Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of remdesivir treatment on factor VIII gene expression and hematological parameters in COVID-19 patients

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, which was first identified in December 2019 rapidly spread worldwide and was declared a global pandemic. Beyond respiratory symptoms, COVID-19 often results in coagulation and vascular endothelium disorders, causing increased clotting and bleeding, which are closely linked to the acute phase of the infection. Factor VIII is a crucial protein in the blood coagulation cascade, and elevated FVIII levels have been linked to thrombotic events in COVID-19, highlighting the need to understand its behavior during treatment. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that has shown promise in reducing recovery time and mortality rates in COVID-19 patients. This study aims to examine the changes in blood factors and the expression of the factor VIII gene in patients treated with Remdesivir. Blood samples were collected from 30 COVID-19 patients before and after Remdesivir treatment and from 20 healthy individuals. Patients with underlying diseases were excluded from the study. RNA was extracted from these samples, followed by cDNA synthesis. The expression of the factor VIII gene was analyzed using Real-Time PCR. The results indicated that blood factors such as Urea, ALK, AST, WBC, and CRP were elevated in the patient group compared to the control group. At the same time, FBS, Urea, ALK, AST, WBC, RDW, INR, and K levels increased in the Remdesivir treatment group (P < 0.001). Conversely, MCHC, RBC, and Ca levels decreased in both patient and treatment groups compared to the control group (P < 0.001). The expression of the FVIII gene was upregulated approaching 2 times in COVID-19 patients and 1.5-fold in the treatment group compared to the control group (P < 0.001). However, no significant changes were observed in FVIII expression before and after Remdesivir treatment. However, a positive correlation between RBC, FBS, and Urea in the patient group and a negative correlation between RDW and FVIII expression levels was observed. In the treatment group, FVIII expression level correlated negatively with Urea, P, and RDW. These findings suggest that elevated FVIII levels are associated with disease severity and excessive coagulation in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, Remdesivir does not appear to exacerbate the coagulation process.

IPNA clinical practice recommendations on care of pediatric patients with pre-existing kidney disease during seasonal outbreak of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, instigated by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has profoundly impacted healthcare infrastructures around the globe. While children are usually asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, children with pre-existing kidney conditions require specialized attention. This pivotal report, championed by the International Pediatric Nephrology Association (IPNA), delivers precise and actionable recommendations tailored for pediatric patients with kidney ailments in this pandemic landscape. Central to our findings are rigorous infection control protocols. These are particularly stringent in high-risk zones, emphasizing telehealth's indispensable role, the significance of curtailing in-person consultations, and the imperative of following rigorous guidelines in regions with heightened COVID-19 prevalence. Additionally, the report delves into vaccination approaches for children with kidney issues, highlighting that the choice of vaccine is often governed by regional accessibility and policy frameworks, rather than a universal preference. A notable observation is the potential correlation between COVID-19 vaccines and specific kidney disorders. However, establishing a direct causal link remains elusive. In summary, our research accentuates the critical need for specialized pediatric kidney care during global health crises and reaffirms the continuous research imperative, especially regarding vaccination ramifications.

Perceptions and Barriers to Outpatient Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19 and Influenza as Observed by Infectious Disease Specialists in North America: Results of an Emerging Infections Network (EIN) Survey, February 2024

Antiviral therapy is underutilized for outpatients at increased risk for severe COVID-19 or influenza. Results from this survey offer insights into treatment barriers from the infectious disease specialist perspective. Further education is needed about the benefits of early antiviral therapy.

Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19 Requiring Oxygen Support: A Cross-Study Comparison From 2 Large, Open-Label Studies

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir, an RNA-polymerase prodrug inhibitor approved for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), shortens recovery time and improves clinical outcomes. This prespecified analysis compared remdesivir plus standard of care (SOC) with SOC alone in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support in the early stage of the pandemic.

METHODS

Data for 10-day remdesivir treatment plus SOC from the extension phase of an open-label study (NCT04292899) were compared with real-world, retrospective data on SOC alone (EUPAS34303). Both studies included patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 up to 30 May 2020, with oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or supplemental oxygen (all forms), and with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics across treatment groups. The primary endpoint was time to all-cause mortality or end of study (day 28). Time to discharge, with a 10-day landmark to account for duration of remdesivir treatment, was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 1974 patients treated with remdesivir plus SOC, and 1426 with SOC alone, were included after weighting. Remdesivir significantly reduced mortality versus SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval, .39-.54). This association was observed at each oxygen support level, with the lowest HR for patients on low-flow oxygen. Remdesivir significantly increased the likelihood of discharge at day 28 versus SOC in the 10-day landmark analysis (HR, 1.64; 95% confidence interval: 1.43-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir plus early-2020 SOC was associated with a 54% lower mortality risk and shorter hospital stays compared with SOC alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support. Clinical Trials Registration.  ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0.

Results

The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10-4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44-2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75-18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.57).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Alisol B 23-acetate broadly inhibits coronavirus through blocking virus entry and suppresses proinflammatory T cells responses for the treatment of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV)-2 causes a global health disaster and pandemic. Seeking effective anti-pan-CoVs drugs benefit critical illness patients of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but also may play a role in emerging CoVs of the future.

OBJECTIVES

This study tested the hypothesis that alisol B 23-acetate could be a viral entry inhibitor and would have proinflammatory inhibition for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 and its variants infected several cell lines were applied to evaluate the anti-CoVs activities of alisol B 23-aceate in vitro. The effects of alisol B 23-acetate on in vivo models were assessed by using SARS-CoV-2 and its variants challenged hamster and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) transgenic mice. The target of alisol B 23-acetate to ACE2 was analyzed using hydrogen/deuterium exchange (HDX) mass spectrometry (MS).

RESULTS

Alisol B 23-acetate had inhibitory effects on different species of coronavirus. By using HDX-MS, we found that alisol B 23-acetate had inhibition potency toward ACE2. In vivo experiments showed that alisol B 23-acetate treatment remarkably decreased viral copy, reduced CD4+ T lymphocytes and CD11b+ macrophages infiltration and ameliorated lung damages in the hamster model. In Omicron variant infected human ACE2 transgenic mice, alisol B 23-acetate effectively alleviated viral load in nasal turbinate and reduced proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 17 (IL17) and interferon γ (IFNγ) in peripheral blood. The prophylactic treatment of alisol B 23-acetate by intranasal administration significantly attenuated Omicron viral load in the hamster lung tissues. Moreover, alisol B 23-acetate treatment remarkably inhibited proinflammatory responses through mitigating the secretions of IFNγ and IL17 in the cultured human and mice lymphocytes in vitro.

CONCLUSION

Alisol B 23-acetate could be a promising therapeutic agent for COVID-19 treatment and its underlying mechanisms might be attributed to viral entry inhibition and anti-inflammatory activities.

Magnetic resonance imaging screening for osteonecrosis of the femoral head after coronavirus disease 2019

OBJECTIVES

Systemic steroid administration has been suggested for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) was one of the concerns for this treatment. This study aimed to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the incidence of ONFH after the treatment for COVID-19.

METHODS

The study included 41 patients who were hospitalized and treated for pneumonia or other COVID-19-induced diseases. We conducted interviews with these patients regarding hip pain and performed MRI screenings for ONFH. The incidence and timing of ONFH after COVID-19 treatment were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 41 patients, one died of pneumonia and the remaining patients did not complain of hip pain. MRI screening was performed for 26 patients, and asymptomatic ONFH was detected in one patient (3.8%) whose ONFH appeared 1 month after the COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our MRI screening of ONFH in post-COVID-19 patients revealed asymptomatic ONFH, which would not have been identified without active screening. Physicians should be aware that ONFH may occur in patients after treating COVID-19.

Detection of potential safety signals related to the use of remdesivir and tocilizumab in the COVID era during pregnancy, resorting to open data from the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS)

Background: The in-hospital treatment for COVID-19 may include medicines from various therapeutic classes, such as antiviral remdesivir and immunosuppressant tocilizumab. Safety data for these medicines are based on controlled clinical trials and case reports, limiting the knowledge about less frequent, rare or unique population adverse events excluded from clinical trials. Objective: This study aims at analyzing the reports of Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) related to these two medicines, focusing on events in pregnant women and foetuses. Methods: Data from the open-access FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2020 to 2022 were used to create a dashboard on the Grafana platform to ease querying and analyzing report events. Potential safety signals were generated using the ROR disproportionality measure. Results: Remdesivir was notified as the primary suspect in 7,147 reports and tocilizumab in 19,602. Three hundred and three potential safety signals were identified for remdesivir, of which six were related to pregnant women and foetuses (including abortion and foetal deaths). Tocilizumab accumulated 578 potential safety signals, and three of them were associated with this population (including neonatal death). Discussion: None of the possible signals generated for this population were found in the product labels. According to the NIH and the WHO protocols, both medicines are recommended for pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19. Conclusion: Despite the known limitations of working with open data from spontaneous reporting systems (e.g., absence of certain clinical data, underreporting, a tendency to report severe events and recent medicines) and disproportionality analysis, the findings suggest concerning associations that need to be confirmed or rejected in subsequent clinical studies.

Clinical evolution and mortality of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with remdesivir in an adult intensive care unit of Paraguay

BACKGROUND

The health crisis due to Covid-19 led to the search for therapeutics that could improve the evolution of the disease. Remdesivir, an antiviral that interferes with viral replication, was one of the first to be used for the treatment of this pathology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine clinical course and mortality of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with remdesivir, in comparison of those who didn't receive the medication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study, with medical records review of COVID-19 patients, between August 2020 and August 2021. The subjects were divided into two groups, those who received remdesivir before or after admission to intensive care and those who didn't. The primary outcome variable was mortality in intensive care.

RESULTS

Of 214 subjects included, 109 (50,9%) received remdesivir. The median of days for the drug administration was 8 (2-20), IQR: 3. The bivariate analysis prove that the use of remdesivir was related with lower risk of develop Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) (p = 0,019; OR: 0,521) and lower requirement of mechanical ventilation (p = 0,006; OR:0,450). Additionally, patients treated with remdesivir develop less kidney injury (p = 0,009; OR: 0,441). There was a total of 82 deaths, 29 (26,6%) in the remdesivir group and 53 (50,5%) in the control group [p < 0,001; OR: 0,356 (0,201-0,630)]. All the risk factors associated with mortality in the bivariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis by logistic regression, the use of remdesivir remained associated as an independent protective factor to mortality (p = 0.034; OR: 0.429).

CONCLUSION

Critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with remdesivir had a lower risk of death and need for mechanical ventilation and develop less ARDS as compared to the control group. No differences were found in the presentation of adverse effects.

Outpatient Intravenous Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe COVID-19: An Observational Study from a Greek Hospital

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir, a viral RNA polymerase inhibitor, has been a powerful weapon in the battle against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Originally approved for use in hospitalized patients, remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After proving efficacious in hospitalized patients, its use was approved in early disease for symptomatic, non-hospitalized patients that present risk factors for progression to severe disease.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether administration of the antiviral medication remdesivir at an outpatient basis has an effect on hospital admissions of patients presenting with SARSCoV- 2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted an observational clinical trial involving 107 non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients who attended the emergency department of a third-level greek hospital seeking care for symptoms appearing within the previous 5 days and who had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease. After arterial blood gas evaluation, eligible patients received intravenous remdesivir at a dose of 200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3. The efficacy endpoint was set as COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in the next 14 days.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (57.0% men) participated in the study, 51 (47.7%) of them fully vaccinated. Most prevalent were age ≥ 60 years old, cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, immunosuppression or malignancy, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and chronic lung disease. All patients enrolled completed the 3-day course, with a total of 3 out of 107 patients (2.8%) eventually having a COVID-19-related hospitalization by day 14, while no deaths were reported by day 14.

CONCLUSION

Among non-hospitalized patients with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19, a 3-day course of intravenous remdesivir yielded favourable results.

Efficacy and safety of casirivimab-imdevimab combination on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis randomized controlled trial

Background

The advantages and disadvantages of casirivimab-imdevimab for coronavirus disease 2019 are not well understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to determine the therapeutic effectiveness and potential side effects of casirivimab-imdevimab in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases were searched from the time of their commencement until February 28th, 2023. The primary results evaluated were the death rate at 28 days, progression of current clinical symptoms within 28 days, viral load, discharge from hospital, and any adverse events. Also, we contrasted the effects of the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment with placebo or standard of care. The protocol registration for this systematic review and meta-analysis was recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023412835).

Results

A total of eight studies were included, comprising 19,819 patients, and conducted a qualitative assessment of their risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Casirivimab-imdevimab effectively reduced the mortality rate (OR = 0.62; 95 % CI of 0.40-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 30 %) and reduced the progression of clinical symptoms (OR = 0.86; 95 % CI of 0.79-0.93; p = 0.0003; I2 = 57 %). Casirivimab-imdevimab also improved viral load clearance and hospital discharge. Additionally, the trials' findings demonstrated a slight decrease in the likelihood of adverse events occurring with the use of casirivimab-imdevimab.

Conclusion

Our research suggests that casirivimab-imdevimab may be a valuable, safe, and effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 regimen.

Health-Related Quality of Life Improves in Parallel with FEV1 and 6-Minute Walking Distance Test at Between 3 and 12 Months in Critical COVID-19 Survivors

Background

In COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients, multiorgan acute complications lead to long-lasting sequelae. The aim of this study was to assess (1) changes in chest CT, pulmonary function test (PFT), functional capacity (6-minute walking distance test (6MWT)), and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) among ICU COVID-19 survivors at 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge and (2) predictors of persistent impairment/improvement in 6MWT and HR-QoL.

Methods

ICU COVID-19 survivors were prospectively included. Outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months included PFT, 6MWT, respiratory muscle strength (RMS), HR-QoL (SF-36), Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC), and post-COVID Functional Status scale.

Results

Eighty-seven survivors were included, from June 3, 2020, to September 2, 2021. At 12 months, 50% of PFT were normal, 46% were restrictive, and 22% showed reduced diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Impaired DLCO was associated with ICU length of stay and age. In mixed linear model analysis, improvements in RMS and mMRC persisted over time regardless of the adjustments applied (P ≤ .050). SF-36 improved in parallel with FEV1 and 6MWT between 3 and 12 months (P ≤ .044), while increment in DLCO correlated with changes in FEV1 and total lung capacity (TLC) (p ≤ 0.026).

Conclusions

This longitudinal study demonstrated that improvements in SF-36 occur in parallel with improvements in FEV1 and 6MWT between 3 and 12 months post-ICU discharge in a sample of critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, PFT remained, however, abnormal in 50% of patients. Based on continued improvements observed from 3 to 12 months, it is anticipated that COVID-19 ICU patients will continue to recover similarly to ARDS patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir in Hospitalized Pediatric COVID-19: A Retrospective Case-Controlled Study

Introduction

While most children experience mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, a minority of cases progress to severe or critical illness. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Remdesivir (RDV) therapy in children with moderate to severe COVID-19, enhancing clinical decision-making and expanding our understanding of antiviral treatments for pediatric patients.

Methods

The study included 60 patients, 38 receiving RDV treatment and 22 serving as the control group. Data was collected retrospectively from January 2021 to January 2022 through electronic hospital records.

Results

Regarding the main clinical symptoms reported, most patients experienced Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (93.3%), indicating respiratory involvement. Additional symptoms included Central Nervous System (11.7%) and Gastrointestinal (10.0%). Among the 38 cases in the RDV group included in the study, the adverse effects associated with using RDV: Hypoalbuminemia in 19 cases (50.0%) and anemia in 18 cases (47.4%), making them the most common adverse effects. Only one case in the RDV group experienced non-RDV-related death with a different clinical diagnosis. The results showed that RDV treatment was well-tolerated in pediatric patients, with no significant differences in hospital stay and oxygen treatment compared to the control group with P values (0.2, 0.18), respectively.

Conclusion

The outcomes indicate that Remdesivir may represent a safe and therapeutic choice for children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

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

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequence analysis of remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment

Remdesivir is one of the proposed therapies for the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To assess the effect of remdesivir on mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), time to clinical improvement, and significant adverse effects. The study protocol was prospectively registered with The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration #CRD42021283221). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English detailing use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Primary outcome was in hospital mortality among patients receiving remdesivir. Secondary outcomes were need for IMV and ECMO, time to clinical recovery, and significant adverse effects associated with remdesivir. Odds ratios (ORs) of worse outcome with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a forest plot were used to show the results of random effects meta-analysis. Remdesivir and placebo had similar in hospital mortality in the pooled analysis of five RCTs (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.06). The remdesivir group needed less IMV/ECMO (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.46-0.76) and recovered 1.06 days faster than placebo. Remdesivir did not affect transaminitis or renal damage. Trial sequence analysis showed that death has not reached the number of instances needed to predict futility. This meta-analysis shows that remdesivir therapy for COVID-19 is not associated with a mortality benefit. However, there is significant reduction in the need for IMV/ECMO.

Early 3‑day course of remdesivir for the prevention of the progression to severe COVID‑19 in the elderly: A single‑centre, real‑life cohort study

Remdesivir, a viral RNA polymerase inhibitor, has constituted a key component of therapeutic regimens against the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Originally approved for administration in hospitalized patients, remdesivir leads to improved outcomes in patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After proving to be effective in hospitalized patients, its use gained approval in early-stage disease for symptomatic outpatients who are at a high risk of progression to severe disease. The present study is a real-life prospective cohort study involving 143 elderly non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 (≥65 years of age) who attended the emergency department of the authors' hospital seeking care for COVID-19 symptoms appearing within the prior 7 days. Eligible patients received intravenous remdesivir at a dose of 200 mg on the first day and 100 mg on days 2 and 3. The efficacy endpoints were set as the need for COVID-19-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality in the following 28 days. A total of 143 patients participated in the study. Of these patients, 118 (82.5%) patients were vaccinated with at least two doses. All patients enrolled completed the 3-day course, with a total of 6 out of 143 patients (4.2%) having a COVID-19-related hospitalization by day 28, and 5 patients (3.5%) succumbing to the disease within the study period. In the univariate Cox regression analysis, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and haematological malignancy were identified as predictors of progression to severe disease, and albumin levels, the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) and haematological malignancy were identified as predictors of 28-day mortality. On the whole, the findings of the present study demonstrated that among the elderly outpatients, a 3-day course of intravenous remdesivir was associated with favourable outcomes.

The Significance of Remdesivir and Favipiravir Therapies to Survival of COVID-19 Patients

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the infection escalation around the globe encourage the implementation of the global protocol for standard care patients aiming to cease the infection spread. Evaluating the potency of these therapy courses has drawn particular attention in health practice. This observational study aimed to assess the efficacy of Remdesivir and Favipiravir drugs compared to the standard care patients in COVID-19 confirmed patients. One hundred twenty-seven patients showed the disease at different stages, and one hundred and fifty patients received only standard care as a control group were included in this study. Patients under the Remdesivir therapy protocol were (62.20%); meanwhile, there (30.71%) were under Favipiravir therapy. From the total number of patients under both protocols, 75.6% of the total patients recovered, and 15.7% were deceased. The mortality rate was shown to be 14 out of 64 patients (22%) in critical COVID-19 patients in the Remdesivir group and 3 out of 37 patients (8%) in the Favipiravir group. Remdesivir drug lowered healing mean time to 6 days in mild-to-moderate. COVID-19 clinical manifestations are different among infected patients, and the therapy required to be carefully designed for critical cases in particular. Remdesivir and Favipiravir therapy tend to have a promising efficacy in reducing the mortality rate and time of recovery, especially among mild-to-moderate patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical use of remdesivir in COVID-19 treatment: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated remdesivir's clinical use to provide direct evidence of effectiveness for a low-middle income Asian setting.

DESIGN

A one-to-one propensity score matching retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital with COVID-19 treatment facilities in Vietnam.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 310 patients in standard of care (SoC) group were matched with 310 patients in SoC+remdesivir (SoC+R) group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to critical progression, defined as all-cause mortality or critical illness. The secondary outcomes were length of oxygen therapy/ventilation and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Outcome reports were presented as HR, OR or effect difference with 95% CI.

RESULTS

Patients receiving remdesivir had a lower risk for mortality or critical illness (HR=0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96, p=0.030). Remdesivir was not associated with a shorter length of oxygen therapy/ventilation (effect difference -0.17 days, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.96, p=0.774). The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was lower in SoC+R group (OR=0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

This study's results showing remdesivir's benefits in non-critical patients with COVID-19 may be extrapolated to other similar low-middle income countries, allowing more regimens for limited resource areas and reducing poor outcomes and equity gap worldwide.

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

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

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.

Pulmonary Functional Outcomes at 3 Months in Critical COVID-19 Survivors Hospitalized during the First, Second, and Third Pandemic Waves

INTRODUCTION

Despite improved management of patients with COVID-19, we still ignore whether pharmacologic treatments and improved respiratory support have modified outcomes for intensive care unit (ICU) surviving patients of the three first consecutive waves (w) of the pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether developments in the management of ICU COVID-19 patients have positively impacted respiratory functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and chest CT scan patterns in ICU COVID-19 surviving patients at 3 months, according to pandemic waves.

METHODS

We prospectively included all patients admitted to the ICU of two university hospitals with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19. Data related to hospitalization (disease severity, complications), demographics, and medical history were collected. Patients were assessed 3 months post-ICU discharge using a 6 min walking distance test (6MWT), a pulmonary function test (PFT), a respiratory muscle strength (RMS) test, a chest CT scan, and a Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire.

RESULTS

We included 84 ARDS COVID-19 surviving patients. Disease severity, complications, demographics, and comorbidities were similar between groups, but there were more women in wave 3 (w3). Length of stay at the hospital was shorter during w3 vs. during wave 1 (w1) (23.4 ± 14.2 days vs. 34.7 ± 20.8 days, p = 0.0304). Fewer patients required mechanical ventilation (MV) during the second wave (w2) vs. during w1 (33.3% vs. 63.9%, p = 0.0038). Assessment at 3 months after ICU discharge revealed that PFTs and 6MWTs scores were worse for w3 > w2 > w1. QoL (SF-36) deteriorated (vitality and mental health) more for patients in w1 vs. in w3 (64.7 ± 16.3 vs. 49.2 ± 23.2, p = 0.0169). Mechanical ventilation was associated with reduced forced expiratory volume (FEV1), total lung capacity (TLC), diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and respiratory muscle strength (RMS) (w1,2,3, p < 0.0500) on linear/logistic regression analysis. The use of glucocorticoids, as well as tocilizumab, was associated with improvements in the number of affected segments in chest CT, FEV1, TLC, and DLCO (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

With better understanding and management of COVID-19, there was an improvement in PFT, 6MWT, and RMS in ICU survivors 3 months after ICU discharge, regardless of the pandemic wave during which they were hospitalized. However, immunomodulation and improved best practices for the management of COVID-19 do not appear to be sufficient to prevent significant morbidity in critically ill patients.

Serum and Urinary Biomarkers in COVID-19 Patients with or without Baseline Chronic Kidney Disease

In a prospective, observational, non-interventional, single-center study, we assessed various plasma and urinary biomarkers of kidney injury (neutrophil gelatinase-associated Lipocain [NGAL], kidney-injury molecule-1 [KIM-1], and interleukin-18 [IL-18]); inflammation (IL-6, C-reactive protein [CRP]); plus angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in 120 COVID-19 patients (of whom 70 had chronic kidney disease (CKD) at emergency-department (ED) admission). Our aim was to correlate the biomarkers with the outcomes (death, acute kidney injury [AKI]). All patients had received a chest-CT scan at admission to calculate the severity score (0–5). Biomarkers were also assessed in healthy volunteers and non-COVID-19-CKD patients. These biomarkers statistically differed across subgroups, i.e., they were significantly increased in COVID-19 patients, except for urinary (u)KIM1 and uIL-18. Amongst the biomarkers, only IL-6 was independently associated with mortality, along with AKI and not using remdesivir. Regarding the prediction of AKI, only IL-6 and uKIM1 were significantly elevated in patients presenting with AKI. However, AKI could not be predicted. Having high baseline IL-6 levels was associated with subsequent ventilation requirement and death. The mortality rate was almost 90% when the chest CT-scan severity score was 3 or 4 vs. 6.8% when the severity score was 0–2 (p < 0.0001).

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-clinical outcome relationship of remdesivir major metabolite GS-441524 in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19

Although remdesivir, a prodrug of nucleoside analog (GS-441524), has demonstrated clinical benefits in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, its pharmacokinetics (PKs) in patients with COVID-19 remain poorly understood. Therefore, in this study, the PKs of remdesivir and its major metabolite, GS-441524, were evaluated using a population PK (PopPK) approach to understand the PK aspect and exposure-clinical outcome relationship. The serum concentrations of remdesivir and GS-441524 (102 points in 39 patients) were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. All patients received 200 mg remdesivir on the first day, followed by 100 mg on 2-5 days, except for one patient who discontinued remdesivir on day 4. The median (range) age, body surface area, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were 70 (42-85), 1.74 m² (1.36-2.03), and 68 mL/min/1.73 m² (33-113), respectively. A compartment model with first-order elimination combined with remdesivir and GS-441524 was used for nonlinear mixed-effects model analysis. Remdesivir was rapidly eliminated after infusion, whereas GS-441524 was eliminated relatively slowly (half-time = 17.1 h). The estimated apparent clearance (CL) and distribution volume of GS-441524 were 11.0 L/h (intersubject variability [ISV]% = 43.0%) and 271 L (ISV% = 58.1%), respectively. The CL of GS-441524 was significantly related to the eGFR (CL × [eGFR/68]^0.745 ). The post hoc area under the curve of GS-441524 was unrelated to the recovery rate or aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation. Overall, PopPK analysis showed the rapid elimination of remdesivir in the blood, and GS-441524 accumulation depended on eGFR in patients with COVID-19. However, no relevance of exposure-clinical outcome was not suggestive of the dose adjustment of remdesivir.

Is it possible to reduce the rate of vertical transmission and improve perinatal outcomes by inclusion of remdesivir in treatment regimen of pregnant women with COVID-19?

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently one of the world's most critical health issues so far. Given the importance of appropriate treatment in pregnancy and the controversies about Remdesivir effectiveness and complications, the present study aimed to evaluate the impact of Remdesivir on maternal, fetal, and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 diseases.

METHODS

A total of 189 pregnant women with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results for SARS-COV-2, and oxygen saturation [SpO2] of < 95%) were admitted to 12 hospitals affiliated with the Iran University of Medical Sciences from March 1st, 2020 to June 7th, 2021, namely the first four COVID-19 Picks in Iran. They were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study by census method and categorized into case and control groups, based on the inclusion of Remdesivir in their treatment protocol. Demographics, clinical outcomes, and pregnancy-related complications of the mothers and the neonates were compared between the two study groups.

RESULTS

A comparison of 54 mothers in the case and 135 in the control group showed no demographic and clinical characteristics difference. Neonates whose mothers did not receive Remdesivir had a higher rate of positive PCR (10.2%), compared to the Remdesivir group (1.9%) with a relative risk of 0.91 reported for Remdesivir (95% CI: 0.85-0.98, P = 0.04); besides, Remdesivir resulted in fewer neonatal intensive care unit admission rates in mild/moderate COVID-19 group (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.105-1.02, P = 0.03). Although neonatal death between the two groups was not statistically significant, from the clinical point seems important; 1(1.9%) in the case vs. 9(7.2%) in the control group. Interestingly LOS (Length of Stay) in the hospital was longer in the case group (median of 7 vs. 3 days; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of Remdesivir in the treatment protocol of pregnant women with COVID-19 may reduce vertical transmission and improve perinatal outcomes, thus being suggested to be considered.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-Term Vaccination and Treatment Strategies for COVID-19 Disease and Future Coronavirus Pandemics

The appearance of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with increased infectivity and immune escape capabilities has allowed continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic for the foreseeable future. This review describes the worldwide efforts aimed at developing new vaccination and treatment strategies to keep pace with these variants as they emerge. In the case of vaccines and monoclonal antibody-based therapeutics, we describe the development of variant-specific, multivalent, and universal coronavirus directed approaches. Existing treatment approaches consist of repurposed medicines, such as antiviral compounds and anti-inflammatory agents, although efforts are underway to develop new ways of preventing or minimizing the effects of infection with the use of small molecules that disrupt binding the SARS-CoV-2 virus to host cells. Finally, we discuss the preclinical and clinical testing of natural products from medicinal herbs and spices, which have demonstrated anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties and therefore show potential as novel and safe COVID-19 treatment approaches.

Clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir: a retrospective analysis of a large tertiary care center in Germany

PURPOSE

The benefits of antiviral treatment with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain controversial. Clinical analyses are needed to demonstrate which patient populations are most likely to benefit.

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, patients with COVID-19 treated between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 at Hospital St. Georg, Leipzig, Germany were evaluated. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement, and the secondary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching was used for the endpoint analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 839 patients were fully evaluated, 68% of whom received specific COVID-19 drug therapy. Remdesivir was used in 31.3% of the patients, corticosteroids in 61.7%, and monoclonal antibodies in 2.3%. While dexamethasone administration was the most common therapeutic approach during the second pandemic wave, combination therapy with remdesivir and corticosteroids predominated during the third wave. Cox regression analysis revealed that combination therapy was not associated with faster clinical improvement (median: 13 days in both matched groups, HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.77-1.21], P = 0.762). By contrast, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the corticosteroid-remdesivir group (14.8% versus 22.2% in the corticosteroid group, HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], P = 0.03) in the low-care setting. This effect was also demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of patients with remdesivir monotherapy (n = 44) versus standard of care (SOC).

CONCLUSION

In COVID-19 patients with only mild disease (low-flow oxygen therapy and treatment in a normal ward) who received corticosteroids and/or remdesivir in addition to SOC, early administration of remdesivir was associated with a measurable survival benefit.

Acute liver injury in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit: Narrative review

In recent years, humanity has been confronted with a global pandemic due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has caused an unprecedented health and economic crisis worldwide. Apart from the respiratory symptoms, which are considered the principal manifestations of COVID-19, it has been recognized that COVID-19 constitutes a systemic inflammatory process affecting multiple organ systems. Across the spectrum of organ involvement in COVID-19, acute liver injury (ALI) has been gradually gaining increasing attention by the international scientific community. COVID-19 associated liver impairment can affect a considerable proportion of COVID-19 patients and seems to correlate with the severity of the disease course. Indeed, COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) run a greater risk of developing ALI due to the severity of their clinical condition and in the context of multi-organ failure. The putative pathophysiological mechanisms of COVID-19 induced ALI in ICU patients remain poorly understood and appear to be multifactorial in nature. Several theories have been proposed to explain the occurrence of ALI in the ICU setting, such as hypoperfusion and ischemia due to hemodynamic instability, passive liver congestion as a result of congestive heart failure, ischemia-reperfusion injury, hypoxia due to respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation itself, sepsis and septic shock, cytokine storm, endotheliitis with concomitant coagulopathy, drug-induced liver injury, parenteral nutrition and direct cytopathic viral effect. It should be noted that no specific therapy for COVID-19 induced ALI exists. Therefore, the therapeutic approach lies in preventive measures and is exclusively supportive once ALI ensues. The aim of the current review is to scrutinize the existing evidence on COVID-19 associated ALI in ICU patients, explore its clinical implications, shed light on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and propose potential therapeutic approaches. Ongoing research on the particular scientific field will further elucidate the pathophysiology behind ALI and address unresolved issues, in the hope of mitigating the tremendous health consequences imposed by COVID-19 on ICU patients.

Model exploration for discovering COVID-19 targeted traditional Chinese medicine

In terms of treatment, a particularly targeted drug is needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there are currently no specific drugs for COVID-19, traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) is clearly effective. It is recommended that through data analysis and mining of TCM cases (expert experience) and population evidence (RCT and cohort studies), core prescriptions for various efficacy can be obtained. Starting from a multidimensional model of regulating immunity, improving inflammation, and protecting multiple organs, this paper constructs a multidimensional model of targeted drug discovery, integrating molecular, cellular, and animal efficacy evaluation. Through functional activity testing, biophysical detection of compound binding to target proteins, multidimensional pharmacodynamic evaluation systems of cells (Vero E6, Vero, Vero81, Huh7, and caca2) and animals (mice infected with the new coronavirus, rhesus macaques, and hamsters), the effectiveness of effective preparations was evaluated, and various efficacy effects including lung moisturizing, dehumidification and detoxification were obtained. Using modern technology, it is now possible to understand how the immune system is controlled, how inflammation is reduced, and how various organs are protected. Complete early drug characterization and finally obtain effective targeted TCM. This article provides a demonstration resource for the development of new drugs specifically for TCM.

Pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CDK) was not associated with a severe clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19: results of a case-control study in Southern Italy

The presence of co-morbidities is associated with a poor outcome in patients with COVID-19. The aim of the present study was to investigate the outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in order to assess its impact on mortality and severity of disease. We performed a multicenter, observational, 1:2 matched case-control study involving seventeen COVID-19 Units in southern Italy. All the adults hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection and with pre-existing CKD were included (Cases). For each Case, two patients without CKD pair matched for gender, age (+5 years), and number of co-morbidities (excluding CKD) were enrolled (Controls). Of the 2,005 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection followed during the study period, 146 patients with CKD and 292 patients without were enrolled in the case and control groups, respectively. Between the Case and Control groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of moderate (17.1% vs 17.8%, p=0.27) or severe (18.8% and 13.7%, p=0.27) clinical presentation of COVID-19 or deaths (20.9% vs 28.1%, p=0.27). In the Case group, the patients dead during hospitalization were statistically higher in the 89 patients with CKD stage 4-5 compared to 45 patients with stages 1-3 CKD (30.3% vs 13.3%, p=0.03). Our data suggests that only CKD stage 4-5 on admission was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death.

Recent review of COVID-19 management: diagnosis, treatment and vaccination

The idiopathic Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has reached global proportions; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it as a public health emergency during the month of January 30, 2020. The major causes of the rise of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 are genetic mutations and recombination. Some of the variants with high infection and transmission rates are termed as variants of concern (VOCs) like currently Omicron variants. Pregnant women, aged people, and immunosuppressed and compromised patients constitute the most susceptible human population to the SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially to the new evolving VOCs. To effectively manage the pathological condition of infection, the focus should be directed towards prevention and prophylactic approach. In this narrative review, we aimed to analyze the current scenario of COVID-19 management and discuss the treatment and prevention strategies. We also focused on the complications prevalent during the COVID-19 and post-COVID period and to discuss the novel approaches developed for mitigation of the global pandemic. We have also emphasized on the COVID-19 management approaches for the special population including children, pregnant women, aged groups, and immunocompromised patients. We conclude that the advancements in therapeutic and pharmacological domains have provided opportunities to develop and design novel diagnosis, treatment, and prevention strategies. New advanced techniques such as RT-LAMP, RT-qPCR, High-Resolution Computed Tomography, etc., efficiently diagnose patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the case of treatment options, new drugs like paxlovid, combinations of β-lactum drugs and molnupiravir are found to be effective against even the new emerging variants. In addition, vaccination is an essential approach to prevent the infection or to reduce its severity. Vaccines for against COVID-19 from Comirnaty by Pfizer-BioNTech, SpikeVax by Moderna, and Vaxzevria by Oxford-AstraZeneca are approved and used widely. Similarly, numerous vaccines have been developed with different percentages of effectiveness against VOCs. New developments like nanotechnology and AI can be beneficial in providing an efficient and reliable solution for the suppression of SARS-CoV-2. Public health concerns can be efficiently treated by a unified scientific approach, public engagement, and better diagnosis.

COVID-19 Infection in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients in Bulgaria: Risk Factors for Death and Acute Kidney Injury

Regarding COVID-19 infection, Bulgaria has one of the lowest rates of vaccination in Europe, and its COVID-19-related mortality rate has been one of the highest in the European Union. Chronic kidney disease (CKD)-COVID-19 patients are at higher risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) and death after hospital admission. This single-center prospective cohort study from Bulgaria included 120 in-patient COVID-19 subjects of whom 70 had CKD and 50 normal renal function. Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease were statistically more prevalent in the CKD group as compared to the non-CKD group. At admission, D-dimer, creatinine, and urea levels were significantly higher in the CKD group, whereas estimated glomerular-filtration rate was significantly lower as compared to the non-CKD patients. During hospitalization, 23 patients (19.1%) died, of which 19 were in the CKD group (p-value = 0.0096); in addition, 38 developed AKI (31.6%), of which 31 were in the CKD group (p-value = 0.0006). Using binary logistic regression, being male, having experienced AKI, and not having been treated with remdesivir were independent risk factors for COVID-19-induced mortality. Regarding risk of AKI, having had COVID-19-related symptoms for more than 6 days before admission, having CKD at baseline, and having not received remdesivir therapy were independent predictive factors for developing AKI after admission.

Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview

Background

Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.

Results

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.

Conclusion

Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.

Remdesivir Administration in COVID-19 Patients With Renal Impairment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir (RDV) is the main antiviral for the treatment of moderate to severe forms of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several studies revealed a shortening time to clinical improvement of COVID-19 and mortality benefits in patients receiving RDV. The patients with renal disease were excluded from large clinical trials of RDV, and the probable nephrotoxicity of the drug, its metabolites, and the vehicle (sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin) have led to the recommendation against using RDV in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

This systematic review aimed to collect data about the necessity and safety administration of RDV in the setting of renal impairment.

DATA SOURCES

Search through databases including MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and PubMed was performed. The studies were carried out in adults and enrolled patients with different types of renal impairment (ie, acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, kidney transplant, and renal replacement therapy) were included. Eligible studies were assessed, and required data were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-two cross-sectional studies, cohorts, case reports, and case series were included in this review. The mortality rate was between 7.3% and 50%, and various severity of COVID-19 was included in the studies. None of them reported an increase in adverse effects attributed to RDV administration. A decrease in inflammatory mediators and other benefits were obvious.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the manufacturer's labeling does not recommend RDV administration in patients with severe renal impairment, it seems that nephrotoxicity is less concerning in the population of these patients. Moreover, RDV may be helpful in acute kidney injury induced by the viral invasion of COVID-19. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the use of RDV in kidney failure. Larger, well-designed, and pharmacokinetic studies are required to have a safe and logical recommendation about the use of RDV in patients with renal disorders.

COVID-19 and the Immune Response: A Multi-Phasic Approach to the Treatment of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms that, when exacerbated, can have life-threatening consequences. COVID-19 has been linked to persistent symptoms, sequelae, and medical complications that can last months after the initial infection. This systematic review aims to elucidate the innate and adaptive immune mechanisms involved and identify potential characteristics of COVID-19 pathology that may increase symptom duration. We also describe he three different stages of COVID-19—viral replication, immune hyperactivation, and post-acute sequelae—as well as each phase’s corresponding immune response. Finally, we use this multiphasic approach to describe different treatment approaches for each of the three stages—antivirals, immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies, and continued immunosuppressants—to fully curate the treatment to the stage of disease.

A Unique Robust Dual-Promoter-Driven and Dual-Reporter-Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Replicon: Construction and Characterization

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2, SARS2) remains a great global health threat and demands identification of more effective and SARS2-targeted antiviral drugs, even with successful development of anti-SARS2 vaccines. Viral replicons have proven to be a rapid, safe, and readily scalable platform for high-throughput screening, identification, and evaluation of antiviral drugs against positive-stranded RNA viruses. In the study, we report a unique robust HIV long terminal repeat (LTR)/T7 dual-promoter-driven and dual-reporter firefly luciferase (fLuc) and green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing SARS2 replicon. The genomic organization of the replicon was designed with quite a few features that were to ensure the replication fidelity of the replicon, to maximize the expression of the full-length replicon, and to offer the monitoring flexibility of the replicon replication. We showed the success of the construction of the replicon and expression of reporter genes fLuc and GFP and SARS structural N from the replicon DNA or the RNA that was in vitro transcribed from the replicon DNA. We also showed detection of the negative-stranded genomic RNA (gRNA) and subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) intermediates, a hallmark of replication of positive-stranded RNA viruses from the replicon. Lastly, we showed that expression of the reporter genes, N gene, gRNA, and sgRNA from the replicon was sensitive to inhibition by Remdesivir. Taken together, our results support use of the replicon for identification of anti-SARS2 drugs and development of new anti-SARS strategies targeted at the step of virus replication.

Pharmacogenetics and Precision Medicine Approaches for the Improvement of COVID-19 Therapies

Many drugs are being administered to tackle coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic situations without establishing clinical effectiveness or tailoring safety. A repurposing strategy might be more effective and successful if pharmacogenetic interventions are being considered in future clinical studies/trials. Although it is very unlikely that there are almost no pharmacogenetic data for COVID-19 drugs, however, from inferring the pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic(PD) properties and some pharmacogenetic evidence in other diseases/clinical conditions, it is highly likely that pharmacogenetic associations are also feasible in at least some COVID-19 drugs. We strongly mandate to undertake a pharmacogenetic assessment for at least these drug-gene pairs (atazanavir-UGT1A1, ABCB1, SLCO1B1, APOA5; efavirenz-CYP2B6; nevirapine-HLA, CYP2B6, ABCB1; lopinavir-SLCO1B3, ABCC2; ribavirin-SLC28A2; tocilizumab-FCGR3A; ivermectin-ABCB1; oseltamivir-CES1, ABCB1; clopidogrel-CYP2C19, ABCB1, warfarin-CYP2C9, VKORC1; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)-CYP2C9) in COVID-19 patients for advancing precision medicine. Molecular docking and computational studies are promising to achieve new therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The current situation in the discovery of anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents at four important targets from in silico studies has been described and summarized in this review. Although natural occurring compounds from different herbs against SARS-CoV-2 infection are favorable, however, accurate experimental investigation of these compounds is warranted to provide insightful information. Moreover, clinical considerations of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and drug-herb interactions (DHIs) of the existing repurposed drugs along with pharmacogenetic (e.g., efavirenz and CYP2B6) and herbogenetic (e.g., andrographolide and CYP2C9) interventions, collectively called multifactorial drug-gene interactions (DGIs), may further accelerate the development of precision COVID-19 therapies in the real-world clinical settings.

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Liver Injury in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Possible Role of Therapy

Patients with COVID-19 show a high prevalence of liver injury. The pattern of this liver damage is still not fully understood. Different etiopathogenetic factors may concur; from a direct cytopathic effect, once the virus binds to the ACE-2 receptors, to the immune-mediated collateral damage, due to cytokine storm. The presence of pre-existing chronic liver disease is a contributing factor for acute organ damage during SARS-CoV2 infection. Last but not least, treatments probably play a role, also, in determining hepatotoxicity: many of the drugs we have used or are still using to treat COVID-19, combined with non-invasive ventilation, are known to sometimes determine acute liver injury. Although liver damage associated with COVID-19 is often transient and can resolve without any special treatment, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms, particularly to better treat its more severe forms.

An update on drugs with therapeutic potential for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st century with more than 257 million cases and over 5.17 million deaths reported worldwide (as of November 23, 2021. Various agents were initially proclaimed to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin are all examples of therapeutic agents, whose efficacy against COVID-19 was later disproved. Meanwhile, concentrated efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide have led to the identification of novel therapeutic options to control the disease including PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332). Although COVID-19 cases are currently treated using a comprehensive approach of anticoagulants, oxygen, and antibiotics, the novel Pfizer agent PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332), an investigational COVID-19 oral antiviral candidate, significantly reduced hospitalization time and death rates, based on an interim analysis of the phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis demonstrated an 89 % reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint). However, there still exists a great need for the development of additional treatments, as the recommended therapeutic options are insufficient in many cases. Thus far, mRNA and vector vaccines appear to be the most effective modalities to control the pandemic. In the current review, we provide an update on the progress that has been made since April 2020 in clinical trials concerning the effectiveness of therapies available to combat COVID-19. We focus on currently recommended therapeutic agents, including steroids, various monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, baricitinib, anticoagulants and PAXLOVID™ summarizing the latest original studies and meta-analyses. Moreover, we aim to discuss other currently and previously studied agents targeting COVID-19 that either show no or only limited therapeutic activity. The results of recent studies report that hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma demonstrate no efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lastly, we summarize the studies on various drugs with incoherent or insufficient data concerning their effectiveness, such as amantadine, ivermectin, or niclosamide.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Inhaled Biologic Therapeutic in Adults with Respiratory Distress Secondary to COVID-19 Infection

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled therapeutics may act to directly target and attenuate lung inflammation due to COVID-19. An inhalation form of a novel biologic drug, AMP5A, is being developed as an immunomodulatory agent to treat dysregulated immune responses and is being studied in hospitalized patients to treat respiratory complications due to COVID-19.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, phase I trial was conducted to evaluate hospitalized adults with respiratory distress secondary to COVID-19. Patients received the standard care (SOC) for COVID-19, including respiratory therapy, corticosteroids, and antiviral therapies such as remdesivir. Patients were randomized 1:1 to inhalation treatment with AMP5A as an adjunct to SOC or to SOC alone (control). AMP5A was administered via inhalation daily for 5 days via hand-held nebulizer, non-invasive ventilator, or mechanical ventilation. Safety and clinical efficacy endpoints were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty subjects were enrolled and randomized (n = 19 AMP5A, n = 21 control). Remdesivir was used in fewer AMP5A subjects (26%) than control (52%), and dexamethasone was administered for most subjects (84% AMP5A, 71% control). The study met its primary endpoint with no AMP5A treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and the incidence and severity of AEs were comparable between groups: 18 AEs for control (8 mild, 1 moderate, 9 severe) and 19 AEs for AMP5A (7 mild, 7 moderate, 5 severe). Notably, subjects treated with AMP5A had fewer deaths (5% vs. 24%), shorter hospital stay (8 days vs. 12 days), fewer ICU admissions (21% vs. 33%), and a greater proportion with improved clinical outcomes than control.

CONCLUSION

The phase I clinical results indicate inhaled AMP5A is safe, is well tolerated, and could lead to fewer patients experiencing deterioration or death. Based on the treatment effect (i.e., reduced mortality), a phase II trial has been initiated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04606784.