and 77 cases of dexamethasone were included. Mask ventilation was more common in the methylprednisolone pulse group (P < 0.001). The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between both groups (P = 0.635). The secondary outcomes of hospital mortality and the requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, and CRRT were similar between groups. No cases received ECMO. Median LoS (P = 0.006) and duration of oxygen requirement (P = 0.004) were longer in the methylprednisolone pulse group.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between the methylprednisolone pulse and the dexamethasone group. However, more cases in the methylprednisolone pulse group required mask ventilation than in the dexamethasone group, suggesting that some cases benefited from methylprednisolone pulse.

Association between RAAS Antagonism and COVID-19-related Mortality in Patients with Overweight/Obesity-related Hypertension: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) increase the expression of ACE2, which is a receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cells. Though evidence suggests that ARB/ACEI are safe among the general population with COVID-19, their safety in patients with overweight/obesity-related hypertension deserves further evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the association between ARB/ACEI use and COVID-19 severity in patients with overweight/obesity-related hypertension.

METHODS

This study included 439 adult patients with overweight/obesity (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) and hypertension, diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinic from March 1 to December 7, 2020. Mortality and severity of COVID-19 were evaluated based on length of stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the associations of ARB/ACEI use with mortality and other markers of COVID-19 severity, with a two-sided alpha set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Exposure to ARB (n = 91) and ACEI (n = 149) before hospitalization was significantly associated with lower mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.362, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.149 to 0.880, p = 0.025) and a shorter length of stay (95% CI -0.217 to -0.025, p = 0.015). Additionally, patients using ARB/ACEI showed a non-significant trend toward lower intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.727, 95% CI 0.485 to 1.090, p = 0.123), use of supplemental oxygen (OR = 0.929, 95% CI 0.608 to 1.421, p = 0.734), mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.728, 95% CI 0.457 to 1.161, p = 0.182), and vasopressors (OR = 0.677, 95% CI 0.430 to 1.067, p = 0.093).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and overweight/obesity-related hypertension who were prescribed ARB/ACEI before admission to the hospital exhibit lower mortality and less severe COVID-19 than those who were not taking ARB/ACEI. The results also suggest that exposure to ARB/ACEI may protect patients with overweight/obesity-related hypertension from severe COVID-19 and death.

HIV and COVID-19 Co-Infection: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global medical emergency with a significant socio-economic impact. People with HIV (PWH), due to the underlying immunosuppression and the particularities of HIV stigma, are considered a vulnerable population at high risk. In this review, we report what is currently known in the available literature with regards to the clinical implications of the overlap of the two epidemics. PWH share the same risk factors for severe COVID-19 as the general population (age, comorbidities), but virological and immunological status also plays an important role. Clinical presentation does not differ significantly, but there are some opportunistic infections that can mimic or co-exist with COVID-19. PWH should be prime candidates for preventative COVID-19 treatments when they are available, but in the setting of resistant strains, this might be not easy. When considering small-molecule medications, physicians need to always remember to address potential interactions with ART, and when considering immunosuppressants, they need to be aware of potential risks for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 shares similarities with HIV in how the public perceives patients-with fear of the unknown and prejudice. There are opportunities for HIV treatment hidden in COVID-19 research with the leaps gained in both monoclonal antibody and vaccine development.

Patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 outcomes on remdesivir according to baseline 4C mortality score

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir was the first antiviral to show clinical benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Previous trials demonstrated a faster time to recovery in hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir vs placebo. Current guidelines recommend treatment with remdesivir based on hospitalization status, oxygen requirements, and time from symptom onset. However, other factors may be evaluated to determine disease severity and risk for progression. The 4C mortality score is a validated, eight variable score that may be used to categorize patients by mortality risk at the time of hospital admission for COVID pneumonia. The objective of this study was to determine if the 4C mortality score may be used to predict which patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 would benefit the most from remdesivir at the time of hospital admission.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study comparing time to recovery among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir compared to those who were treated with standard of care (SOC). The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital or no longer requiring supplemental oxygen, stratified by the 4C mortality score risk group. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and time to recovery in patients who were started on remdesivir within 7 days from symptom onset vs after 7 days from symptom onset. A survival analysis was used to analyze time to recovery outcomes.

RESULTS

Data was collected and analyzed for a total of 300 patients, of which 200 received remdesivir and 100 received SOC. Patients in the remdesivir group had a longer time to recovery compared to patients in the SOC group (6 days vs 4 days). This finding was driven by patients who were categorized to the intermediate risk and high risk mortality groups. Additionally, patients who received remdesivir had a longer length of hospital stay compared to those who received SOC (12 days vs 9 days). Remdesivir was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of patients admitted with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 found that patients who were treated with remdesivir had a longer time to recovery and a longer length of stay compared to those who received SOC. These findings add to the body of evidence questioning the benefit of remdesivir therapy among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against the Omicron Variant

BACKGROUND

The current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines may be less effective against the Omicron variant than against earlier variants. With recent resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 cases, the role of booster doses of the vaccine needs to be highlighted.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort study design emulating a target trial, we determined the relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) of a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine compared with the primary vaccine series alone in preventing infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit admission, and death in the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system in the United States. Among infection-free survivors who received 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before 30 April 2021, we identified those who received a booster between 22 September and 25 December 2021 and matched them 1:1 with individuals who did not receive a booster.

RESULTS

Among 2 384 272 previously uninfected persons with 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine by 30 April 2021, we identified 462 950 booster recipients between 22 September and 25 December 2021, who were matched 1:1 with non-booster recipients. The RVE (95% confidence interval) was 19% (17%-22%) for confirmed infection, 52% (46%-57%) for hospitalization, and 83% (65%-92%) for intensive care unit admission or death. Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of infections and hospitalizations than recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine (log-rank P <.001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

While the RVE of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster vaccine dose in preventing infection against the Omicron variant is low, it is substantial in preventing hospitalization and high in preventing the most severe/critical disease.

Factors associated with the speed and scope of diffusion of COVID-19 therapeutics in a nationwide healthcare setting: a mixed-methods investigation

BACKGROUND

The global COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to evaluate factors associated with high levels of adoption of different therapeutics in a real-world setting. The aim of this nationwide, retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the diffusion and adoption of novel therapeutics with an emerging evidence basis and to identify factors that influenced physicians' treatment decisions.

METHODS

Cohort creation: A cohort of Veteran patients with a microbiologically confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV2 were identified, and cases were classified by disease severity (outpatient, inpatient with mild and severe disease, intensive care unit ICU]). After classification of disease severity, the proportion of cases (outpatients) and admissions (inpatients) in each category receiving each type of medication were plotted as a function of time. Identification of milestones and guidance changes: Key medications used for the management of COVID-19 milestones in the release of primary research results in various forms (e.g. via press release, preprint or publication in a traditional medical journal), policy events and dates of key guidelines were identified and plotted as a timeline. After a timeline was created, time points were compared to changes in medication use, and factors potentially impacting the magnitude (i.e. proportion of patients who received the treatment) and the speed (i.e. the slope of the change in use) of practice changes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone and remdesivir, the first two medications with clinical trial data to support their use, underwent the most rapid, complete and sustained diffusion and adoption; the majority of practice changes occurred after press releases and preprints were available and prior to guideline changes, although some additional uptake occurred following guideline updates. Medications that were not "first in class", that were identified later in the pandemic, and that had higher perceived risk had slower and less complete uptake regardless of the strength and quality of the evidence supporting the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that traditional and social media platforms and preprint releases were major catalysts of practice change, particularly prior to the identification of effective treatments. The "first available treatment in class" impact appeared to be the single most important factor determining the speed and scope of diffusion.

Discharge to post-acute care and other predictors of prolonged length of stay during the initial COVID-19 surge: a single site analysis

BACKGROUND

During the initial surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health-care utilization fluctuated dramatically, straining acute hospital capacity across the USA and potentially contributing to excess mortality.

METHODS

This was an observational retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a large US urban academic medical center during a 12-week COVID-19 surge in the Spring of 2020. We describe patterns in length of stay (LOS) over time. Our outcome of interest was prolonged LOS (PLOS), which we defined as 7 or more days. We performed univariate analyses of patient characteristics, clinical outcomes and discharge disposition to evaluate the association of each variable with PLOS and developed a final multivariate model via backward elimination, wherein all variables with a P-value above 0.05 were eliminated in a stepwise fashion.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1366 patients, of whom 13% died and 29% were readmitted within 30 days. The LOS (mean: 12.6) fell over time (P < 0.0001). Predictors of PLOS included discharge to a post-acute care (PAC) facility (odds ratio [OR]: 11.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-54.0), uninsured status (OR 3.2, CI 1.1-9.1) and requiring intensive care and intubation (OR 18.4, CI 11.5-29.6). Patients had a higher readmission rate if discharged to PAC facilities (40%) or home with home health agency (HHA) services (38%) as compared to patients discharged home without HHA services (26%) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during a US COVID-19 surge had a PLOS and high readmission rate. Lack of insurance, an intensive care unit stay and a decision to discharge to a PAC facility were associated with a PLOS. Efforts to decrease LOS and optimize hospital capacity during COVID-19 surges may benefit from focusing on increasing PAC and HHA capacity and resources.

The COVID-19 hospitalization metric in the pre- and postvaccination eras as a measure of pandemic severity: A retrospective, nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization definitions do not include a disease severity assessment. Thus, we sought to identify a simple and objective mechanism for identifying hospitalized severe cases and to measure the impact of vaccination on trends.

METHODS

All admissions to a Veterans' Affairs (VA) hospital, where routine inpatient screening is recommended, between March 1, 2020, and November 22, 2021, with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were included. Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was defined as any oxygen supplementation or any oxygen saturation (SpO₂) <94% between 1 day before and 2 weeks after the positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Admissions with moderate-to-severe disease were divided by the total number of admissions, and the proportion of admissions with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was modelled using a penalized spline in a Poisson regression and stratified by vaccination status. Dexamethasone receipt and its correlation with moderate-to-severe cases was also assessed.

RESULTS

Among 67,025 admissions with SARS-CoV-2, the proportion with hypoxemia or supplemental oxygen fell from 64% prior to vaccine availability to 56% by November 2021, driven in part by lower rates in vaccinated patients (vaccinated, 52% versus unvaccinated, 58%). The proportion of cases of moderate-to-severe disease identified using SpO₂ levels and oxygen supplementation was highly correlated with dexamethasone receipt (correlation coefficient, 0.95), and increased after July 1, 2021, concurrent with δ (delta) variant predominance.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple and objective definition of COVID-19 hospitalizations using SpO₂ levels and oxygen supplementation can be used to track pandemic severity. This metric could be used to identify risk factors for severe breakthrough infections, to guide clinical treatment algorithms, and to detect trends in changes in vaccine effectiveness over time and against new variants.

An Executed Plan to Combat COVID-19 in the United States

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019. To date, this coronavirus is responsible for greater than 90 million cases in the United States and more than 1 million confirmed deaths. When this virus came to the United States, testing was unorganized, no effective treatments were known, and no vaccines had been discovered. A plan to correct these deficiencies through cooperative science and efficient clinical trials was implemented to combat this novel virus. This plan developed efficient and inexpensive tests, highly effective medicines to treat and prevent disease progression, and vaccines to immunize the population.

Multi-stage structure-based virtual screening approach towards identification of potential SARS-CoV-2 NSP13 helicase inhibitors

On account of its crucial role in the virus life cycle, SARS-COV-2 NSP13 helicase enzyme was exploited as a promising target to identify a novel potential inhibitor using multi-stage structure-based drug discovery approaches. Firstly, a 3D pharmacophore was generated based on the collected data from a protein-ligand interaction fingerprint (PLIF) study using key interactions between co-crystallised fragments and the NSP13 helicase active site. The ZINC database was screened through the generated 3D-pharmacophore retrieving 13 potential hits. All the retrieved hits exceeded the benchmark score of the co-crystallised fragments at the molecular docking step and the best five-hit compounds were selected for further analysis. Finally, a combination between molecular dynamics simulations and MM-PBSA based binding free energy calculations was conducted on the best hit (compound FWM-1) bound to NSP13 helicase enzyme, which identified FWM-1 as a potential potent NSP13 helicase inhibitor with binding free energy equals -328.6 ± 9.2 kcal/mol.

Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients: matched case-control study from a large tertiary hospital registry

AIM

To evaluate the association of remdesivir use and the survival of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 5959 COVID-19 patients admitted to our tertiary-level hospital from March 2020 to June 2021. A total of 876 remdesivir-treated patients were matched with 876 control patients in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), WHO-defined COVID-19 severity on admission, and oxygen requirement at the time of remdesivir use.

RESULTS

Among 1752 COVID-19 patients (median age 66 years, 61.8% men), 1405 (80.2%) had severe and 311 (17.8%) had critically severe COVID-19 on admission. Remdesivir was given at a median of one day after hospital admission and at a median of eight days from the onset of symptoms. Overall, 645 (73.6%) patients received remdesivir before high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or mechanical ventilation (MV), 198 (22.6%) after HFOT institution, and 83 (9.5%) after MV institution. Remdesivir use was associated with improved survival in the entire cohort (hazard ratio 0.79, P=0.006). Survival benefit was evident among patients receiving remdesivir during low-flow oxygen requirement (hazard ratio 0.61, P<0.001) but not among patients who received it after starting HFOT (P=0.499) or MV (P=0.380).

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, if given during low-flow oxygen therapy, might be associated with survival benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Revised Guidelines for Coronavirus Disease 19 Management in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Recipients (August 2022)

This document is intended as a guide for diagnosis and management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, in adult and pediatric HCT and cellular therapy patients. This document was prepared using available data and with expert opinion provided by members of the (ASTCT) Infectious Diseases Special Interest Group (ID-SIG) and is an update of pervious publication. Since our original publication in 2020, the NIH and IDSA have published extensive guidelines for management of COVID-19 which are readily accessible ( NIH Guidelines , IDSA Guidelines ). This update focuses primarily on issues pertaining specifically to HCT/cellular therapy recipients. Information provided in this manuscript may change as new information becomes available.

Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients: matched case-control study from a large tertiary hospital registry

AIM

To evaluate the association of remdesivir use and the survival of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 5959 COVID-19 patients admitted to our tertiary-level hospital from March 2020 to June 2021. A total of 876 remdesivir-treated patients were matched with 876 control patients in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), WHO-defined COVID-19 severity on admission, and oxygen requirement at the time of remdesivir use.

RESULTS

Among 1752 COVID-19 patients (median age 66 years, 61.8% men), 1405 (80.2%) had severe and 311 (17.8%) had critically severe COVID-19 on admission. Remdesivir was given at a median of one day after hospital admission and at a median of eight days from the onset of symptoms. Overall, 645 (73.6%) patients received remdesivir before high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or mechanical ventilation (MV), 198 (22.6%) after HFOT institution, and 83 (9.5%) after MV institution. Remdesivir use was associated with improved survival in the entire cohort (hazard ratio 0.79, P=0.006). Survival benefit was evident among patients receiving remdesivir during low-flow oxygen requirement (hazard ratio 0.61, P<0.001) but not among patients who received it after starting HFOT (P=0.499) or MV (P=0.380).

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, if given during low-flow oxygen therapy, might be associated with survival benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Mortality Among Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 in the United States

IMPORTANCE

SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, poses considerable morbidity and mortality risks. Studies using data collected during routine clinical practice can supplement randomized clinical trials to provide needed evidence, especially during a global pandemic, and can yield markedly larger sample sizes to assess outcomes for important patient subgroups.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of remdesivir treatment with inpatient mortality among patients with COVID-19 outside of the clinical trial setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study in US hospitals using health insurance claims data linked to hospital chargemaster data from December 1, 2018, to May 3, 2021, was conducted among 24 856 adults hospitalized between May 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021, with newly diagnosed COVID-19 who received remdesivir and 24 856 propensity score-matched control patients.

EXPOSURE

Remdesivir treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause inpatient mortality within 28 days of the start of remdesivir treatment for the remdesivir-exposed group or the matched index date for the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 24 856 remdesivir-exposed patients (12 596 men [50.7%]; mean [SD] age, 66.8 [15.4] years) and 24 856 propensity score-matched control patients (12 621 men [50.8%]; mean [SD] age, 66.8 [15.4] years) were included in the study. Median follow-up was 6 days (IQR, 4-11 days) in the remdesivir group and 5 days (IQR, 2-10 days) in the control group. There were 3557 mortality events (14.3%) in the remdesivir group and 3775 mortality events (15.2%) in the control group. The 28-day mortality rate was 0.5 per person-month in the remdesivir group and 0.6 per person-month in the control group. Remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant 17% reduction in inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with propensity score-matched control patients (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.79-0.87]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective cohort study using health insurance claims and hospital chargemaster data, remdesivir treatment was associated with a significantly reduced inpatient mortality overall among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Results of this analysis using data collected during routine clinical practice and state-of-the-art methods complement results from randomized clinical trials. Future areas of research include assessing the association of remdesivir treatment with inpatient mortality during the circulation of different variants and relative to time from symptom onset.

The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID-19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories-the 'lethal threat' story, followed by the 'economic threat' story, and finally the 'vaccine miracle' story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management-arising from holding on to single storylines-showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of 'wicked' problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

The Potential Protective Role of GS-441524, a Metabolite of the Prodrug Remdesivir, in Vaccine Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Cases of vaccine breakthrough, especially in variants of concern (VOCs) infections, are emerging in coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Due to mutations of structural proteins (SPs) (e.g., Spike proteins), increased transmissibility and risk of escaping from vaccine-induced immunity have been reported amongst the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Remdesivir was the first to be granted emergency use authorization but showed little impact on survival in patients with severe COVID-19. Remdesivir is a prodrug of the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 which is converted into the active nucleotide triphosphate to disrupt viral genome of the conserved non-structural proteins (NSPs) and thus block viral replication. GS-441524 exerts a number of pharmacological advantages over Remdesivir: (1) it needs fewer conversions for bioactivation to nucleotide triphosphate; (2) it requires only nucleoside kinase, while Remdesivir requires several hepato-renal enzymes, for bioactivation; (3) it is a smaller molecule and has a potency for aerosol and oral administration; (4) it is less toxic allowing higher pulmonary concentrations; (5) it is easier to be synthesized. The current article will focus on the discussion of interactions between GS-441524 and NSPs of VOCs to suggest potential application of GS-441524 in breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44231-022-00021-4.

Combination therapy with nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir improves the survival of SARS-CoV-2 infected mice

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic remains uncontrolled owing to the continuous emergence of variants of concern, there is an immediate need to implement the most effective antiviral treatment strategies, especially for risk groups. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic potency of nirmatrelvir, remdesivir and molnupiravir, and their combinations in SARS-CoV-2 infected K18-hACE2 transgenic mice. Systemic treatment of mice with each drug (20 mg/kg) resulted in slightly enhanced antiviral efficacy and yielded an increased life expectancy of only about 20-40% survival. However, combination therapy with nirmatrelvir (20 mg/kg) and molnupiravir (20 mg/kg) in lethally infected mice showed profound inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication in both the lung and brain and synergistically improved survival rates up to 80% compared to those with nirmatrelvir (36%, P < 0.001) and molnupiravir (43%, P < 0.001) administered alone. This combination therapy effectively reduced clinical severity score, virus-induced tissue damage, and viral distribution compared to those in animals treated with these monotherapies. Furthermore, all these assessments associated with this combination were also significantly higher than that of mice receiving remdesivir monotherapy (P < 0.001) and the nirmatrelvir (20 mg/kg) and remdesivir (20 mg/kg) combination (P < 0.001), underscored the clinical significance of this combination. By contrast, the nirmatrelvir and remdesivir combination showed less antiviral efficacy, with lower survival compared to nirmatrelvir monotherapy due to the insufficient plasma exposure of the remdesivir, demonstrating the inefficient therapeutic effect of this combination in the mouse model. The combination therapy with nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir contributes to alleviated morbidity and mortality, which can serve as a basis for the design of clinical studies of this combination in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Rate and Risk Factors for Severe/Critical Disease Among Fully Vaccinated Persons With Breakthrough Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in a High-Risk National Population

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections after vaccination have been reported. Outcomes among persons with breakthrough infection are poorly understood.

METHODS

We identified all veterans with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection >14 days after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine between 15 December 2020 and 30 June 2021 and propensity score-matched unvaccinated controls with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was severe/critical disease, defined as admission to an intensive care unit, need for mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days of diagnosis or during index hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 502 780 vaccinated and 599 974 unvaccinated persons, there were 2332 (0.5%) breakthrough infections in the vaccinated group and 40 540 (6.8%) infections in the unvaccinated group over a follow-up period of 69 083 person-days in each group. Among these groups, we identified 1728 vaccinated persons with breakthrough infection (cases) and 1728 propensity score-matched unvaccinated controls with infection. Among the former, 95 (5.5%) persons met the criteria for severe/critical disease, while 200 (11.6%) persons met the criteria among the latter group. The incidence rate for severe/critical disease per 1000 person-days (95% confidence interval [CI]) was .55 (.45-.68) among vaccinated persons with breakthrough infection and 1.22 (1.07-1.41) among the unvaccinated matched controls who developed infection (P < .0001). Risk was higher; the hazard ratio (95% CI) with increasing age per 10-year increase was 1.25 (1.11-1.41); for those with >4 comorbidities, it was 2.85 (1.49-5.43), while being vaccinated was associated with strong protection against severe/critical disease (HR, 0.41; 95% CI: .32-.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of severe/critical disease is higher among older persons and those with >4 comorbidities but lower among fully vaccinated persons with breakthrough infection compared with unvaccinated controls who develop infection.

Vaccine Effectiveness of 3 Versus 2 Doses of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA Vaccines in a High-Risk National Population

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a third or booster vaccine dose in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or its consequences is critical in developing recommendations for their use. We determined relative VE of 3 vs 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and severe/critical disease.

METHODS

Among veterans who had received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine by 30 April 2021, we identified those who received a third dose of the same vaccine between 22 September and 24 November 2021 and 1:1 matched controls who had not received their third dose by then. Using Cox proportional hazards model, we calculated adjusted hazards ratios for symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death after SARS-CoV-2-positive test.

RESULTS

Among 2 321 366 veterans who received 2 doses of Pfizer BNT-162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine by 30 April 2021, we matched 395 686 persons who received a third dose of the same vaccine between 22 September and 24 November 2021 to controls who did not receive a third dose. Adjusted HRs (95% CI) were .15 (.11-.21) for symptomatic infection and .18 (.13-.26) for hospitalizations for 3 vs 2 doses, corresponding to relative VE of 85% and 82%. Five ICU admissions or deaths were observed (4 among recipients of 2 doses). There was no difference in VE between BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

A third dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine is associated with high VE against symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and critical disease in the pre-Omicron era.

Curbing COVID-19 progression and mortality with traditional Chinese medicine among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Viral- and host-targeted traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102 were administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the mid-2021 outbreak in Taiwan. We report the outcomes by measuring the risks of intubation or admission to intensive care unit (ICU) for patients requiring no oxygen support, and death for those requiring oxygen therapy.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective study retrieved data of 840 patients admitted to 9 hospitals between May 1 and July 26, 2021. After propensity score matching, 302 patients (151 received NRICM101 and 151 did not) and 246 patients (123 received NRICM102 and 123 did not) were included in the analysis to assess relative risks.

Results

During the 30-day observation period, no endpoint occurred in the patients receiving NRICM101 plus usual care while 14 (9.27%) in the group receiving only usual care were intubated or admitted to ICU. The numbers of deceased patients were 7 (5.69%) in the group receiving NRICM102 plus usual care and 27 (21.95%) in the usual care group. No patients receiving NRICM101 transitioned to a more severe status; NRICM102 users were 74.07% less likely to die than non-users (relative risk= 25.93%, 95% confidence interval 11.73%-57.29%).

Conclusion

NRICM101 and NRICM102 were significantly associated with a lower risk of intubation/ICU admission or death among patients with mild-to-severe COVID-19. This study provides real-world evidence of adopting broad-spectrum oral therapeutics and shortening the gap between outbreak and effective response. It offers a new vision in our preparation for future pandemics.

Clinical Characteristics and Implications of Bradycardia in COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Objectives

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a relatively obscure cardiac effect profile. Previous studies have reported bradycardia associated with remdesivir, but few have examined its clinical characteristics. The objective of this study was to investigate remdesivir associated bradycardia and its associated clinical characteristics and outcomes.

Methods

This is a single-institution retrospective study that investigated bradycardia in 600 patients who received remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19. A total of 375 patients were included in the study after screening for other known causes of bradycardia (atrioventricular [AV] nodal blockers). All patients were analyzed for episodes of bradycardia from when remdesivir was initiated up to 5 days after completion, a time frame based on the drug’s putative elimination half-life. Univariate and multivariate statistical tests were conducted to analyze the data.

Results

The mean age of the sample was 56.63 ± 13.23 years. Of patients who met inclusion criteria, 49% were found to have bradycardia within 5 days of remdesivir administration. Compared to the cohort without a documented bradycardic episode, patients with bradycardia were significantly more likely to experience inpatient mortality (22% vs 12%, p = 0.01). The patients with bradycardia were found to have marginally higher serum D-dimer levels (5.2 vs 3.4 µg/mL, p = 0.05) and were more likely to undergo endotracheal intubation (28% vs 14%, p = 0.008). Male sex, hyperlipidemia, and bradycardia within 5 days of completing remdesivir were significant predictors of inpatient mortality. No significant differences in length of stay were found.

Conclusions

Bradycardia that occurs during or shortly after remdesivir treatment in COVID-19 patients may be associated with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality. However, COVID-19 and its cardiac complications cannot be excluded as potential contributors of bradycardia in the present study. Future studies are needed to further delineate the cardiac characteristics of COVID-19 and remdesivir.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-022-01187-x.

The Acid Ceramidase Is a SARS-CoV-2 Host Factor

SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the delta or omicron variants, with higher transmission rates, accelerated the global COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, novel therapeutic strategies need to be deployed. The inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), interfering with viral entry by fluoxetine was reported. Here, we described the acid ceramidase as an additional target of fluoxetine. To discover these effects, we synthesized an ASM-independent fluoxetine derivative, AKS466. High-resolution SARS-CoV-2–RNA FISH and RTqPCR analyses demonstrate that AKS466 down-regulates viral gene expression. It is shown that SARS-CoV-2 deacidifies the lysosomal pH using the ORF3 protein. However, treatment with AKS488 or fluoxetine lowers the lysosomal pH. Our biochemical results show that AKS466 localizes to the endo-lysosomal replication compartments of infected cells, and demonstrate the enrichment of the viral genomic, minus-stranded RNA and mRNAs there. Both fluoxetine and AKS466 inhibit the acid ceramidase activity, cause endo-lysosomal ceramide elevation, and interfere with viral replication. Furthermore, Ceranib-2, a specific acid ceramidase inhibitor, reduces SARS-CoV-2 replication and, most importantly, the exogenous supplementation of C6-ceramide interferes with viral replication. These results support the hypotheses that the acid ceramidase is a SARS-CoV-2 host factor.

Remdesivir in Very Old Patients (≥80 Years) Hospitalized with COVID-19: Real World Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

(1) Background: Large cohort studies of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir have reported improved clinical outcomes, but data on older patients are scarce. Objective: This work aims to assess the potential benefit of remdesivir in unvaccinated very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (2) Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized in Spain between 15 July and 31 December 2020 (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Differences in 30-day all-cause mortality were adjusted using a multivariable regression analysis. (3) Results: Of the 4331 patients admitted, 1312 (30.3%) were ≥80 years. Very old patients treated with remdesivir (n: 140, 10.7%) had a lower mortality rate than those not treated with remdesivir (OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.29−0.69)). After multivariable adjustment by age, sex, and variables associated with lower mortality (place of COVID-19 acquisition; degree of dependence; comorbidities; dementia; duration of symptoms; admission qSOFA; chest X-ray; D-dimer; and treatment with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, beta-lactams, macrolides, and high-flow nasal canula oxygen), the use of remdesivir remained associated with a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.40 (0.22−0.61) (p < 0.001)). (4) Conclusions: Remdesivir may reduce mortality in very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Enzymes in the time of COVID-19: An overview about the effects in the human body, enzyme market, and perspectives for new drugs

The rising pandemic caused by a coronavirus, resulted in a scientific quest to discover some effective treatments against its etiologic agent, the severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). This research represented a significant scientific landmark and resulted in many medical advances. However, efforts to understand the viral mechanism of action and how the human body machinery is subverted during the infection are still ongoing. Herein, we contributed to this field with this compilation of the roles of both viral and human enzymes in the context of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In this sense, this overview reports that proteases are vital for the infection to take place: from SARS‐CoV‐2 perspective, the main protease (M^pro) and papain‐like protease (PL^pro) are highlighted; from the human body, angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐2, transmembrane serine protease‐2, and cathepsins (CatB/L) are pointed out. In addition, the influence of the virus on other enzymes is reported as the JAK/STAT pathway and the levels of lipase, enzymes from the cholesterol metabolism pathway, amylase, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and glyceraldehyde 3‐phosphate dehydrogenase are also be disturbed in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Finally, this paper discusses the importance of detailed enzymatic studies for future treatments against SARS‐CoV‐2, and how some issues related to the syndrome treatment can create opportunities in the biotechnological market of enzymes and the development of new drugs.

Real-life use of remdesivir-containing regimens in COVID-19: a retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir (REM) has shown potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of COVID-19; nevertheless, clinical trials and real-life reports have shown conflicting data on its effectiveness. Aims of the study were to evaluate the impact of remdesivir on I) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, II) need for orotracheal intubation (OTI) and III) in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, we estimated the kinetics of laboratory parameters and assessed the risk factors for in-hospital mortality in the remdesivir population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center, case-control (1:1) study including hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cases were patients treated with remdesivir for 5 days, controls were patients not receiving remdesivir.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients (96 cases and 96 controls) were included in the study. Patients receiving remdesivir had a lower rate of ICU admission and need for OTI than controls, whereas no difference between cases and controls were observed as for mortality rate. However, at multivariable analysis remdesivir was not associated with ICU admission neither with OTI. Instead, presence of haematological malignancies, lower duration of symptoms, higher severity of infection and low lymphocytes count at admission were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. In patients treated with remdesivir a low albumin value and duration of lymphopenia were significantly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-life study showed that therapy with remdesivir did not have impact on either ICU admission, need for OTI or in-hospital mortality.

Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 Hospitalized Patients Treated with Remdesivir: A Nationwide, Registry-Based Study in Italy

Remdesivir is the first drug approved for treatment of COVID-19 but current evidence for recommending its use for the treatment of moderate-to-severe disease is still controversial among clinical guidelines. We performed a nationwide, registry-based study including all Italian hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir to assess the impact of major confounders on crude 15-day and 29-day mortality. Mortality was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and the Cox proportional-hazards model was applied to analyze the risks by patient’s baseline features. In total, 16,462 patients treated with remdesivir from 29 October 2020 to 17 December 2020 were entered in the study. Crude 15-day and 29-day mortality were 7.1% (95% CI, 6.7–7.5%) and 11.7% (95% CI, 11.2–12.2%), respectively. Being treated within two days of admission reduced the risk of death by about 40% (HR 1.4, 95% CI, 1.2–1.6). Results from the largest cohort of remdesivir-treated patients suggests that mortality in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients is substantially influenced by the days between SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and drug prescription. Current recommendations and future clinical trials for remdesivir alone or in combination should carefully consider the target population and timing for best efficacy of treatment.

Effect of ArtemiC in patients with COVID-19: A Phase II prospective study

Despite intensive efforts, there is no effective remedy for COVID‐19. Moreover, vaccination efficacy declines over time and may be compromised against new SARS‐CoV‐2 lineages. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for simple, accessible, low‐cost and effective pharmacological anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 agents. ArtemiC is a medical product comprising artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C, all of which possess anti‐inflammatory and anti‐oxidant properties. The present Phase II placebo‐controlled, double‐blinded, multi‐centred, prospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ArtemiC in patients with COVID‐19. The study included 50 hospitalized symptomatic COVID‐19 patients randomized (2:1) to receive ArtemiC or placebo oral spray, twice daily on Days 1 and 2, beside standard care. A physical examination was performed, and vital signs and blood tests were monitored daily until hospital discharge (or Day 15). A PCR assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2 carriage was performed at screening and on last visit. ArtemiC improved NEWS2 in 91% of patients and shortened durations of abnormal SpO₂ levels, oxygen supplementation and fever. No treatment‐related adverse events were reported. These findings suggest that ArtemiC curbed deterioration, possibly by limiting cytokine storm of COVID‐19, thus bearing great promise for COVID‐19 patients, particularly those with comorbidities.

A Graphic Transformation: A Qualitative Study of Transformative Learning in Medical Trainees during COVID-19 Using Comics as Data Presentation

Phenomenon: Transformative learning is a theory in which individuals construct new or revised interpretations of the meaning of an experience. COVID-19 offers a rare opportunity to better understand how individuals respond to and make meaning within the shared context of an extraordinary event. We aimed to examine if and how residents and fellows engaged in transformative learning when caring for COVID-19 positive patients during the initial peak of the pandemic (Spring 2020).Approach: We conducted an interpretive qualitative study to identify themes pertaining to transformative learning. We used semi-structured interviews of residents and fellows who were directly or indirectly involved in the care of COVID-19 positive patients admitted to the inpatient wards or the intensive care units during the first peak of the pandemic (defined as March 11th - May 28th, 2020) at our Mid-Atlantic academic health system. We used the medium of comics to depict select interviewees' experiences during the pandemic as a novel way to represent themes from the interviews.Findings: Three main themes arose from our qualitative analysis. These included "a sense of guilt," "the impact on training," and "venues and processes for reflection." In comparing their experiences with colleagues and friends at other institutions with higher COVID-19 case volume, trainees reflected on how they felt lucky, and this led to guilt, although not necessarily transformation. The impact of COVID-19 on the training environment had transformative potential. Trainees challenged their previously held assumptions on the necessity of various surgeries, in-person visits, and physical examination maneuvers when COVID-19 posed a barrier. Finally, while trainees recalled multiple situations throughout the pandemic when they believed they were engaging in reflection, such reflection did not appear to reach so deep as to alter participants' underlying assumptions until the research interview itself, suggesting that transformation was incomplete.Insights: Our purposive sample of residents and fellows who cared for COVID-19 positive patients during the initial peak of the pandemic made meaning of their experience in multiple ways. The largest shift in worldview due to the pandemic appeared to be related to the instrumental utility of certain common medical practices or procedures. This, in turn, was the most prominent influence on how these trainees felt they would practice in the future, and translated to a shift in how they appraised evidence. However, lack of opportunity for reflection may have adversely impacted the ability for transformation to take place. Given that multiple trainees showed appreciation for the critical reflection venue that was the research interview, academic leadership should ensure similar venues exist during training, even after the pandemic ends.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATION

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Phosphoramidate Prodrugs Continue to Deliver: The Journey of Remdesivir (GS-5734) from the Liver to Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells

Remdesivir (GS-5734) is a monophenol, 2-ethylbutylalanine phosphoramidate prodrug of GS-441524 that is FDA-approved for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Despite showing strong, broad-spectrum antiviral activity in preclinical models, the clinical efficacy of remdesivir is mixed. This work highlights the pharmacodynamic discordance of remdesivir between humans and non-human primates, thereby demonstrating that non-human primate disease models overestimate the therapeutic efficacy of phosphoramidate prodrugs.

Use of Antivirals in SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Critical Review of the Role of Remdesivir

The aim of this report is to review the literature and shed light on the uncertainties surrounding the use of antiviral agents in general and remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. This review evaluated a battery of antiviral compounds and their effectiveness in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Remdesivir is the only antiviral approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This work extensively reviews remdesivir data generated from clinical trials and observational studies, paying attention to the most recent data, and focusing on outcomes to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the results. This review also discusses the recommendations issued by official bodies during the pandemic in the light of the current knowledge. The use of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection is justified because a virus is the causative agent that triggers the inflammatory responses and its consequences. More trials are needed to improve the management of this disease.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of oral antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 in Korea

OBJECTIVES

Many countries have authorized the emergency use of oral antiviral agents for patients with mild-to-moderate cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these agents for reducing the number of severe COVID-19 cases and the burden on Korea’s medical system.

METHODS

Using an existing model, we estimated the number of people who would require hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission in Korea in 2022. The treatment scenarios included (1) all adult patients, (2) elderly patients only, and (3) adult patients with underlying diseases only, compared to standard care. Based on the current health system capacity, we calculated the incremental costs per severe case averted and hospital admission for each scenario.

RESULTS

We estimated that 236,510 COVID-19 patients would require hospital/ICU admission in 2022 with standard care only. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (87% efficacy) was predicted to reduce this number by 80%, 24%, and 17% when targeting all adults, adults with underlying diseases, and elderly patients (25, 8, and 4%, respectively, for molnupiravir, with 30% efficacy). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use is likely to be cost-effective, with predicted costs of US$8,878, US$8,964, and US$1,454, per severe patient averted for the target groups listed above, respectively, while molnupiravir is likely to be less cost-effective, with costs of US$28,492, US$29,575, and US$7,915, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In Korea, oral treatment using nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for symptomatic COVID-19 patients targeting elderly patients would be highly cost-effective and would substantially reduce the demand for hospital admission to below the capacity of the health system if targeted to all adult patients instead of standard care.

Remdesivir in combination with dexamethasone for patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A retrospective multicenter study

Background

Dexamethasone is standard of care for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen. The objective is to assess the clinical benefit of adding remdesivir to dexamethasone.

Patients and methods

A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requesting low-flow oxygen who received dexamethasone. Patients admitted to infectious diseases wards also received remdesivir. Primary outcome was duration of hospitalization after oxygen initiation. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital death, and death and/or transfer to the intensive care unit. To handle potential confounding by indication bias, outcome comparison was performed on propensity score-matched populations. Propensity score was estimated by a multivariable logistic model including prognostic covariates; then 1:1 matching was performed without replacement, using the nearest neighbor algorithm with a caliper of 0.10 fold the standard deviation of the propensity score as the maximal distance. Balance after matching was checked on standardized mean differences.

Results

From August 15^th 2020, to February 28^th, 2021, 325 patients were included, 101 of whom received remdesivir. At admission median time from symptoms onset was 7 days, median age: 68 years, male sex; 61%, >1 comorbidity: 58.5%. Overall 180 patients matched on propensity score were analyzed, 90 each received remdesivir plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. Median duration of hospitalization was 9 (IQR: 7–13) and 9 (IQR: 5–18) days with and without remdesivir, respectively (p = 0.37). In-hospital death rates and rates of transfer to the intensive care unit or death were 8.9 and 17.8% (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.21–1.02, p = 0.06) and 20.0 and 35.6% with and without remdesivir, respectively (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23–0.89, p = 0.015).

Conclusion

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving low-flow oxygen and dexamethasone, the addition of remdesivir was not associated with shorter hospitalization or lower in-hospital mortality but may have reduced the combined outcome of death and transfer to the intensive care unit.