Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation.

Setting

Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings.

Methods

Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee.

Results

The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

Limitations

No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified.

Conclusions

The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies.

Future work

Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Understanding the viral shedding time of Omicron variant BA.2 infection in Shanghai: A population-based observational study

Objectives

To explore the multifactorial causality of prolonged viral shedding time and identify different viral shedding trajectories in Omicron BA.2 variant infections.

Methods

The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survivor function, and the Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to identify factors associated with viral shedding time. Group-based trajectory model (GBTM) was used to identify different viral shedding trajectories. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors that significantly impacted the trajectory membership.

Results

The overall median viral shedding time was 12 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-15). Viral shedding time was longer for female cases, cases who were incompletely vaccinated, cases with comorbidities, cases with severe or critical infections and cases who had not taken Paxlovid within 5 days after diagnosis. Compared to the 3 to 17-year-old group, all older groups had significantly longer viral shedding times. The GBTMs based on the N gene and the ORF1ab gene were consistent. Three viral shedding trajectories were identified and age group, comorbidities, vaccination status, disease state, Paxlovid treatment were significantly associated with the trajectory membership.

Conclusion

Increased age, comorbidities, incomplete vaccination, severe or critical infections, and delayed Paxlovid treatment were the risk factors for prolonged viral shedding time.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-infective drugs for patients with mild to severe COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Different anti-infective drugs have been proposed for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We carried out a network meta-analysis to assess their relative efficacy and safety.

Methods

We searched relevant databases for all randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy and or safety of any anti-infective drugs published up to April 30, 2022 for different outcomes. We did both pairwise and network meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model. We assessed studies for quality of evidence using an extension of the standard Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach considering P<0.05 to be statistically significant.

Results

We included 68 RCTs for 27,680 participants on 22 anti-infective drugs. For clinical recovery at 14 days Ivermectin (OR= 3.00, 95%CI: [1.82; 4.96]; p < 0.0001; moderate certainty evidence), Baricitinib plus Remdesivir (OR= 2.20, 95%CI: [1.35; 3.53]; p = 0.005; low certainty evidence), and Favipiravir (OR= 2.16, 95%CI: [1.27; 3.68]; p = 0.004; moderate certainty evidence) were statistically effective than standard of care. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the viral clearance at 14 days outcome and standard of care. In terms of death outcome, only combined therapy of Baricitinib and Remdesivir showed statistically significant risks of ratio (RR= 0.47, 95%CI: [0.23; 0.99]; p = 0.03). Arbidol (RR= 0.46, 95% CI: [0.23; 0.95]; p = 0.04) was statistically safe drug than standard of care.

Conclusion

This Network Meta-analysis suggests that Baricitinib plus Remdesivir is more effective than the other anti-infective drugs in treating patients with COVID-19 in terms of clinical recovery at 14 days, mortality and adverse events outcomes.

Comparison between the first and second COVID-19 waves in Internal Medicine wards in Milan, Italy: a retrospective observational study

COVID-19 spread in two pandemic waves in Italy between 2020 and 2021. The aim of this study is to compare the first with the second COVID-19 wave, analyzing modifiable and non-modifiable factors and how these factors affected mortality in patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine wards. Consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and dyspnea requiring O2 supplementation were included. The severity of lung involvement was categorized according to the patients' oxygen need. Six hundred and ten SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. The overall estimated 4-week mortality was similar in the two pandemic waves. Several variables were associated with mortality after univariate analysis, but they lacked the significance after multivariable adjustment. Steroids did not exert any protective effect when analyzed in time-dependent models in the whole sample; however, steroids seemed to exert a protective effect in more severe patients. When analyzing the progression to different states of O2 supplementation during hospital stay, mortality was almost exclusively associated with the use of high-flow O2 or CPAP. The analysis of the transition from one state to the other by Cox-Markov models confirmed that age and the severity of lung involvement at admission, along with fever, were relevant factor for mortality or progression.

Does baricitinib reduce mortality and disease progression in SARS-CoV-2 virus infected patients? A systematic review and meta analysis

Background

There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed/Medline, Publons, Google Scholar and other sources like ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, medRxiv, Research Square and reference lists were thoroughly searched.

Results

Fifteen (15) articles which met the inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Based on Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias (RoB) analyses, 14/15 articles are grouped as high-quality. Meta-analyses revealed that randomised control trials (RCTs) and non-randomised control trials (nRCTs) statistically significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients, with a risk ratio (RR) in the fixed-effect model was RR = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.79; p < 0.0001] and RR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73; p < 0.00001], respectively, with insignificant heterogeneity and no publication bias found. For block/reduce disease progression (BDP), baricitinib did not statistically significantly reduce disease progression for RCTs. The RR in the random effect model was RR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10: p = 0.17], with significant heterogeneity, where I² was 60%. On the other hand, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced disease progression in nRCTs, as the RR of the fixed effect model was RR = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.78; p = 0.001] with insignificant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

The current meta-analyses revealed that baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality rate and disease progression in COVID-19 patients.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021281556

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.

Evaluation of Remdesivir for Mildly to Moderately Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Single-Arm, Single-Center, Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Remdesivir (RDV) is the first antiviral agent approved in Japan for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of RDV treatment in mildly to moderately ill patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: A single-center, retrospective study was performed in Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital. Patients admitted to our hospital from June to October 2021 for RDV treatment against COVID-19 were enrolled. The primary end point was clinical status on days 10 and 14, using a 6-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 6) to discharge (category 1). Adverse events were assessed and graded using the Japanese version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Results: In total, 47 COVID-19 patients receiving RDV treatment were assessed during the study period. Thirty-four (72.3%) out of 47 patients required oxygen therapy. Out of these 34 patients, 30 (88.2%) showed a 2-point clinical improvement on day 14 after RDV was initiated. Serum alanine aminotransferase levels were elevated in three patients (6.4%) (CTCAE Grade 3) and neutropenia was detected in one patient (2.1%) out of the 47 patients. Conclusions: RDV may be highly effective, with good safety profiles, in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen therapy.

Landscape of coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trials: New frontiers and challenges

BACKGROUND/AIM

The number of coronavirus disease 2019 deaths and cases continues to increase globally. Novel therapies are urgently needed to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We sought to provide a critical review of trials designed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our primary goal was to provide a critical review of the landscape of clinical trials designed to address the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Specifically, we were interested in assessing the design of phase II/III and phase III interventional trials.

METHODS

We utilized the ClinicalTrials.gov database to include trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 11 April 2021 to survey the current landscape of clinical trials for coronavirus disease 2019. Variables extracted included: National Clinical Trial number, title, location, sponsor, study type, start date, completion date, gender group, age group, primary outcome, secondary outcome, overall status, and associated references.

RESULTS

About 57% of studies were interventional, 14.5% were phase III trials, and the majority of the therapeutic trials included hospitalized patients. There were 52 primary composite outcomes and 285 unique interventions spanning 10 drug classes. The outcomes, disease severity, and comparators varied substantially across trials, and the trials were often too small to be definitive.

CONCLUSION

These findings are relevant as we strongly advocate for global coordination of efforts through the use of common platforms that enable harmonizing of endpoints, collection of common key variables and clear definition of disease severity to have clinically meaningful results from clinical trials.

The AI-Assisted Identification and Clinical Efficacy of Baricitinib in the Treatment of COVID-19

During the current pandemic, the vast majority of COVID-19 patients experienced mild symptoms, but some had a potentially fatal aberrant hyperinflammatory immune reaction characterized by high levels of IL-6 and other cytokines. Modulation of this immune reaction has proven to be the only method of reducing mortality in severe and critical COVID-19. The anti-inflammatory drug baricitinib (Olumiant) has recently been strongly recommended by the WHO for use in COVID-19 patients because it reduces the risk of progressive disease and death. It is a Janus Kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor approved for rheumatoid arthritis which was suggested in early 2020 as a treatment for COVID-19. In this review the AI-assisted identification of baricitinib, its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and efficacy in clinical trials are discussed and compared with those of other immune modulators including glucocorticoids, IL-6 and IL-1 receptor blockers and other JAK inhibitors. Baricitinib inhibits both virus infection and cytokine signalling and is not only important for COVID-19 management but is “non-immunological”, and so should remain effective if new SARS-CoV-2 variants escape immune control. The repurposing of baricitinib is an example of how advanced artificial intelligence (AI) can quickly identify new drug candidates that have clinical benefit in previously unsuspected therapeutic areas.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO₂); high-flow oxygen (HFO₂), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO₂) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO₂ patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO₂ patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO₂ patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO₂ patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO₂ and LFO₂ patients.

Efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of tocilizumab (TCZ), which is an antibody blocking IL-6 receptors, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Five electronic databases and two preprint webpages were searched until March 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) cohorts assessing TCZ effects in hospitalized, COVID-19 adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, clinical improvement, need for mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (n = 7,021) and nine IPTW cohorts (n = 7,796) were included. TCZ significantly reduced all-cause mortality in RCTs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81-0.98, p = 0.03; moderate QoE) and non-significantly in cohorts (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.44-1.02, p = 0.08; very low QoE) vs. control (standard of care [SOC] or placebo). TCZ significantly reduced the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.90, p = 0.001; moderate QoE) and length of stay (MD -1.92 days, 95%CI -3.46 to -0.38, p = 0.01; low QoE) vs. control in RCTs. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement or worsening between treatments. AEs, severe AEs, bleeding and thrombotic events were similar between arms in RCTs, but there was higher neutropenia risk with TCZ (very low QoE). Subgroup analyses by disease severity or risk of bias (RoB) were consistent with main analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate to very low in both RCTs and cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to SOC or placebo, TCZ reduced all-cause mortality in all studies and reduced mechanical ventilation and length of stay in RCTs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly impacted. TCZ did not have effect on AEs, except a significant increased neutropenia risk in RCTs. TCZ has a potential role in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in COVID‐19: A rapid review and meta‐analysis of current evidence

Background and Objective

Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), people who got fully vaccinated are still contaminated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID‐19.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar, and the relevant articles published up to January 2022 were found. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened for finding more citations. Data analysis was carried out applying The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess the included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1.

Results

Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta‐analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; confidence interval [CI] 95%: 0.40–1.07; p = .09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; CI 95%: 1.04–1.80; p = .03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed for using imatinib in COVID‐19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID‐19.

Conclusion

In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID‐19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.

Current strategies in diagnostics and therapeutics against novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

The epidemic of COVID-19 spread quickly through China and engulfed all of the countries across the globe. Several advances have been made in understanding the novel coronavirus's pathophysiology and in the development of newer diagnostics with pinpoint accuracy. Several newer therapeutic methods have either been accepted or are awaiting acceptance. In many countries, vaccination programs have been rolled out. Despite all these efforts, coronavirus still exists, though with lesser propensity. Multiple new forms of the novel coronavirus unexpectedly appeared in various areas of the world, undermining previously existing diagnosis and care protocols. This article highlights our understanding of the novel coronavirus's symptoms in brief, pathogenesis, diagnostics, and therapeutic strategies to contain COVID-19. The clinical findings, including serological, radiological, and other advanced diagnostic strategies, contributed much to control the disease. To date, supportive interventions have been used in tandem with potent antiviral therapies such as remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, or corticosteroids with a level of trust in the care of COVID-19 patients. However, in several areas of the world, vaccination initiatives took place; the vaccines' safety and efficacy to control the outbreak is yet to be identified. This review concludes that improvement in therapies and diagnostics for COVID-19 must continually be explored as new variants constantly emerge.

Remdesivir: an overview of patenting trends, clinical evidence on COVID-19 treatment, pharmacology and chemistry

By December 2021, the COVID-19 caused approximately 6.1 million deaths around the world. Several vaccines have been approved, but there is still a need for non-prophylactic treatments for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug approved for emergency use against COVID-19 in several countries, but one of the first clinical trials was inconclusive about the mortality reduction, although the drug showed a reduction in the recovery time of hospitalized patients. Thus, the present investigation revisits the clinical evidence of using remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment, patent status, pharmacology and chemistry. We found 184 families of patents in the Cortellis database, and concerning the clinical evidence, we retrieved 14 systematic reviews with meta-analysis involving remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19, discussing the reduction of adverse events, hospitalization days, mortality rate and the mechanical ventilation period.

Evidence showing lipotoxicity worsens outcomes in covid-19 patients and insights about the underlying mechanisms

We compared three hospitalized patient cohorts and conducted mechanistic studies to determine if lipotoxicity worsens COVID-19. Cohort-1 (n = 30) compared COVID-19 patients dismissed home to those requiring intensive-care unit (ICU) transfer. Cohort-2 (n = 116) compared critically ill ICU patients with and without COVID-19. Cohort-3 (n = 3969) studied hypoalbuminemia and hypocalcemia’s impact on COVID-19 mortality. Patients requiring ICU transfer had higher serum albumin unbound linoleic acid (LA). Unbound fatty acids and LA were elevated in ICU transfers, COVID-19 ICU patients and ICU non-survivors. COVID-19 ICU patients (cohort-2) had greater serum lipase, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), cytokines, hypocalcemia, hypoalbuminemia, organ failure and thrombotic events. Hypocalcemia and hypoalbuminemia independently associated with COVID-19 mortality in cohort-3. Experimentally, LA reacted with albumin, calcium and induced hypocalcemia, hypoalbuminemia in mice. Endothelial cells took up unbound LA, which depolarized their mitochondria. In mice, unbound LA increased DAMPs, cytokines, causing endothelial injury, organ failure and thrombosis. Therefore, excessive unbound LA in the circulation may worsen COVID-19 outcomes.

•

Three cohorts of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with different severities were studied

•

Severe COVID-19 increased serum linoleic acid (LA) and unbound fatty acid levels

•

Endothelial cell uptake of unbound LA dose-dependently depolarized mitochondria

•

Unbound LA increased cytokines, endothelial injury, organ failure and thrombosis

Antimicrobials in COVID-19: strategies for treating a COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a serious global challenge, with the world engulfed in fighting second, third and fourth waves of the disease, which is reaching scary proportions in terms of cases and mortality in countries like India. Despite the urgent need of proven management protocols, there is still confusion about the best practices for treating COVID-19 with different pharmaceutical interventions. Antimicrobials are empirically used in COVID-19 patients. During the initial phase of this pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline were widely suggested for possible prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19 in outpatient as well as hospitalized settings. Various national and international guidelines recommended its use. However, cumulative evidence from subsequent clinical trials has revealed no significant clinical benefits in any setting, with the risk of adverse effects being high particularly in combination with azithromycin. Yet, there is continued use of antimicrobials particularly in outpatient settings which should be avoided because there is no justifiable rationale for doing so. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was one of the top problems for global public health before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. AMR, which is already a difficult problem, must now be handled in the context of a changing healthcare sector.

Clinical Outcome of Antiviral Therapy on COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus-caused pneumonia has been widespread worldwide since the end of 2019. The rapid widespread has prompted the repurposing of drugs based on promising in vitro and therapeutic results with other human coronavirus diseases. These repurposed drugs have mainly included remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavirritonavir, ribavirin, interferons, and hydroxychloroquine. AIM: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of any antiviral for 2019-nCoV infection in a national referral hospital. METHODS: This research was a retrospective study to evaluate all antiviral clinical responses used in a national referral hospital. RESULTS: Based on gender, there is a similar frequency from all patients. Hematology, followed by cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, is the most frequent comorbidity. There is no significant difference between the two groups antiviral treatment for a length of stay parameter. The most extended length of stay is 29 days. About 64.5% of patients are cured of SARS-Cov-2 infection. In the remdesivir group, we find that the mortality is significantly high. CONCLUSION: The clinical outcome of these antiviral treatments is similar, except for mortality. The severity of COVID-19 causes differences in mortality.

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8^th, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2^nd, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.

Results

Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR = 1.60, p = 0.02), defervescence at day 3–4 (RR = 1.99, p <0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR = 1.33, p <0.01), hospital discharge at day 10–11 (RR = 1.19, p <0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD = –1.18, p = 0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR = 9.42, p <0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR = 1.35, p <0.01) but lower rates of nausea (RR = 0.42, p <0.01) and vomiting (R R= 0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR = 1.11, p = 0.25). On nonhospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported.

Conclusions

Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.

Comparative outcomes of combined corticosteroid and remdesivir therapy with corticosteroid monotherapy in ventilated COVID-19 patients

Remdesivir (RDV) reduces time to clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID -19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Dexamethasone improves survival in those requiring oxygen support. Data is lacking on the efficacy of combination therapy in patients on mechanical ventilation. We analyzed for comparative outcomes between Corticosteroid (CS) therapy with combined Corticosteroid and Remdesivir (CS-RDV) therapy. We conducted an observational cohort study of patients aged 18 to 90 with COVID-19 requiring ventilatory support using TriNetX (COVID-19 Research Network) between January 20, 2020, and February 9, 2021. We compared patients who received at least 48 hours of CS-RDV combination therapy to CS monotherapy. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality rates in propensity-matched (PSM) cohorts. Secondary outcomes were Length of Stay (LOS), Secondary Bacterial Infections (SBI), and MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus), and Pseudomonas infections. We used univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and stratified log-rank tests. Of 388 patients included, 91 (23.5%) received CS-RDV therapy, and 297 (76.5%) received CS monotherapy. After propensity score matching, with 74 patients in each cohort, all-cause mortality was 36.4% and 29.7% in the CS-RDV and CS therapy, respectively (P = 0.38). We used a Kaplan-Meier with a log-rank test on follow up period (P = 0.23), and a Hazards Ratio model (P = 0.26). SBI incidence was higher in the CS group (13.5% vs. 35.1%, P = 0.02) with a similar LOS (13.4 days vs. 13.4 days, P = 1.00) and similar incidence of MRSA/Pseudomonas infections (13.5% vs. 13.5%, P = 1.00) in both the groups. Therefore, CS-RDV therapy is non-inferior to CS therapy in reducing 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality but associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of SBI in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

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.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

Recent Insights into COVID-19 in Children and Clinical Recommendations

Pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have been recognized in multiple countries globally. In this review, we provide recent insights into SARS-CoV-2 infection in children from epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory perspectives, including reports on the disease course and therapy. We highlight key features of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, the relationship between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease, and summarize treatment guidelines for COVID-19 in children from institutional protocols from Colombia, case reports, recommendations based on expert consensus, and official statements from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United States Center for Disease Control (CDC), Colombian Association of Infectious Diseases, and the Colombian Society of Pediatrics. Finally, we discuss gaps in research with suggestions for future research on the pathogenesis underlying pediatric COVID-19.

Scoping insight on antiviral drugs against COVID-19

Background

COVID-19 is an ongoing viral pandemic produced by SARS-CoV-2. In light of in vitro efficacy, several medications were repurposed for its management. During clinical use, many of these medications produced inconsistent results or had varying limitations.

Objective

The purpose of this literature review is to explain the variable efficacy or limitations of Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, and Favipiravir in clinical settings.

Method

A study of the literature on the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), safety profile, and clinical trials through academic databases using relevant search terms.

Results & discussion

The efficacy of an antiviral drug against COVID-19 is associated with its ability to achieve therapeutic concentration in the lung and intestinal tissues. This efficacy depends on the PK properties, particularly protein binding, volume of distribution, and half-life. The PK and PD of the model drugs need to be integrated to predict their limitations.

Conclusion

Current antiviral drugs have varying pharmacological constraints that may associate with limited efficacy, especially in severe COVID-19 patients, or safety concerns.

Stalling SARS-CoV2 infection with stem cells: can regenerating perinatal tissue mesenchymal stem cells offer a multi-tiered therapeutic approach to COVID-19?

The emergence of COVID-19 has created a major health crisis across the globe. Invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into the lungs causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that result in the damage of lung alveolar epithelial cells. Currently, there is no standard treatment available to treat the disease and the resultant lung scarring is irreversible even after recovery. This has prompted researchers across the globe to focus on developing new therapeutics and vaccines for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as an efficient drug screening platform and MSC-derived organoids has found applications in disease modeling and drug discovery. Perinatal tissue derived MSC based cell therapies have been explored in the treatment of various disease conditions including ARDS because of their enhanced regenerative and immunomodulatory properties. The multi-utility properties of MSCs have been described in this review wherein we discuss the potential use of MSC-derived lung organoids in screening of novel therapeutic compounds for COVID-19 and also in disease modeling to better understand the pathogenesis of the disease. This article also summarizes the rationale behind the development of MSC-based cell- and cell-free therapies and vaccines for COVID-19 with a focus on the current progress in this area. With the pandemic raging, an important necessity is to develop novel treatment strategies which will not only alleviate the disease symptoms but also avoid any off-target effects which could further increase post infection sequelae. Naturally occurring mesenchymal stem cells could be the magic bullet which fulfil these criteria.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: possible mechanisms and therapeutic management

COVID-19 pandemic is a serious concern in the new era. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and lung failure are the main lung diseases in COVID-19 patients. Even though COVID-19 vaccinations are available now, there is still an urgent need to find potential treatments to ease the effects of COVID-19 on already sick patients. Multiple experimental drugs have been approved by the FDA with unknown efficacy and possible adverse effects. Probably the increasing number of studies worldwide examining the potential COVID-19 related therapies will help to identification of effective ARDS treatment. In this review article, we first provide a summary on immunopathology of ARDS next we will give an overview of management of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU), while focusing on the current treatment strategies being evaluated in the clinical trials in COVID-19-induced ARDS patients.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) Related Thrombotic and Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients: Experience from an Academic Medical Center

Introduction: Thrombosis and bleeding are recognized complications of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), with a higher incidence described particularly in the critically ill. Methods: A retrospective review of COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care units (ICU) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes included clinically significant thrombotic and bleeding events (according to the ISTH definition) in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included mortality vis-a-vis the type of anticoagulation. Results: The cohort included 144 consecutive COVID-19 patients with a median age of 64 years (IQR 54.5–75). The majority were male (85 (59.0%)) and Caucasian (90 (62.5%)) with a median BMI of 30.5 kg/m² (IQR 25.7–36.1). The median APACHE score at admission to the ICU was 12.5 (IQR 9.5–22). The coagulation parameters at admission were a d-dimer level of 109.2 mg/mL, a platelet count of 217.5 k/mcl, and an INR of 1.4. The anticoagulation strategy at admission included prophylactic anticoagulation for 97 (67.4%) patients and therapeutic anticoagulation for 35 (24.3%) patients, while 12 (8.3%) patients received no anticoagulation. A total of 29 patients (20.1%) suffered from thrombotic or major bleeding complications. These included 17 thrombus events (11.8%)—8 while on prophylactic anticoagulation (7 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose) and 9 while on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)—and 19 major bleeding events (13.2%) (4 on no anticoagulation, 7 on prophylactic (6 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose), and 8 on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)). A higher thrombosis risk among patients who received remdesivir (18.8% vs. 5.3% (p-value = 0.01)) and convalescent serum (17.3% vs. 5.8% (p-value = 0.03%)) was noted, but no association with baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, comorbidity), coagulation parameters, or treatments (steroids, mechanical ventilation) could be identified. There were 10 pulmonary embolism cases (6.9%). A total of 99 (68.8%) patients were intubated, and 66 patients (45.8%) died. Mortality was higher, but not statistically significant, in patients with thrombotic or bleeding complications—58.6% vs. 42.6% (p-value = 0.12)—and higher in the bleeding (21.2%) vs. thrombus group (12.1%), p-value = 0.06. It did not significantly differ according to the type of anticoagulation used or the coagulation parameters. Conclusions: This study describes a high incidence of thrombotic and bleeding complications among critically ill COVID-19 patients. The findings of thrombotic events in patients on anticoagulation and major bleeding events in patients on no or prophylactic anticoagulation pose a challenging clinical dilemma in the issue of anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. The questions raised by this study and previous literature on this subject demonstrate that the role of anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients is worthy of further investigation.

Protocol: Benefits and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19 in adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective drug treatments for Covid-19 are needed to decrease morbidity and mortality for the individual and to alleviate pressure on health care systems. Remdesivir showed promising results in early randomised trials but subsequently a large publicly funded trial has shown less favourable results and the evidence is interpreted differently in clinical guidelines. Systematic reviews of remdesivir have been published, but none have systematically searched for unpublished data, including regulatory documents, and assessed the risk of bias due to missing evidence.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised trials comparing remdesivir to placebo or standard of care in any setting. We will include trials regardless of the severity of disease and we will include trials examining remdesivir for indications other than Covid-19 for harms analyses. We will search websites of regulatory agencies, trial registries, bibliographic databases, preprint servers and contact trial sponsors to obtain all available data, including unpublished clinical data, for all eligible trials. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes will be length of hospital stay, time to death, severe disease, and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias using the Cochranes Risk of Bias 2 tool and the risk of bias due to missing evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting bias) using the ROB-ME tool. Where appropriate we will synthesise study results by conducting random-effects meta-analysis. We will present our findings in a Summary of Findings table and rate the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

By conducting a comprehensive systematic review including unpublished data (where available), we expect to be able to provide valuable information for patients and clinicians about the benefits and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. This will help to ensure optimal treatment for individual patients and optimal utilisation of health care resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42021255915.

Effectiveness of Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Favipiravir for COVID-19 Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain that causes acute respiratory illnesses known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, there is limited information regarding the therapeutic management for this disease. Several studies have stated that antivirals drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir may potentially inhibit the virus from spreading to the host.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical effectiveness and safety of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir on COVID-19.

METHODS

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2021 to identify eligible experimental randomized controlled trials on remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 patients. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

RESULTS

From 158 references, 15 studies were included in the review. The results showed that remdesivir has some potential benefits for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, as seen from clinical improvements such as faster recovery time, less duration of hospitalization, and fewer respiratory side effects among COVID-19 patients. However, the impact of remdesivir in reducing mortality remains uncertain. Treatment with favipiravir has shown promising improvement in the clinical status of COVID-19 patients, although the results suggested no significant differences in some clinical parameters such as length of hospitalizations and clinical recovery. A combination of favipiravir with other supportive therapy showed more favorable outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients reported no significant clinical improvement compared to standard care with notable adverse effect reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an overview of the evidence-based role of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in the management of COVID-19. A thorough assessment of the benefit-risk profile in COVID-19 patients is urgently needed. The current review was based on very limited available data; therefore, further well-designed clinical trials are required.

Thromboembolic Risk in COVID-19 Patients: Is There a Hidden Link?

Background

Although evidence has emerged indicating that patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia present a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), its real incidence and best diagnosis course remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of pulmonary embolism in these patients and the role of D-dimer serum level as a predictive factor of a new VTE event.

Methodology

This was a single-center retrospective observational cohort study conducted in a tertiary hospital. All patients admitted to the infectious diseases ward with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with clinical or laboratory criteria for suspected VTE events were eligible for inclusion in the study. The t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences between the with-VTE group and the without-VTE group.

Results

Overall, VTE incidence was registered to be 30%. Chest computed tomography angiography data revealed thrombus mainly in segmental (five patients, 71%) and subsegmental pulmonary artery branches (four patients, 57%). No thrombus on major branches was documented. D-dimer serum levels (collected at hospital admission, 48 hours before the suspected VTE event date and at suspected VTE event date) were analyzed, and, despite a consistent tendency of higher values in the with-VTE group, no statistical difference was observed. Moreover, no statistical difference was observed between the two groups in mortality rates.

Conclusions

A clear higher risk of VTE events in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia patients was not documented, and a link between the impact of VTE occurrence and a worse prognosis was not demonstrated. Therefore, we suggest that the use of D-dimer serum level should not be used as a predictor of VTE in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia patients.

Safety of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine Plus Azithromycin for the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in Burkina Faso: An Observational Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Though chloroquine derivatives are used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in many countries worldwide, doubts remain about the safety and efficacy of these drugs, especially in African communities where published data are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted an observational prospective cohort study from April 24 to September 03, 2020, in Burkina Faso to assess (as primary outcome) the clinical, biological, and cardiac (electrocardiographic) safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin administered to COVID-19 patients. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and median time of viral clearance.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were enrolled and followed for 21 days. Among patients who took at least one dose of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (90.1% [138/153]), few clinical adverse events were reported and were mainly rash/pruritus, diarrhea, chest pain, and palpitations. No statistically significant increase in hepatic, renal, and hematological parameters or electrolyte disorders were reported. However, there was a significant increase in the QTc value without exceeding 500ms, especially in those who received chloroquine phosphate. Three adverse events of special interest classified as serious (known from chloroquine derivatives) were recorded namely pruritus, paresthesia, and drowsiness. One case of death occurred. The average onset of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity was estimated at 7.0 (95% CI: 5.0-10.0) days.

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine appeared to be well tolerated in treated COVID-19 patients in Burkina Faso. In the absence of a robust methodological approach that could generate a high level of scientific evidence, our results could at least contribute to guide health decisions that should be made based on different sources of scientific evidence including those from our study.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on liver, liver diseases, and liver transplantation programs in intensive care units

Emerging worldwide data have been suggesting that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic consequences are not limited to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems but encompass adverse gastrointestinal manifestations including acute liver injury as well. Severe cases of liver injury associated with higher fatality rates were observed in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Intensive care units (ICU) have been the center of disposition of severe cases of COVID-19. This review discusses the pathogenesis of acute liver injury in ICU patients with COVID-19, and analyzes its prevalence, consequences, possible drug-induced liver injury, and the impact of the pandemic on liver diseases and transplantation programs.

Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Potential Option for COVID-19 Treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the way of life worldwide and continues to bring high mortality rates to at-risk groups. Patients who develop severe COVID-19 pneumonia, often complicated with ARDS, are left with limited treatment options with no targeted therapy currently available. One of the features of COVID-19 is an overaggressive immune reaction that leads to multiorgan failure. Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) treatment has been in development for various clinical indications for over a decade, with a safe side effect profile and promising results in preclinical and clinical trials. Therefore, the use of MSCs in COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and ARDS was a logical step in order to find a potential treatment option for the most severe patients. In this review, the main characteristics of MSCs, their proposed mechanism of action in COVID-19 treatment and the effect of this therapy in published case reports and clinical trials are discussed.

Sex-tailored pharmacology and COVID-19: Next steps towards appropriateness and health equity

Making gender bias visible allows to fill the gaps in knowledge and understand health records and risks of women and men. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown a clear gender difference in health outcomes. The more severe symptoms and higher mortality in men as compared to women are likely due to sex and age differences in immune responses. Age-associated decline in sex steroid hormone levels may mediate proinflammatory reactions in older adults, thereby increasing their risk of adverse outcomes, whereas sex hormones and/or sex hormone receptor modulators may attenuate the inflammatory response and provide benefit to COVID-19 patients. While multiple pharmacological options including anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and traditional Chinese medicine preparations have been tested to treat COVID-19 patients with varied levels of evidence in terms of efficacy and safety, information on sex-targeted treatment strategies is currently limited. Women may have more benefit from COVID-19 vaccines than men, despite the occurrence of more frequent adverse effects, and long-term safety data with newly developed vectors are eagerly awaited. The prevalent inclusion of men in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subsequent extrapolation of results to women needs to be addressed, as reinforcing sex-neutral claims into COVID-19 research may insidiously lead to increased inequities in health care. The huge worldwide effort with over 3000 ongoing RCTs of pharmacological agents should focus on improving knowledge on sex, gender and age as pillars of individual variation in drug responses and enforce appropriateness.

An overview of the preclinical discovery and development of remdesivir for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Introduction

Remdesivir (RDV) is an inhibitor of the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases that are active in some RNA viruses, including the Ebola virus and zoonotic coronaviruses. When severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified as the etiologic agent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several investigations have assessed the potential activity of RDV in inhibiting viral replication, giving rise to hope for an effective treatment.

Areas covered

In this review, the authors describe the main investigations leading to the discovery of RDV and its subsequent development as an antiviral agent, focusing on the main clinical trials investigating its efficacy in terms of symptom resolution and mortality reduction.

Expert opinion

RDV is the most widely investigated antiviral drug for the treatment of COVID-19. This attention on RDV activity against SARS-CoV-2 is justified by promising in vitro studies, which demonstrated that RDV was able to suppress viral replication without significant toxicity. Such activity was confirmed by an investigation in an animal model and by the results of preliminary clinical investigations. Nevertheless, the efficacy of RDV in reducing mortality has not been clearly demonstrated.

Antiviral drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review with network meta-analysis

Background

To better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19.

Methods

We systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram.

Results

We included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg – 10 days) ranked best, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

The available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID 19: review of the pharmacological properties, safety and clinical effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Remdesivir is a nucleoside analog that inhibits viral RNA replication by blocking RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. First developed and tested during the Ebola epidemic, repurposed, and gained prominence during the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Based on data from three major trials, remdesivir became the first and only medication to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 disease.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of the article is to review available preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing data to assess the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. We performed a comprehensive literature review of articles published on remdesivir until January 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

The substantial evidence of its effectiveness in a few trials together with the favorable safety profile makes remdesivir a primary therapeutic candidate for treatment in adult and pediatric patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19 and requiring oxygen supplementation. While remdesivir does not improve mortality, it has been shown to reduce the recovery time and increase the odds for clinical improvement, specifically in patients with early presentation and moderate COVID-19 disease. Remdesivir is well tolerated and has an acceptable safety profile in the pediatric and adult populations.

Evaluation of the Treatment Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir for COVID-19: a Meta-analysis

Remdesivir is one of few FDA-approved treatments for severe cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To better assess its efficacy and safety, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically identify and synthesize existing findings. We conducted a comprehensive literature search among six electronic databases and unpublished studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to summarize the risk ratio (RR) and rate estimates from eligible studies. Funnel plots, the Egger test, and the trim and fill analysis were used to detect publication bias. Thirteen eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, giving a pooled sample size of 10,002 COVID-19 hospitalized patients (5068 administered remdesivir; 4934 control). Among patients on remdesivir, we synthesized mortality (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9%, 22%), clinical improvement (64%, 95% CI: 51%, 78%), recovery (70%, 95% CI: 57%, 83%), hospital discharge (74%, 95% CI: 60%, 87%), serious adverse effect (SAE) (21%, 95% CI:13%, 29%), and Grade 3 or 4 adverse effect (AE) (30%, 95% CI: 12%, 48%). Patients on remdesivir were 17% (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.06) less likely to die than those within the control group. Additionally, remdesivir had favorable outcomes in terms of clinical improvement, recovery, and hospital discharge. Lastly, non-mechanically ventilated patients had better overall clinical outcomes than mechanically ventilated patients. Remdesivir shows a moderate-favorable treatment efficacy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with disproportionate impact among non-mechanically ventilated patients; however, a substantial proportion of COVID-19 patients may suffer from SAE or Grade 3 or 4 AE during the treatment course.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, 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 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone 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 approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  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 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

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

PURPOSE

This review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir were searched via databases and other sources from December 2019 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and assessment of risk bias. Seven studies involving 3686 patients were included.

RESULTS

Treatment with remdesivir was associated with an increase in clinical recovery rate by 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.35) on day 7 and 29% (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.37) on day 14. The likelihoods of requiring high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation in the remdesivir group were lower than in the placebo group by 27% (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and 47% (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.72), respectively. Remdesivir-treated patients showed a 39% (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) reduction in the risk of mortality on day 14 compared to the control group; however, there was no significant difference on day 28. Serious adverse effects (SAEs) were significantly less common in patients treated with remdesivir, with an absolute risk difference of 6% (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite conditional recommendation against its use, remdesivir could still be effective in early clinical improvement; reduction of early mortality and avoiding high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was also well tolerated without significant SAEs compared to placebo, yet available evidence from clinical studies support the need to conduct close monitoring.

Clinical improvement, outcomes, antiviral activity, and costs associated with early treatment with remdesivir for patients with COVID-19

Background

Evidence remains inconclusive on any significant benefits of remdesivir in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. This study explored the disease progression, various clinical outcomes, changes in viral load, and costs associated with early remdesivir treatment among COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A territory-wide retrospective cohort of 10,419 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized from 21st January 2020 to 31st January 2021 in Hong Kong were identified. Early remdesivir users were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of up to 1:4. Study outcomes were time to clinical improvement on the WHO clinical progression scale of at least 1 score; hospital discharge; recovery; viral clearance; low viral load; positive IgG antibody; in-hospital death; and composite outcomes of in-hospital death, requiring invasive ventilation or intensive care.

Results

After multiple imputation and propensity-score matching, the median follow-up was 14 days for both remdesivir (n=352) and control (n=1,347) groups. Time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group than that of control (hazard ratio (HR)=1.14, 95%CI 1.01-1.29, p=0.038), as well as for achieving low viral load (HR=1.51, 95%CI 1.24-1.83, p<0.001) and positive IgG antibody (HR=1.50, 95%CI 1.31-1.70, p<0.001). Early remdesivir treatment was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death (HR=0.58, 95%CI 0.34-0.99, p=0.045), in addition to a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (difference -2.56 days, 95%CI -4.86 to -0.26, p=0.029), without increasing the risks of composite outcomes for clinical deterioration.

Conclusions

Early remdesivir treatment could be extended to hospitalized patients presenting with moderate COVID-19 and not requiring oxygen therapy on admission.

Remdesivir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In view of many unanswered clinical questions regarding treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir, we systematically identified, critically appraised and summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19.

Methods

We searched relevant databases/websites (up to September 2020) and selected English-language RCT publications of remdesivir for COVID-19. We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model in addition to trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the efficacy outcomes: all-cause mortality, viral burden and clinical progression. Safety outcomes were diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I² statistic.

Results

We included five RCTs (7540 participants) from 7237 citations. Most (80%) were of an unclear to high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement with remdesivir (100 mg, 10 days) regarding all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, CI 0.82–1.07; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs; 7143 patients), clinical progression (RR 1.08, CI 0.99–1.18; I² = 70.4%; 3 RCTs; 1692 patients), or diarrhoea (RR 0.82, CI 0.40–1.66; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). Nausea occurred more often with remdesivir (RR 2.77, CI 1.28–6.03; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). TSA showed that the required information size was not reached for firm conclusions to be drawn.

Conclusions and relevance

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence. Until then, remdesivir should remain an experimental drug for COVID-19.

An Integrative in silico Drug Repurposing Approach for Identification of Potential Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease

Considering the urgent need for novel therapeutics in ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, drug repurposing approach might offer rapid solutions comparing to de novo drug design. In this study, we designed an integrative in silico drug repurposing approach for rapid selection of potential candidates against SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease (Mpro ). To screen FDA-approved drugs, we implemented structure-based molecular modelling techniques, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling of drugs disposition and data mining analysis of drug-gene-COVID-19 association. Through presented approach, we selected the most promising FDA approved drugs for further COVID-19 drug development campaigns and analysed them in context of available experimental data. To the best of our knowledge, this is unique in silico study which integrates structure-based molecular modeling of Mpro inhibitors with predictions of their tissue disposition, drug-gene-COVID-19 associations and prediction of pleiotropic effects of selected candidates.

Third force in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV2) depends on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme complex for its genomic replications and thus can be inhibited by nucleoside analogues. An example is Remdesivir, which is a non-obligate chain terminator of RdRp. Therefore, we investigate the activities of Remdesivir against COVID-19.

Method

This is a systematic-review and meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of Remdesivir in the management of COVID-19 through MEDLINE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), EMBASE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), Publics Ovidius Naso (Ovoid), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in Issue 1 of 12, January 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was applied and the questions generated in conformity with the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v. 12.1 (StataCorp, Texas USA).

Results

The outcome of the reviewed relevant journals and the cross-references including clinical trials, systematic reviews and metanalysis were documented. Out of 569,000 articles, 11 roundly-suited the inclusion criteria. The comparative effects of Remdesivir on death (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.08) and recovery (OR = 2.22; p5% CI = 1.80, 2.73) were calculated.

Conclusion

Remdesivir is useful in the treatment of COVID-19 especially the severe disease. However, it should be used with caution since all the adverse effects are not known. We recommend Remdesivir as an alternative/third-force in the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety outcomes with remdesivir in COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug having in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and is currently being used on a compassionate basis outside of clinical trials.

AIM

To analyze the efficacy and safety of remdesivir compared with other interventions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

We searched online databases to include randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of remdesivir compared with other interventions in COVID-19 patients. We summarized efficacy and safety data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and used Mantel-Haenszel fixed or random-effect models. We estimated the number needed to treat (NNT) to cause one additional outcome. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for all outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We included four randomized controlled trials. We observed no significant difference in mortality (RR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.57–1.20; I² = 59%) and rate of ventilation (RR: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.41-1.18; I² = 77%) between remdesivir- and placebo-treated patients. Remdesivir showed higher rates of clinical recovery than placebo (RR: 1.10; 95%CI: 1.04–1.16; I² = 0%; NNT: 14.3). We observed no difference in overall adverse events between remdesivir- and placebo-treated patients (RR: 1.05; 95%CI: 0.86–1.27; I² = 77%). We observed less risk of serious adverse events (RR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.63–0.89; I² = 0%) in remdesivir- than placebo-treated patients. The GRADE approach suggested moderate quality of evidence for all efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We observed limited clinical benefit of remdesivir over placebo in the treatment of COVID-19. Our findings could be biased because of the small number of trials.