OUP accepted manuscript

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Modeling the emergence of viral resistance for SARS-CoV-2 during treatment with an anti-spike monoclonal antibody

To mitigate the loss of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with variants susceptible to mAb therapy. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3-4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response antiviral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics and clinical score evolution in hospitalized patients

The role of antiviral treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients is controversial. To address this question, we analyzed simultaneously nasopharyngeal viral load and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS-2) using an effect compartment model to relate viral dynamics and the evolution of clinical severity. The model is applied to 664 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23) randomly assigned to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. Then we use the model to simulate the impact of antiviral treatments on the time to clinical improvement, defined by a NEWS-2 score lower than 3 (in patients with NEWS-2 <7 at hospitalization) or 5 (in patients with NEWS-2 ≥7 at hospitalization), distinguishing between patients with low or high viral load at hospitalization. The model can fit well the different observed patients trajectories, showing that clinical evolution is associated with viral dynamics, albeit with large interindividual variability. Remdesivir antiviral activity was 22% and 78% in patients with low or high viral loads, respectively, which is not sufficient to generate a meaningful effect on NEWS-2. However, simulations predicted that antiviral activity greater than 99% could reduce by 2 days the time to clinical improvement in patients with high viral load, irrespective of the NEWS-2 score at hospitalization, whereas no meaningful effect was predicted in patients with low viral loads. Our results demonstrate that time to clinical improvement is associated with time to viral clearance and that highly effective antiviral drugs could hasten clinical improvement in hospitalized patients with high viral loads.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Real life treatment experience and outcome of consecutively hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia by Omicron-1 vs Delta variants

BACKGROUND

Omicron-1 COVID-19 is less invasive in the general population than previous viral variants. However, clinical course and outcome of hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia during the shift of the predominance from Delta to Omicron variants are not fully explored.

METHODS

During January 2022 consecutively hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 variants were identified by a 2-step pre-screening protocol and randomly confirmed by whole genome sequencing analysis. Clinical, laboratory and treatment data split by type of variant were analysed along with logistic regression of factors associated to mortality.

RESULTS

150 patients [mean age (SD) 67.2(15.8) years, male 54%] were analysed. Compared to Delta (n = 46), Omicron-1 patients (n = 104) were older [mean age (SD): 69.5(15.4) vs 61.9(15.8) years, p = 0.007], with more comorbidities (89.4% vs 65.2%, p = 0.001), less obesity (BMI >30Kg/m2 in 24% vs 43.5%, p = 0.034) but higher vaccination rates for COVID-19 (52.9% vs 8.7%, p < 0.001). Severe pneumonia (48.7%), pulmonary embolism (4.7%), need for invasive mechanical ventilation (8%), administration of dexamethasone (76%) and 60-day mortality (22.6%) did not significantly differ. Severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia independently predicted mortality [OR 8.297 (CI95% 2.080-33.095), p = 0.003]. Remdesivir administration (n = 135) was protective from death both in unadjusted and adjusted models [OR 0.157 (CI95% 0.026-0.945), p = 0.043.

CONCLUSIONS

In a COVID-19 department the severity of pneumonia that did not differ between Omicron-1 and Delta variants predicted mortality whilst remdesivir remained protective in all analyses. Death rates did not differ between SARS-CoV-2 variants. Vigilance and consistency with prevention and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is mandatory regardless of the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Modeling the emergence of viral resistance for SARS-CoV-2 during treatment with an anti-spike monoclonal antibody

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 760 million cases and 6.9 million deaths worldwide. To mitigate the loss of lives, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with susceptible variants. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3-4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response anti-viral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection.

Viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections in a previously low COVID-19 prevalence region: Effects of vaccination status, antiviral agents, and age

BACKGROUND

In Taiwan, the prevalence of COVID-19 was low before April 2022. The low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the population of Taiwan provides an opportunity for comparison with fewer confounding factors than other populations globally. Cycle threshold (Ct) value is an easily accessible method for modeling SARS-CoV-2 dynamics. In this study, we used clinical samples collected from hospitalized patients to explore the Ct value dynamics of the Omicron variant infection.

METHODS

From Jan 2022 to May 2022, we retrospectively included hospitalized patients tested positive by nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We categorized the test-positive subjects into different groups according to age, vaccination status, and use of antiviral agents. To investigate the nonlinear relationship between symptom onset days and Ct value, a fractional polynomial model was applied to draw a regression line.

RESULTS

We collected 1718 SARS-CoV-2 viral samples from 812 individuals. The Ct values of unvaccinated individuals were lower than those of vaccinated persons from Day 4 to Day 10 after symptom onset. The Ct value increased more rapidly in those individuals with antiviral drug treatment from Day 2 to Day 7. In elderly individuals, the Ct values increased slowly from Day 5 to Day 10, and the increasing trend was unique compared with that in children and adults.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated the primary viral infection dynamics of the Omicron variant in hospitalized patients. Vaccination significantly affected viral dynamics, and antiviral agents modified viral dynamics irrespective of vaccination status. In elderly individuals, viral clearance is slower than that in adults and children.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

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

Making waves: Integrating wastewater surveillance with dynamic modeling to track and predict viral outbreaks

Wastewater surveillance has proved to be a valuable tool to track the COVID-19 pandemic. However, most studies using wastewater surveillance data revolve around establishing correlations and lead time relative to reported case data. In this perspective, we advocate for the integration of wastewater surveillance data with dynamic within-host and between-host models to better understand, monitor, and predict viral disease outbreaks. Dynamic models overcome emblematic difficulties of using wastewater surveillance data such as establishing the temporal viral shedding profile. Complementarily, wastewater surveillance data bypasses the issues of time lag and underreporting in clinical case report data, thus enhancing the utility and applicability of dynamic models. The integration of wastewater surveillance data with dynamic models can enhance real-time tracking and prevalence estimation, forecast viral transmission and intervention effectiveness, and most importantly, provide a mechanistic understanding of infectious disease dynamics and the driving factors. Dynamic modeling of wastewater surveillance data will advance the development of a predictive and responsive monitoring system to improve pandemic preparedness and population health.

Antiviral effect and safety of nafamostat mesilate in patients with mild early-onset COVID-19: An exploratory multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the antiviral effects and safety of nafamostat in early-onset patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

In this exploratory multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients were assigned to three groups within 5 days of symptom onset, with 10 participants in each group: nafamostat at either 0.2 mg/kg/h or 0.1 mg/kg/h or a standard-of-care group. The primary endpoint was area under the curve for decrease in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal samples from baseline to day 6.

RESULTS

Of the 30 randomized patients, 19 received nafamostat. Overall, 10 patients received low-dose nafamostat, 9 patients received high-dose nafamostat, and 10 received standard-of-care. The detected viruses were Omicron strains. The regression coefficient for area under the curve for decrease in viral load as the response variable and nafamostat dose per body weight as the explanatory variable showed a significant relationship of -40.1 (95% confidence interval, -74.1 to -6.2; P = 0.022). Serious adverse events were not observed in either group. Phlebitis occurred in ca. 50% of patients treated with nafamostat.

CONCLUSIONS

Nafamostat exerts virus load-reducing effects in patients with early-onset COVID-19.

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

RESULTS

Overall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

Modelling the viral dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants in different cell types

We use viral kinetic models fitted to viral load data from in vitro studies to explain why the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant replicates faster than the Delta variant in nasal cells, but slower than Delta in lung cells, which could explain Omicron's higher transmission potential and lower severity. We find that in both nasal and lung cells, viral infectivity is higher for Omicron but the virus production rate is higher for Delta, with an estimated approximately 200-fold increase in infectivity and 100-fold decrease in virus production when comparing Omicron with Delta in nasal cells. However, the differences are unequal between cell types, and ultimately lead to the basic reproduction number and growth rate being higher for Omicron in nasal cells, and higher for Delta in lung cells. In nasal cells, Omicron alone can enter via a TMPRSS2-independent pathway, but it is primarily increased efficiency of TMPRSS2-dependent entry which accounts for Omicron's increased activity. This work paves the way for using within-host mathematical models to understand the transmission potential and severity of future variants.

Th-1, Th-2, Th-9, Th-17, Th-22 type cytokine concentrations of critical COVID-19 patients after treatment with Remdesivir

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapidly spread around the world causing a pandemic known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Cytokine storm was directly correlated with severity of COVID-19 syndromes. We evaluated the levels of 13 cytokines in ICU hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n=29) before, and after treatment with Remdesivir as well as in healthy controls (n=29). Blood samples were obtained from ICU patients during ICU admission (before treatment) and 5 days after treatment with Remdesivir. A group of 29 age- and gender-matched healthy controls was also studied. Cytokine levels were evaluated by multiplex immunoassay method using a fluorescence labeled cytokine panel. In comparison to cytokine levels measured at ICU admission, serum levels were reduced of IL-6 (134.75 pg/mL vs. 20.73 pg/mL, P< 0.0001), TNF-α (121.67 pg/mL vs. 10.15 pg/mL, P< 0.0001) and IFN-γ (29.69 pg/mL vs. 22.27 pg/mL, P= 0.005), whereas serum level was increased of IL-4 (8.47 pg/mL vs. 12.44 pg/mL, P= 0.002) within 5 days after Remdesivir treatment. Comparing with before treatment, Remdesivir significantly reduced the levels of inflammatory (258.98 pg/mL vs. 37.43 pg/mL, P< 0.0001), Th1-type (31.24 pg/mL vs. 24.46 pg/mL, P= 0.007), and Th17-type (36.79 pg/mL vs. 26.22 pg/mL, P< 0.0001) cytokines in critical COVID-19 patients. However, after Remdesivir treatment, the concentrations of Th2-type cytokines were significantly higher than before treatment (52.69 pg/mL vs. 37.09 pg/mL, P< 0.0001). In conclusion, Remdesivir led to decrease levels of Th1-type and Th17-type cytokines and increase Th2-type cytokines in critical COVID-19 patients 5 days after treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

EU-RESPONSE.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Favipiravir in early symptomatic COVID-19, a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Well tolerated antivirals administered early in the course of COVID-19 infection when the viremia is highest could prevent progression to severe disease. Favipiravir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in vitro with evidence of clinical benefit in open label trials. Placebo controlled studies of people with early symptomatic COVID-19 with regular assessments of SARS-CoV-2 viral load can determine if it has an antiviral effect and improves clinical outcomes.

METHODS

People with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and 5 days or less of symptoms were randomised 1:1 to favipiravir 1800 mg on day 1, then 800 mg twice daily or matched placebo for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was quantitated from second daily self-collected nose-throat swabs while receiving study drug. The primary endpoint was time to virological cure defined as 2 successive swabs negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and secondary outcomes were progression of disease severity, symptom resolution and safety.

FINDINGS

Between 31 July 2020 and 19 September 2021, 200 people were enrolled (199 in the community, 1 in hospital) with 190 receiving one or more doses of drug (modified intention to treat [mITT] population). There was no difference in time to virological cure (Log-rank p=0.6 comparing Kaplan Meier curves), progression to hospitalisation (14 favipiravir, 9 placebo; p=0.38), time to symptom resolution (cough, fever, sore throat) and there were no deaths. 51 people related an adverse event that was possibly drug related, but these were evenly distributed (n=24 favipiravir, n=27 placebo). Sensitivity analyses where the definition of virological cure was changed to: a single negative PCR, exclude datapoints based on the presence or absence of human DNA in the swab, a SARS-CoV-2 viral load < 300 copies/mL being considered negative all demonstrated no difference between arms.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not improve the time to virological cure or clinical outcomes and shows no evidence of an antiviral effect when treating early symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

FUNDING

The study was supported in part by grants from the Commonwealth Bank Australia, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation, Melbourne Australia and the Orloff Family Charitable Trust, Melbourne, Australia. JHM is supported by the Medical Research Future Fund, AYP, JT are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Risk Factors for Slow Viral Decline in COVID-19 Patients during the 2022 Omicron Wave

Formulating termination of isolation (de-isolation) policies requires up-to-date knowledge about viral shedding dynamics. However, current de-isolation policies are largely based on viral load data obtained before the emergence of Omicron variant. In this retrospective cohort study involving adult patients hospitalised for COVID-19 between January and February 2022, we sought to determine SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding kinetics and to investigate the risk factors associated with slow viral decline during the 2022 Omicron wave. A total of 104 patients were included. The viral load was highest (Ct value was lowest) on days 1 post-symptom-onset (PSO) and gradually declined. Older age, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and chronic kidney disease were associated with slow viral decline in the univariate analysis on both day 7 and day 10 PSO, while incomplete or no vaccination was associated with slow viral decline on day 7 PSO only. However, older age was the only risk factor that remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. In conclusion, older age is an independent risk factor associated with slow viral decline in this study conducted during the Omicron-dominant 2022 COVID-19 wave. Transmission-based precaution guidelines should take age into consideration when determining the timing of de-isolation.

Treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: A narrative review of phase 2 and 3 trials

INTRODUCTION

Ventilatory management and general supportive care of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the adult population have led to significant clinical improvements, but morbidity and mortality remain high. Pharmacologic strategies acting on the coagulation cascade, inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial cell injury have been targeted in the last decade for patients with ARDS, but only a few of these have shown potential benefits with a meaningful clinical response and improved patient outcomes. The lack of availability of specific pharmacologic treatments for ARDS can be attributed to its complex pathophysiology, different risk factors, huge heterogeneity, and difficult classification into specific biological phenotypes and genotypes.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we briefly discuss the relevance and current advances in pharmacologic treatments for ARDS in adults and the need for the development of new pharmacological strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Identification of ARDS phenotypes, risk factors, heterogeneity, and pathophysiology may help to design clinical trials personalized according to ARDS-specific features, thus hopefully decreasing the rate of failed clinical pharmacologic trials. This concept is still under clinical investigation and needs further development.

Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Clearance Kinetics to Improve the Design of Antiviral Pharmacometric Studies

A consensus methodology for the pharmacometric assessment of candidate SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs would be useful for comparing trial results and improving trial design. The time to viral clearance, assessed by serial qPCR of nasopharyngeal swab samples, has been the most widely reported measure of virological response in clinical trials, but it has not been compared formally with other metrics, notably model-based estimates of the rate of viral clearance. We analyzed prospectively gathered viral clearance profiles from 280 infection episodes in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We fitted different phenomenological pharmacodynamic models (single exponential decay, bi-exponential, penalized splines) and found that the clearance rate, estimated from a mixed effects single exponential decay model, is a robust pharmacodynamic summary of viral clearance. The rate of viral clearance, estimated from viral densities during the first week following peak viral load, provides increased statistical power (reduced type 2 error) compared with time to clearance. Antiviral effects approximately equivalent to those with currently used and recommended SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatments, notably nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir, can be detected from randomized trials with sample sizes of only 35 to 65 patients per arm. We recommend that pharmacometric antiviral assessments should be conducted in early COVID-19 illness with serial qPCR samples taken over 1 week.

The potential of remdesivir to affect function, metabolism and proliferation of cardiac and kidney cells in vitro

Remdesivir is a prodrug of a nucleoside analog and the first antiviral therapeutic approved for coronavirus disease. Recent cardiac safety concerns and reports on remdesivir-related acute kidney injury call for a better characterization of remdesivir toxicity and understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Here, we performed an in vitro toxicity assessment of remdesivir around clinically relevant concentrations (C_max 9 µM) using H9c2 rat cardiomyoblasts, neonatal mouse cardiomyocytes (NMCM), rat NRK-52E and human RPTEC/TERT1 cells as cell models for the assessment of cardiotoxicity or nephrotoxicity, respectively. Due to the known potential of nucleoside analogs for the induction of mitochondrial toxicity, we assessed mitochondrial function in response to remdesivir treatment, early proteomic changes in NMCM and RPTEC/TERT1 cells and the contractile function of NMCM. Short-term treatments (24 h) of H9c2 and NRK-52E cells with remdesivir adversely affected cell viability by inhibition of proliferation as determined by significantly decreased ³H-thymidine uptake. Mitochondrial toxicity of remdesivir (1.6–3.1 µM) in cardiac cells was evident by a significant decrease in oxygen consumption, a collapse of mitochondrial membrane potential and an increase in lactate secretion after a 24–48-h treatment. This was supported by early proteomic changes of respiratory chain proteins and intermediate filaments that are typically involved in mitochondrial reorganization. Functionally, an impedance-based analysis showed that remdesivir (6.25 µM) affected the beat rate and contractility of NMCM. In conclusion, we identified adverse effects of remdesivir in cardiac and kidney cells at clinically relevant concentrations, suggesting a careful evaluation of therapeutic use in patients at risk for cardiovascular or kidney disease.