Clinical and Virologic Effectiveness of Remdesivir Treatment for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea: a Nationwide Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Rapid Recovery From SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Immunocompromised Children Despite Limited Neutralizing Antibody Response: A Virologic and Sero-Immunologic Analysis of a Single-Center Cohort

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and sero-immunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood.

METHODS

From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays.

RESULTS

Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0-4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th₁ responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads. Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

The effects of remdesivir on mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review stratified by disease severity

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.

RESULTS

A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

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.

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSION

The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.

Antibiotic Prescription in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Analysis of National Health Insurance System Data in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection, antibiotics are often prescribed due to concerns about accompanying bacterial infection. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the number of patients with COVID-19 who received antibiotic prescriptions, as well as factors that influenced antibiotics prescription, using the National Health Insurance System database.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed claims data for adults aged ≥ 19 years hospitalized for COVID-19 from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. According to the National Institutes of Health guidelines for severity classification, we calculated the proportion of patients who received antibiotics and the number of days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days. Factors contributing to antibiotic use were determined using linear regression analysis. In addition, antibiotic prescription data for patients with influenza hospitalized from 2018 to 2021 were compared with those for patients with COVID-19, using an integrated database from Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency-COVID19-National Health Insurance Service cohort (K-COV-N cohort), which was partially adjusted and obtained from October 2020 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Of the 55,228 patients, 46.6% were males, 55.9% were aged ≥ 50 years, and most patients (88.7%) had no underlying diseases. The majority (84.3%; n = 46,576) were classified as having mild-to-moderate illness, with 11.2% (n = 6,168) and 4.5% (n = 2,484) having severe and critical illness, respectively. Antibiotics were prescribed to 27.3% (n = 15,081) of the total study population, and to 73.8%, 87.6%, and 17.9% of patients with severe, critical, and mild-to-moderate illness, respectively. Fluoroquinolones were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics (15.1%; n = 8,348), followed by third-generation cephalosporins (10.4%; n = 5,729) and beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors (6.9%; n = 3,822). Older age, COVID-19 severity, and underlying medical conditions contributed significantly to antibiotic prescription requirement. The antibiotic use rate was higher in the influenza group (57.1%) than in the total COVID-19 patient group (21.2%), and higher in severe-to-critical COVID-19 cases (66.6%) than in influenza cases.

CONCLUSION

Although most patients with COVID-19 had mild to moderate illness, more than a quarter were prescribed antibiotics. Judicious use of antibiotics is necessary for patients with COVID-19, considering the severity of disease and risk of bacterial co-infection.

Effectiveness of regdanvimab treatment for SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, which exhibited decreased in vitro activity: a nationwide real-world multicenter cohort study

Background

Immune-evading severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are emerging continuously. The clinical effectiveness of monoclonal antibody agents that exhibit decreased in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants needs to be elucidated.

Methods

A nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody agent. Regdanvimab was prescribed in South Korea before and after the emergence of the delta variant, against which the in vitro activity of regdanvimab was decreased but present. Mild to moderate coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients with risk factors for disease progression who were admitted within seven days of symptom onset were screened in four designated hospitals between December 2020 and September 2021. The primary outcomes, O₂ requirements and progression to severe disease within 21 days of admission, were compared between the regdanvimab and supportive care groups, with a subgroup analysis of delta variant-confirmed patients.

Results

A total of 2,214 mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were included, of whom 1,095 (49.5%) received regdanvimab treatment. In the analysis of the total cohort, significantly fewer patients in the regdanvimab group than the supportive care group required O₂ support (18.4% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001) and progressed to severe disease (4.0% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, regdanvimab was significantly associated with a decreased risk for O₂ support (HR 0.677, 95% CI 0.561-0.816) and progression to severe disease (HR 0.489, 95% CI 0.337-0.709). Among the 939 delta-confirmed patients, O₂ support (21.5% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.526) and progression to severe disease (4.2% vs. 7.3%, P = 0.055) did not differ significantly between the regdanvimab and supportive care groups. In the multivariable analyses, regdanvimab treatment was not significantly associated with a decreased risk for O₂ support (HR 0.963, 95% CI 0.697-1.329) or progression to severe disease (HR 0.665, 95% CI 0.349-1.268) in delta-confirmed group.

Conclusions

Regdanvimab treatment effectively reduced progression to severe disease in the overall study population, but did not show significant effectiveness in the delta-confirmed patients. The effectiveness of dose increment of monoclonal antibody agents should be evaluated for variant strains exhibiting reduced susceptibility.

Remdesivir Use in the Real-World Setting: An Overview of Available Evidence

In the years of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), various treatment options have been utilized. COVID-19 continues to circulate in the global population, and the evolution of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has posed significant challenges to the treatment and prevention of infection. Remdesivir (RDV), an anti-viral agent with in vitro efficacy against coronaviruses, is a potent and safe treatment as suggested by a plethora of in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials. Emerging real-world data have confirmed its effectiveness, and there are currently datasets evaluating its efficacy and safety against SARS-CoV-2 infections in various clinical scenarios, including some that are not in the SmPC recommendations according for COVID-19 pharmacotherapy. Remdesivir increases the chance of recovery, reduces progression to severe disease, lowers mortality rates, and exhibits beneficial post-hospitalization outcomes, especially when used early in the course of the disease. Strong evidence suggests the expansion of remdesivir use in special populations (e.g., pregnancy, immunosuppression, renal impairment, transplantation, elderly and co-medicated patients) where the benefits of treatment outweigh the risk of adverse effects. In this article, we attempt to overview the available real-world data of remdesivir pharmacotherapy. With the unpredictable course of COVID-19, we need to utilize all available knowledge to bridge the gap between clinical research and clinical practice and be sufficiently prepared for the future.

Triple immune modulator therapy for aberrant hyperinflammatory responses in severe COVID-19

A dysregulated hyperinflammatory response is a key pathogenesis of severe COVID-19, but optimal immune modulator treatment has not been established. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of double (glucocorticoids and tocilizumab) and triple (plus baricitinib) immune modulator therapy for severe COVID-19, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. For the immunologic investigation, a single-cell RNA sequencing analysis was performed in serially collected PBMCs and neutrophil specimens. Triple immune modulator therapy was a significant factor in a multivariable analysis for 30-day recovery. In the scRNA-seq analysis, type I and II IFN response-related pathways were suppressed by GC, and the IL-6-associated signature was additionally downregulated by TOC. Adding BAR to GC and TOC distinctly downregulated the ISGF3 cluster. Adding BAR also regulated the pathologically activated monocyte and neutrophil subpopulation induced by aberrant IFN signals. Triple immune modulator therapy in severe COVID-19 improved 30-day recovery through additional regulation of the aberrant hyperinflammatory immune response.

Remdesivir Influence on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Viral Load Kinetics in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: A Real-Life Experience

There are still conflicting data on the virological effects of the SARS-CoV-2 direct antivirals used in clinical practice, in spite of the documented clinical efficacy. The aim of this monocentric retrospective study was to compare virologic and laboratory data of patients admitted due to SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to December 2020 treated with either remdesivir (R), a protease inhibitor (lopinavir or darunavir/ritonavir (PI)) or no direct antiviral drugs (NT). Viral load variation was indirectly assessed through PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values on the nasopharyngeal swab, analyzing the results from swabs obtained at ward admission and 7 (±2) days later. Overall, 253 patients were included: patients in the R group were significantly older, more frequently males with a significantly higher percentage of severe COVID-19, requiring more often intensive care admission, compared to the other groups. Ct variation over time did not differ amongst the three treatment groups and did not seem to be influenced by corticosteroid use, even after normalization of the treatment groups for disease severity. Non-survivors had lower Ct on admission and showed a significantly slower viral clearance compared to survivors. CD4 T-lymphocytes absolute count assessed at ward admission correlated with a reduced Ct variation over time. In conclusion, viral clearance appears to be slower in COVID-19 non-survivors, while it seems not to be influenced by the antiviral treatment received.

COVID-19 Outbreak in Daegu City, Korea and Response to COVID-19: How Have We Dealt and What Are the Lessons?

The first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Daegu city was overcome by efforts, including; 1) prompt isolation and quarantine action by local government with cooperative help from expert groups and the central government, 2) high-intensity social distancing and active cooperation of citizens, 3) admission of asymptomatic and mild patients in 'residential treatment centers', and 4) use of a telephone scoring system for the allocation of patients, with a mortality rate of 2.5%. A continuous suppression policy with test, tracing, and treatment (3 Ts) was implemented as an active response to the initial outbreaks in Korea. With the introduction of vaccines and therapeutic agents, the COVID-19 crisis had improved. Recently, the omicron variant was responsible for most domestic outbreaks, albeit with a low mortality rate (0.1%). Since the omicron outbreak, a damage mitigation policy has been implemented, focusing on protecting vulnerable groups. In the future, preparation including below are needed; 1) improving the national public health emergency response system, 2) strengthening the crisis response capacity of local governments, 3) cooperation between public healthcare and private healthcare, and 4) establishing a resilient medical response system.

How We Have Treated Severe to Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues. In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient's situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.

Treatment Options for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to threaten public health in Korea although several surges have passed in the past 3 years since 2019. Although patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can usually recover at home, antiviral therapy to prevent disease progression and hospitalization is beneficial for those at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. The purpose of this article was to review how antivirals have been rolled out for the treatment of COVID-19 and how domestic and international guidelines for their use have evolved. Several evidence-based treatment guidelines have been developed in Korea, including those derived from domestic studies. Although many different antiviral agents were nominated as promising therapeutics at the onset of the pandemic, most failed to show efficacy in clinical trials. Currently, three types of antiviral agents-nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir-are available in Korea to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Each antiviral has its advantages and disadvantages. For most individuals, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is preferred because of its high efficacy and convenience of administration. When serious drug interactions occur or are expected with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration, 3 days of remdesivir treatment is shown to be a reasonable alternative. Molnupiravir may be prescribed with caution only if no other therapeutic options are available or acceptable.

Can nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment shorten the duration of COVID-19 isolation?

Background

The impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment on shedding of viable virus in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear.

Methods

A prospective cohort study evaluating mildly ill COVID-19 patients was conducted. Virologic responses were compared between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treatment and supportive care groups. Risk factors and relevant clinical factors for shedding of viable virus were investigated.

Results

A total of 80 COVID-19 patients were enrolled and 222 sputum specimens were collected. Ten patients were dropped during follow-up, and 33 patients in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 37 in the supportive care groups were compared. The median age was 67 years, and 67% were male. Clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Viral loads decreased significantly faster in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group compared with the supportive care group (P < 0.001), and the slope was significantly steeper (-2.99 ± 1.54 vs. -1.44 ± 1.52; P < 0.001). The duration of viable virus shedding was not statistically different between groups. In the multivariable analyses evaluating all collected specimens, male gender (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25-5.03, P = 0.010), symptom score (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, P = 0.015), days from symptom onset (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.002), complete vaccination (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.87, P = 0.038), and BA.2 subtype (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = 0.025) were independently associated with viable viral shedding, while nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was not.

Conclusion

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment effectively reduced viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants but did not decrease the duration of viable virus shedding.

No effect of remdesivir or betamethasone on upper respiratory tract SARS-CoV-2 RNA kinetics in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The viral kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 has been considered clinically important. While remdesivir and corticosteroids are recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support, there is a limited number of published reports on viral kinetics in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir or corticosteroids.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study by collecting longitudinal samples from the nasopharynx/throat of 123 hospitalised patients (median age 55 years, 74% male) with COVID-19, to evaluate the effects of remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment on viral RNA levels. The subjects were divided into four groups: those receiving remdesivir (n = 25), betamethasone (n = 41), both (n = 15), or neither (n = 42). Time to viral RNA clearance was analysed using Kaplan-Meier plots, categorical data were analysed using Fisher's exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous data. Viral RNA decline rate was analysed using a mixed effect model.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 RNA decline rate or time to SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance between the groups. Moreover, clinical status at baseline was not correlated with time to viral clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA kinetics was not affected by treatment, repeated sampling from the upper respiratory tract cannot be used to evaluate treatment response.

Greek Remdesivir Cohort (GREC) Study: Effectiveness of Antiviral Drug Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia

In several randomized studies, remdesivir (RDV) has been reported to shorten the recovery period and improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and thus, it is recommended as a standard of care. Nevertheless, controversial reports have been published. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at three Greek University Departments of Infectious Diseases with homogenous treatment protocols. From September 2020 to February 2021, we retrospectively analyzed adults hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiological findings of pneumonia, who received remdesivir once daily for five days. Exploratory end points were duration of hospitalization, time of intubation, and death. Overall, 551 patients were included in the study. The optimal cutoff point for the number of days needed after symptom initiation for drug administration associated with better clinical outcome was 7 days. Higher odds for discharge and lower for intubation were observed in patients with treatment initiation ≤7 days (p = 0.052 and p = 0.019, retrospectively) regardless of gender (p = 0.537), hypertension (p = 0.096), dyslipidemia (p = 0.221), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.306), and usage of immunomodulators (p = 0.408). Our study has demonstrated beneficial effects of early treatment with remdesivir (≤7 days from symptom onset) on rates of intubation and probability of discharge.

Severity-Adjusted Dexamethasone Dosing and Tocilizumab Combination for Severe COVID-19

PURPOSE

Real-world experience with tocilizumab in combination with dexamethasone in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) needs to be investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of severity-adjusted dosing of dexamethasone in combination with tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 from August 2020 to August 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day clinical recovery, which was defined as no oxygen requirement or referral after recovery.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients were evaluated, including 33 patients in the dexamethasone (Dexa) group and 33 patients in the dexamethasone plus tocilizumab (DexaToci) group. The DexaToci group showed a statistically significant benefit in 30-day clinical recovery, compared to the Dexa group (p=0.024). In multivariable analyses, peak FiO₂ within 3 days and tocilizumab combination were consistently significant for 30-day recovery (all p<0.05). The DexaToci group showed a significantly steeper decrease in FiO₂ (-4.2±2.6) than the Dexa group (-2.7±2.6; p=0.021) by hospital day 15. The duration of oxygen requirement was significantly shorter in the DexaToci group than the Dexa group (median, 10.0 days vs. 17.0 days; p=0.006). Infectious complications and cellular and humoral immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the convalescence stage were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A combination of severity-adjusted dexamethasone and tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 improved clinical recovery without increasing infectious complications or hindering the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

Remdesivir significantly reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load on nasopharyngeal swabs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective case-control study

Remdesivir is a broad‐spectrum antiviral agent able to inhibit the RNA polymerase of SARS‐CoV‐2. At present, studies focusing on the effect of remdesivir on viral load (VL) are few and with contrasting results. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on SARS‐CoV‐2 VL from nasopharyngeal swabs (cycle threshold criterion) in a sample of patients treated with the drug, compared with patients who did not receive the antiviral treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with (1) real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis and (2) availability of at least two positive nasopharyngeal swabs analysed with the same analytic platform (ORF target gene, Ingenius ELITe, ELITechGroup, Puteaux, France). Upper respiratory specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at admission (T0) and 7–14 days after treatment, upon clinical decision. A total of 27 patients treated with remdesivir (Group A) met the inclusion criteria and were compared with 18 patients (Group B) treated with standard care, matched for baseline clinical characteristics. At baseline, both remdesivir‐treated and nontreated patients showed comparable VLs (21.73 ± 6.81 vs. 19.27 ± 5.24, p = 0.348). At the second swab, remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper VL reduction with respect to controls (34.28 ± 7.73 vs. 27.22 ± 3.92; p < 0.001). Longitudinal linear model estimated a mean decrease in cycle threshold equal to 0.61 (SE: 0.09) per day in remdesivir‐treated versus 0.33 (SE: 0.10) per day in remdesivir nontreated patients (p for heterogeneity = 0.045). The present study shows that the administration of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients significantly reduces the VL on nasopharyngeal swabs.

Remdesivir's effect on viral load has not been extensively studied

Remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper viral load reduction compared to controls

This could impact on the optimal timing of administration to prevent disease progression

Antivirals for Coexistence with COVID-19: Brief Review for General Physicians

In order to end the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that has lasted for nearly two years, it is most necessary to introduce antiviral drugs specific to COVID-19 along with the establishment of herd immunity by vaccination. Candidates currently being studied include nucleoside analogues that inhibit replication, protease inhibitors, and entry blockers. Not only the virus itself, but also the host protein that the virus uses in its pathogenesis is the target of treatment. Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will not be completely eradicated, if the use of antiviral drugs is established, the COVID-19 pandemic will end through coexistence with the virus.

Lack of correlation between the SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct ) value and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19

Problem

The utility of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle threshold (C_t) values in the management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) remains controversial.

Methods

We assessed the correlation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) C_t values in nasopharyngeal swab samples with the oxygen requirements at the time of sample collection. Specimens were tested with the Simplexa PCR platform, which targets the SARS‐CoV‐2 ORF1ab and S genes.

Results

We identified 23 COVID‐19 patients with 49 C_t values available. While C_t values from ORF1ab and S genes were highly correlated for a given specimen, there was no correlation between C_t values for any of these target genes and the oxygen requirements of the patient at the time of sample collection. We found no differences in the initial nor the nadir C_t values between survivors and non‐survivors or mild/moderate versus severe/critical illness at the maximum point of illness.

Conclusion

SARS‐CoV‐2 C_t values have limited value in the management of COVID‐19.

Therapeutic Effectiveness and Safety of Repurposing Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19: Position Standing in 2021

COVID-19, transmitted by SARS-CoV-2, is one of the most serious pandemic situations in the history of mankind, and has already infected a huge population across the globe. This horrendously contagious viral outbreak was first identified in China and within a very short time it affected the world's health, transport, economic, and academic sectors. Despite the recent approval of a few anti-COVID-19 vaccines, their unavailability and insufficiency along with the lack of other potential therapeutic options are continuing to worsen the situation, with valuable lives continuing to be lost. In this situation, researchers across the globe are focusing on repurposing prospective drugs and prophylaxis such as favipiravir, remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, azithromycin, doxycycline, ACEIs/ARBs, rivaroxaban, and protease inhibitors, which were preliminarily based on in vitro and in vivo pharmacological and toxicological study reports followed by clinical applications. Based on available preliminary data derived from limited clinical trials, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and USFDA also recommended a few drugs to be repurposed i.e., hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and favipiravir. However, World Health Organization later recommended against the use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19 infections. Combining basic knowledge of viral pathogenesis and pharmacodynamics of drug molecules as well as in silico approaches, many drug candidates have been investigated in clinical trials, some of which have been proven to be partially effective against COVID-19, and many of the other drugs are currently under extensive screening. The repurposing of prospective drug candidates from different stages of evaluation can be a handy wellspring in COVID-19 management and treatment along with approved anti-COVID-19 vaccines. This review article combined the information from completed clinical trials, case series, cohort studies, meta-analyses, and retrospective studies to focus on the current status of repurposing drugs in 2021.

Current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, more than 150 million people in over 200 countries have been infected, with over 3 million people dying due to it, as of May 1, 2021. Many researchers are working continuously to find effective drug treatments for COVID-19; however, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear. In this article, current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19 are discussed. Data obtained from recent studies indicate a mortality benefit with the administration of dexamethasone or adjunctive tocilizumab and potential clinical benefits with remdesivir (with or without baricitinib). Several monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been developed. The US Food and Drug Administration issued two emergency use authorizations: one for bamlanivimab/etesevimab and another for casirivimab/imdevimab for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, at high risk of progression to severe disease and/or hospitalization. The pathogenesis of COVID-19 indicates that antiviral treatments would be most beneficial in the early phase of the infection that is primarily driven by replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapies are likely to be more beneficial during the late phase of the infection, when the disease is driven by an exaggerated immune/inflammatory response to the virus that causes tissue damage.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.