WHO Ordinal Scale and Inflammation Risk Categories in COVID-19. Comparative Study of the Severity Scales

Early combination therapy of COVID-19 in high-risk patients

PURPOSE

Prolonged shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been observed in immunocompromised hosts. Early monotherapy with direct-acting antivirals or monoclonal antibodies, as recommended by the international guidelines, does not prevent this with certainty. Dual therapies may therefore have a synergistic effect.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre study compared treatment strategies for corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) with combinations of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and/ or mABs during the Omicron surge. Co-primary endpoints were prolonged viral shedding (≥ 106 copies/ml at day 21 after treatment initiation) and days with SARS-CoV-2 viral load ≥ 106 copies/ml. Therapeutic strategies and risk groups were compared using odds ratios and Fisher's tests or Kaplan-Meier analysis and long-rank tests. Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

144 patients were included with a median duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral load ≥ 106 copies/ml of 8.0 days (IQR 6.0-15.3). Underlying haematological malignancies (HM) (p = 0.03) and treatment initiation later than five days after diagnosis (p < 0.01) were significantly associated with longer viral shedding. Prolonged viral shedding was observed in 14.6% (n = 21/144), particularly in patients with underlying HM (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.2-9.9; p = 0.02). Clinical courses of COVID-19 were mild to moderate with only few adverse effects potentially related to combination treatment.

CONCLUSION

Early combination treatment of COVID-19 effectively prevented prolonged viral shedding in 85.6% of cases. Considering the rapid viral clearance rates and low toxicity, individualized dual therapy approaches may be beneficial in high-risk patients.

Remdesivir versus Favipiravir in Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Remdesivir treatment was associated with a reduced 28-day mortality and recovery time among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Favipiravir is broadly used to treat COVID-19. However, various studies have had conflicting results on the efficacy of favipiravir for COVID-19. We hypothesized that remdesivir is more effective in clinical outcomes regarding the 29-day mortality rates, length of stay, and recovery rate than favipiravir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study that included adult hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients with hypoxemia. Patients were classified into two groups according to the antiviral drugs. Age, oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, and Charlson comorbidity index were used for propensity score matching. The primary objective was to determine whether the type of antiviral agent is associated with 29-day mortality. Other outcomes were the 15-day recovery rate and the length of intensive care unit or hospital stay.

Results

A total of 249 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia were included. With an adjustment for propensity score-matched, there were 204 patients for further analysis (102 patients in each antiviral drug group). Remdesivir patients had higher Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) scores on Chest X-ray (14.32±9.08 vs 11.34±8.46; standardized mean difference =33.9%). The Charlson Comorbidity Index Scores were comparable. The prevalences of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and non-HIV immunocompromised state were higher in the remdesivir group. Regarding the primary outcomes, after adjusting by diabetes, obesity, and RALE score, there was no difference in the 29-day mortality rate between both groups [26 patients (25.5%) in the remdesivir group vs 28 patients (27.5%) in the favipiravir group]. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis at 29 days indicated no significant difference in cumulative survival rate. The two groups' adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.25, p=0.24. A Kaplan-Meier analysis on the 15-day cumulative survival rate observed a trend towards a higher survival rate in the remdesivir group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.84; p= 0.02) The proportion of patients who recovered on day 15, the length of intensive care unit(ICU) stays, and the hospital stay were not different between remdesivir and favipiravir groups (62 patients (60.8%) vs 56 patients (54.9%), p=0.39; 11.48 ± 11.88 days vs 10.87 ± 9.31 days, p=0.69; and 16.64±14.28 days vs 16.59 ±11.31 days, p=0.98, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, Remdesivir did not demonstrate superior benefits over Favipiravir regarding 29-day mortality, 15-day recovery rates, or hospital and ICU stay lengths. However, further investigation into the 15-day cumulative survival rate revealed a trend towards improved survival in the Remdesivir group.

A supervised Bayesian factor model for the identification of multi-omics signatures

MOTIVATION

Predictive biological signatures provide utility as biomarkers for disease diagnosis and prognosis, as well as prediction of responses to vaccination or therapy. These signatures are identified from high-throughput profiling assays through a combination of dimensionality reduction and machine learning techniques. The genes, proteins, metabolites, and other biological analytes that compose signatures also generate hypotheses on the underlying mechanisms driving biological responses, thus improving biological understanding. Dimensionality reduction is a critical step in signature discovery to address the large number of analytes in omics datasets, especially for multi-omics profiling studies with tens of thousands of measurements. Latent factor models, which can account for the structural heterogeneity across diverse assays, effectively integrate multi-omics data and reduce dimensionality to a small number of factors that capture correlations and associations among measurements. These factors provide biologically interpretable features for predictive modeling. However, multi-omics integration and predictive modeling are generally performed independently in sequential steps, leading to suboptimal factor construction. Combining these steps can yield better multi-omics signatures that are more predictive while still being biologically meaningful.

RESULTS

We developed a supervised variational Bayesian factor model that extracts multi-omics signatures from high-throughput profiling datasets that can span multiple data types. Signature-based multiPle-omics intEgration via lAtent factoRs (SPEAR) adaptively determines factor rank, emphasis on factor structure, data relevance and feature sparsity. The method improves the reconstruction of underlying factors in synthetic examples and prediction accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 severity and breast cancer tumor subtypes.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

SPEAR is a publicly available R-package hosted at https://bitbucket.org/kleinstein/SPEAR.

Lung outcomes and related risk factors in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a hospitalised single-centre cohort from Johannesburg, South Africa

Background

Sequelae post-SARS-CoV-2 infection, including lung and functional impairment, pose a significant challenge post-recovery. We explored the burden and risk factors for post-COVID-19 sequelae in an African population with prevalent comorbidities including tuberculosis (TB) and HIV.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study on hospitalised adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 20 March to 06 October 2021 at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, South Africa. We collected data on comorbidities, and COVID-19 severity using the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale. Prospectively, we followed up all participants within 40-days post-discharge to assess body mass index (BMI), COVID-19 symptoms and quality of life using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), 6-min walking-test (6MWT), and spirometry. A subsequent in-depth visit assessed plethysmography, diffusing capacity for the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and high-resolution chest-CT.

Findings

We followed up 111 participants, where 65.8% were female, median age 50.5 years, and predominantly black-African (92.8%). Relevant comorbidities included TB disease (18.9%) and HIV infection (36%). SGRQ total scores were elevated in 78.9%, median 6MWT distance was reduced at 300 m (IQR 210-400), and nearly half (49.5%) exhibited spirometry findings below the lower limit of normal (LLN). In-depth pulmonary assessment for 61 participants revealed abnormalities in total lung capacity (31.6% <80% predicted), DLCO (53.4% <80% predicted), and chest-CT (86.7% abnormal). Significant risk factors for individual abnormal outcomes, adjusted for age and sex, were TB disease, HIV with CD4 <200 cells/mm3, BMI <18.5 kg/m2 and >35 kg/m2, and initial COVID-19 severity.

Interpretation

This study demonstrates substantial lung and functional morbidity within the first weeks post-COVID-19, particularly in individuals with pre-existing comorbidities including TB, HIV, and low or high BMI. Chest-CT and DLCO show best early potential at reflecting COVID-19-related pathologies.

Funding

The Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Arts.

Addressing ethnic disparities in neurological research in the United Kingdom: an example from the prospective multicentre COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study

BACKGROUND

Minority ethnic groups have often been underrepresented in research, posing a problem in relation to external validity and extrapolation of findings. Here, we aimed to assess recruitment and retainment strategies in a large observational study assessing neurological complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Participants were recruited following confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalisation. Self-reported ethnicity was recorded alongside other demographic data to identify potential barriers to recruitment.

RESULTS

807 participants were recruited to COVID-CNS, and ethnicity data were available for 93.2%. We identified a proportionate representation of self-reported ethnicity categories, and distribution of broad ethnicity categories mirrored individual centres' catchment areas. White ethnicity within individual centres ranged between 44.5% and 89.1%, with highest percentage of participants with non-white ethnicity in London-based centres. Examples are provided how to reach potentially underrepresented minority ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment barriers in relation to potentially underrepresented ethnic groups may be overcome with strategies identified here.

Invasive Fungal Infections in Inpatient Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19-associated invasive fungal infections (CAIFIs) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) remain poorly understood.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of SOTRs with COVID-19 admitted to 5 hospitals within Johns Hopkins Medicine was performed between March 2020 and March 2022. Cox regression multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 276 SOTRs, 22 (8%) developed IFIs. The prevalence of CAIFIs was highest in lung transplant recipients (20%), followed by recipients of heart (2/28; 7.1%), liver (3/46; 6.5%), and kidney (7/149; 4.7%) transplants. In the overall cohort, only 42 of 276 SOTRs (15.2%) required mechanical ventilation; these included 11 of 22 SOTRs (50%) of the CAIFI group and 31 of 254 SOTRs (12.2%) of the no-CAIFI group. Compared with those without IFIs, SOTs with IFIs had worse outcomes and required more advanced life support (high-flow oxygen, vasopressor, and dialysis). SOTRs with CAIFIs had higher 1-y death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio 1.65.116.4, P = 0.006) and 1-y mortality adjusting for oxygen requirement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.12.45.1, P < 0.001), compared with SOTRs without CAIFIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of CAIFIs in inpatient SOTRs with COVID-19 is substantial. Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of CAIFIs in SOTRs with COVID-19, particularly those requiring supplemental oxygen, regardless of their intubation status.

Identification of Factors Associated with Mortality in the Elderly Population with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results from a Longitudinal Observational Study from Romania

The progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been linked to a hospitalization rate of 20%. The susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection increases with age, resulting in severe and atypical clinical forms of the disease. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the elderly population can be attributed to several factors, including the overexpression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, immunosenescence, and alterations in the intestinal microbiota that facilitate the cytokine storm. In light of these observations, we conducted a retrospective analysis based on prospectively collected data between 23 December 2021 and 30 April 2022 (the fourth wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection). We analyzed patients aged over 60 years who were hospitalized in a county hospital in Romania. The primary objective of our study was to assess the risk factors for an unfavorable outcome, while the secondary objective was to assess the clinical and baseline characteristics of the enrolled patients. We included 287 cases with a complete electronic medical record from this available cohort of patients. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate a group of 127 patients that progressed, unfortunately, toward an unfavorable outcome versus 160 patients with a favorable outcome. We used the Combined Ordinal Scale of Severity that combines the WHO ordinal scale and the degrees of inflammation to assess the severity of the patients at the time of the initial assessment. The age group between 70 and 79 years had the highest percentage, accounting for 48.0%-61 patients, of the deceased patients. We noted statistically significant differences between groups related to other cardiovascular diseases, nutritional status, hematological diseases, other neurological/mental or digestive disorders, and other comorbidities. Regarding the nutritional status of the patients, there was a statistically significant unfavorable outcome for all the age groups and the patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m2, p = 0.004. The presence of these factors was associated with an unfavorable outcome. Our results indicate that with the presence of cough, there was a statistically significant favorable outcome in the age group over 80 years, p ≤ 0.049. In terms of the presence of dyspnea in all groups of patients, it was associated with an unfavorable outcome, p ≤ 0.001. In our study, we analyzed laboratory test results to assess the level of inflammation across various WHO categories, focusing on the outcome groups determined by the average values of specific biomarkers. Our findings show that, with the exception of IL-6, all other biomarkers tend to rise progressively with the severity of the disease. Moreover, these biomarkers are significantly higher in patients experiencing adverse outcomes. The differences among severity categories and the outcome group are highly significant (p-values < 0.001). CART algorithm revealed a specific cut-off point for the WHO ordinal scale of 4 to stand out as an important reference value for patients at a high risk of developing critical forms of COVID-19. The high death rate can be attributed to proinflammatory status, hormonal changes, nutritional and vitamin D deficiencies, comorbidities, and atypical clinical pictures.

Safety and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with end-stage renal disease: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir has been used to treat severe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); however, its safety and effectiveness in patients remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 21,621 adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of ESRD. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

To compare the adverse effects of remdesivir, propensity scores were used for one-to-one matching between patients with and without ESRD treated with remdesivir (N = 110). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rates, blood glucose levels, variations in hemoglobin levels before and after remdesivir use, or liver function between the two groups after remdesivir use. A comparison was made between patients with ESRD using remdesivir and those not using remdesivir after propensity score matching (N = 44). Although a shorter length of stay (LOS), lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and lower intubation rate were noted in the ESRD group treated with remdesivir, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir is safe for use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD; no increased adverse effects were noted compared with patients without ESRD. However, the effectiveness of remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD remains uncertain.

Serum C-reactive protein greater than 75 mg/dL as an early available laboratory predictor of severe COVID-19: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Severe COVID-19 management is still challenging. Having a laboratory factor to predict the severity of a patient's condition can be very useful in how to approach each patient. There have been studies concentrating on the correlation between serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level and COVID-19 severity but we aim to reach a threshold for CRP in disease severity determination.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search on PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases from early 2019 to October 2021, and 323 studies were assessed for eligibility in three phases. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to examine the validity of the studies. The t-test was applied for the CRP level cutoffs.

RESULTS

Eventually, 11 articles and 1615 patients were included in this systematic review. Our analysis evaluated combined mean, median, and standard deviation of severe patients' CRP to be respectively 73.37, 53.80, and 47.936. Based on the combined mean, 75 mg/dL was suggested as an initial threshold for baseline CRP in hospitalized patients for developing severe conditions.

CONCLUSION

This study recommends that COVID-19 patients with on-admission serum CRP levels of 75 mg/dL and more are likely associated with severe conditions. Thus, anti-inflammatory agents and further following may be helpful in these patients.

COVID-19 outcome is not affected by anti-CD20 or high-titer convalescent plasma in immunosuppressed patients

The role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed individuals remains controversial. We describe the course of COVID-19 in patients who had received anti-CD20 therapy within the 3 years prior to infection. We compared outcomes between those treated with and those not treated with high titer SARS-CoV2 convalescent plasma. We identified 144 adults treated at Mayo clinic sites who had received anti-CD20 therapies within a median of 5.9 months prior to the COVID-19 index date. About one-third (34.7%) were hospitalized within 14 days and nearly half (47.9%) within 90 days. COVID-19 directed therapy included anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (n = 30, 20.8%), and, among those hospitalized within 14 days (n = 50), remdesivir (n = 45, 90.0%), glucocorticoids (n = 36, 72.0%) and convalescent plasma (n = 24, 48.0%). The duration from receipt of last dose of anti-CD20 therapy did not correlate with outcomes. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 14.7%. Administration of convalescent plasma within 14 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with any study outcome. Further study of COVID-19 in CD20-depleted individuals is needed focusing on the early administration of new and potentially combination antiviral agents, associated or not with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in multiple sclerosis: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use and potential benefit of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people living with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) remains poorly studied. The objective of this study is to describe the therapeutic use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs among pwMS.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records data from the TriNetX Dataworks USA Network and included adult pwMS, diagnosed with COVID-19, who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs in the outpatient setting between November 2020 and April 2022. We analyzed COVID-19 severity at anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb initiation and up to 30 days, stratified by before/after emergence of Omicron variant and by disease-modifying therapy (DMT).

RESULTS

The study included 434 pwMS treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, including 270 patients before and 174 after Omicron emergence. Most pwMS were female (80.2%), mean age (SD) was 51.5 (12.5) years. Two-hundred-and-five patients were on DMTs, 51% of whom received anti-CD20s. One patient with moderate COVID-19 was hospitalized whilst receiving glatiramer acetate. No patients required intensive care and there were no deaths. COVID-19 outcomes were comparable following anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb therapy in patients receiving different DMTs.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb treatment for pwMS with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 may reduce the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death.

Post COVID sequelae among COVID-19 survivors: insights from the Indian National Clinical Registry for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The effects of COVID-19 infection persist beyond the active phase. Comprehensive description and analysis of the post COVID sequelae in various population groups are critical to minimise the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. This analysis was conducted with an objective to estimate the frequency of post COVID sequelae and subsequently, design a framework for holistic management of post COVID morbidities.

METHODS

Follow-up data collected as part of a registry-based observational study in 31 hospitals across India since September 2020-October 2022 were used for analysis. All consenting hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are telephonically followed up for up to 1 year post-discharge, using a prestructured form focused on symptom reporting.

RESULTS

Dyspnoea, fatigue and mental health issues were reported among 18.6%, 10.5% and 9.3% of the 8042 participants at first follow-up of 30-60 days post-discharge, respectively, which reduced to 11.9%, 6.6% and 9%, respectively, at 1-year follow-up in 2192 participants. Patients who died within 90 days post-discharge were significantly older (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.03), with at least one comorbidity (aOR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.31, 2.35), and a higher proportion had required intensive care unit admission during the initial hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (aOR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.06) and were discharged at WHO ordinal scale 6-7 (aOR: 49.13 95% CI: 25.43, 94.92). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (at least one dose) was protective against such post-discharge mortality (aOR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 experience a variety of long-term sequelae after discharge from hospitals which persists although in reduced proportions until 12 months post-discharge. Developing a holistic management framework with engagement of care outreach workers as well as teleconsultation is a way forward in effective management of post COVID morbidities as well as reducing mortality.

A supervised Bayesian factor model for the identification of multi-omics signatures

MOTIVATION

Predictive biological signatures provide utility as biomarkers for disease diagnosis and prognosis, as well as prediction of responses to vaccination or therapy. These signatures are iden-tified from high-throughput profiling assays through a combination of dimensionality reduction and machine learning techniques. The genes, proteins, metabolites, and other biological analytes that compose signatures also generate hypotheses on the underlying mechanisms driving biological responses, thus improving biological understanding. Dimensionality reduction is a critical step in signature discovery to address the large number of analytes in omics datasets, especially for multi-omics profiling studies with tens of thousands of measurements. Latent factor models, which can account for the structural heterogeneity across diverse assays, effectively integrate multi-omics data and reduce dimensionality to a small number of factors that capture correlations and associations among measurements. These factors provide biologically interpretable features for predictive model-ing. However, multi-omics integration and predictive modeling are generally performed independent-ly in sequential steps, leading to suboptimal factor construction. Combining these steps can yield better multi-omics signatures that are more predictive while still being biologically meaningful.

RESULTS

We developed a supervised variational Bayesian factor model that extracts multi-omics signatures from high-throughput profiling datasets that can span multiple data types. Signature-based multiPle-omics intEgration via lAtent factoRs (SPEAR) adaptively determines factor rank, emphasis on factor structure, data relevance and feature sparsity. The method improves the recon-struction of underlying factors in synthetic examples and prediction accuracy of COVID-19 severity and breast cancer tumor subtypes.

AVAILABILITY

SPEAR is a publicly available R-package hosted at https://bitbucket.org/kleinstein/SPEAR.

The pathophysiology of postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): Possible role for persistent inflammation

As the SARS-CoV-2-induced pandemic wanes, a substantial number of patients with acute Corona Virus-induced disease (COVID-19 continue to have symptoms for a prolonged time after initial infection. These patients are said to have postacute sequelae of COVID (PASC) or "long COVID". The underlying pathophysiology of this syndrome is poorly understood and likely quite heterogeneous. The role of persistent, possibly deviant inflammation as a major factor in comorbidity is suspected.

Objective

To review data that address the relative importance of inflammation in the pathophysiology spectrum of PASC and to address how this would impact diagnosis and approach to therapy in patients identified as having such inflammatory abnormalities.

Methods

A review of public databases, including PubMed, MeSH, NLM catalog, and clinical trial databases such as clinicaltrials.gov.

Results

The literature supports a prominent role for various forms and types of inflammation in the pathophysiologic spectrum of PASC. Such inflammation can be persistent ant CoV-2-specific responses, new onset autoimmune responses, or a loss of normal immunoregulation resulting in widespread, sustained inflammatory pathologies that can affect both broad constitutional symptoms (such as fatigue, neurocognitive dysfunction, and anxiety/depression) and organ-specific dysfunction and/or failure.

Conclusions

PASC is a significant clinical entity with similarities to and differences from other postviral syndromes. Significant research efforts are ongoing to better understand specific aberrant inflammatory pathways present in individual patients for the purpose of developing and implementing effective therapies and ultimately prophylaxis strategies to prevent the progression of COVID-19 as well as likely future viral illnesses and pandemics.

Remdesivir for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the United States: Optimization of Health Care Resources

INTRODUCTION

In addition to significant morbidity and mortality, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has strained health care systems globally. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir + standard of care (SOC) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the USA.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis considered direct and indirect costs of remdesivir + SOC versus SOC alone among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. Patients entered the model stratified according to their baseline ordinal score. At day 15, patients could transition to another health state, and on day 29, they were assumed to have either died or been discharged. Patients were then followed over a 1-year time horizon, where they could transition to death or be rehospitalized.

RESULTS

Treatment with remdesivir + SOC avoided, per patient, a total of 4 hospitalization days: two general ward days and a day for both the intensive care unit and the intensive care unit plus invasive mechanical ventilation compared to SOC alone. Treatment with remdesivir + SOC presented net cost savings due to lower hospitalization and lost productivity costs compared to SOC alone. In increased and decreased hospital capacity scenarios, remdesivir + SOC resulted in more beds and ventilators being available versus SOC alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir + SOC alone represents a cost-effective treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This analysis can aid in future decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources.

Adjunctive therapy with lipid-lowering agents in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many commonly used drugs were evaluated as repurposed treatment options since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The benefit of lipid-lowering agents has been controversial in this regard. In this systematic review, we assessed the effect of these medications as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 by the inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched four international databases including PubMed, the Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase for RCTs in April 2023. The primary outcome was mortality, while other efficacy indices were considered secondary outcomes. In order to estimate the pooled effect size of the outcomes, considering the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), random-effect meta-analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 2,167 COVID-19 patients using statins, omega-3 fatty acids, fenofibrate, PCSK9 inhibitors, and nicotinamide as intervention compared to control or placebo, were included. No significant difference was found in terms of mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.59, p-value = 0.86, I² = 20.4%) or length of hospital stay (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.59, p-value = 0.78, I² = 92.4%) by adding a statin to the standard of care. The trend was similar for fenofibrate and nicotinamide. PCSK9 inhibition, however, led to decreased mortality and an overall better prognosis. Omega-3 supplementation showed contradicting results in two trials, suggesting the need for further evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Although some observational studies found improved outcomes in patients using lipid-lowering agents, our study found no benefit in adding statins, fenofibrate, or nicotinamide to COVID-19 treatment. On the other hand, PCSK9 inhibitors can be a good candidate for further assessment. Finally, there are major limitations in the use of omega-3 supplements in treating COVID-19 and more trials are warranted to evaluate this efficacy.

Evaluating chest pain in patients with post COVID conditions permission to think outside of the box

Chest pain is among the most common symptoms of post-COVID-19 Conditions (PCC) that prompts medical attention. Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus has proclivity for many organs and organ systems in the chest, ranging from the heart, lungs, great vessels, lymphatics, and peripheral nerves, clinicians evaluating patients with chest pain must consider a broad differential diagnosis and take a comprehensive approach to management.

Co-administration of AYUSH 64 as an adjunct to standard of care in mild and moderate COVID-19: A randomized, controlled, multicentric clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy of AYUSH 64, a standard polyherbal Ayurvedic drug in COVID-19.

METHODS

During the first pandemic wave, 140 consenting and eligible hospitalized adult participants with mild-moderate symptomatic disease (specific standard RT-PCR assay positive) were selected as per a convenience sample, and randomized (1:1 ratio) to an open-label (assessor blind) two-arm multicentric drug trial; standard of care (SOC as per Indian guidelines) versus AYUSH 64 combined with SOC (AYUSH plus). Participants were assessed daily and discharged once clinical recovery (CR, primary efficacy) was achieved which was based on a predetermined set of criteria (resolution of symptoms, normal peripheral oximetry, and negative specific RT-PCR assay). Each participant was followed using an indigenous software program(mobile phone) and completed a 12-week study period. The dose of AYUSH 64 was 2 tablets oral, 500 mg each, bid for 12 weeks (AYUSH plus only). Significant P was <0.05 (two-sided). On randomization, the groups were found well matched.

RESULTS

The mean interval time from randomization to CR was significantly superior in the AYUSH plus group [mean 6.45 days versus 8.26 days, 95% Confidence Interval of the difference -3.02 to -0.59 (P = 0.003, Student's 't test] as per-protocol analysis (134 participants); significant (P = 0.002) on an intention to treat analysis. 70% of the participants in AYUSH plus recovered during the first week (P = 0.046, Chi-square) and showed a significantly better change in physical health, fatigue, and quality of life measures. 48 adverse events, mostly mild and gut related, were reported by each group. There were 20 patient withdrawals (8 in AYUSH plus) but none due to an AE. There were no deaths. Daily assessment (hospitalization) and supervised drug intake ensured robust efficacy data. The open-label design was a concern (study outcome).

CONCLUSIONS

AYUSH 64 in combination with SOC hastened recovery, reduced hospitalization, and improved health in COVID-19. It was considered safe and well-tolerated. Further clinical validation (Phase III) is required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2020/06/025557.

The Efficacy and Safety of Imusil® Tablets in the Treatment of Adult Patients With Mild COVID-19: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Study

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious concern of the new era. Along with antiviral synthetic medications, there is a need to discover efficacious herbal antiviral medicines with minimum side effects in patients against COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Imusil® among patients with mild COVID-19. Methods A prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, interventional study was conducted in patients with mild COVID-19 infection. Patients received either Imusil one tablet four times a day (seven days) along with the standard of care (SoC) or only SoC. The study endpoints were reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity, changes in cycle threshold (CT), clinical improvement, change in blood inflammatory indexes, and safety assessment. Results A total of 100 patients were enrolled, and 98 received at least one dose of treatment. The median age of patients was 36.0 years, and 58 were males. By day 4, 85.4% of patients in the Imusil+SoC group tested negative for RT-PCR compared to 64% of patients exhibiting the same outcome in the SoC group (P=0.0156). After eight days, clinical improvement was observed in all patients from the Imusil+SoC group, while in the SoC group, clinical improvement was observed in 94.0% of patients (P=0.4947). During follow-up visits, the average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels decreased from baseline in both treatment groups. The decrease in the levels of CRP (-7.3 mg/dL versus -5.5 mg/dL), D-dimer (-231.0 ng/mL versus -151.6 ng/mL), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) (-2.3 pg/mL versus -2.0 pg/mL) at eight days was comparatively higher in the Imusil+SoC group versus the SoC group. There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events in the drug arm. Conclusion Imusil provides effective antiviral activity and safety in mild COVID-19 patients. Imusil ensures faster RT-PCR negativity and clinical improvement and ensures effective reduction of inflammatory markers such as CRP, D-dimer and interleukin 6.

Predictors of Mortality among COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Single-Center Study in Tehran, Iran

BACKGROUND

Iran was one of the first countries to become an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. However, there is a dearth of data on the outcomes of COVID-19 and predictors of death in intensive care units (ICUs) in Iran. We collected extensive data from patients admitted to the ICUs of the one of the tertiary referral hospitals in Tehran, Iran, to investigate the predictors of ICU mortality.

METHODS

The study population included 290 COVID-19 patients who were consecutively admitted to the ICUs of the Sina hospital from May 5, 2021, to December 6, 2021, a period that included the peak of the epidemic of the delta (δ) variant. Demographic data, history of prior chronic diseases, laboratory data (including markers of inflammation), radiologic data, and medication data were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 290 patients admitted to the ICUs, 187 (64.5%) died and 103 (35.5%) survived. One hundred forty-one (141, 48.6%) were men, and the median age (10th percentile, 90th percentile) was 60 (41, 80). Using logistic regression models, older age, history of hypertension, high levels of inflammatory markers, low oxygen saturation, substantial lung involvement in computed tomography (CT) scans, and gravity of the disease as indicated by the WHO 8-point ordinal scale were primary predictors of mortality at ICU. The use of remdesivir and imatinib was associated with a statistically non-significant reduction in mortality. The use of tocilizumab had almost no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSION

The findings are consistent with and add to the currently existing international literature. The findings may be used to predict risk of mortality from COVID-19 and provide some guidance on potential treatments.