Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Real life experience on the use of Remdesivir in patients admitted to COVID-19 in two referral Italian hospital: a propensity score matched analysis

Remdesivir (RDV) was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for COVID-19, with discordant data on efficacy in reducing mortality risk and disease progression. In the context of a dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic landscape, the utilization of real-world evidence is of utmost importance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RDV on patients who have been admitted to two university referral hospitals in Italy due to COVID-19. All patients older than 18 years and hospitalized at two different universities (Bari and Palermo) were enrolled in this study. To minimize the effect of potential confounders, we used propensity score matching with one case (Remdesivir) and one control that never experienced this kind of intervention during hospitalization. Mortality was the primary outcome of our investigation, and it was recorded using death certificates and/or medical records. Severe COVID-19 was defined as admission to the intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. After using propensity score matching, 365 patients taking Remdesivir and 365 controls were included. No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of mean age and percentage of females, while patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently active smokers (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently vaccinated against COVID-19. All the other clinical, radiological, and pharmacological parameters were balanced between the two groups. The use of Remdesivir in our cohort was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality during the follow-up period (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.86; p = 0.007). Moreover, RDV was associated with a significantly lower incidence of non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.36). Furthermore, in the 365 patients taking Remdesivir, we observed two cases of mild renal failure requiring a reduction in the dosage of Remdesivir and two cases in which the physicians decided to interrupt Remdesivir for bradycardia and for QT elongation. Our study suggests that the use of Remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a safe therapy associated with improved clinical outcomes, including halving of mortality and with a reduction of around 75% of the risk of invasive ventilation. In a constantly changing COVID-19 scenario, ongoing research is necessary to tailor treatment decisions based on the latest scientific evidence and optimize patient outcomes.

Comparison of WHO versus national COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines across the world: not exactly a perfect match

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic affected all WHO member states. We compared and contrasted the COVID-19 treatment guidelines of each member state with the WHO COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines.

METHODS

Ministries of Health or accessed National Infectious Disease websites and other relevant bodies and experts were contacted to obtain national guidelines (NGs) for COVID-19 treatment. NGs were included only if they delineated specific pharmacological treatments for COVID-19, which were stratified by disease severity. We conducted a retrospective review using the adapted Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG) survey checklist and a derived comparative metric based on the WHO guidelines was performed.

RESULTS

COVID-19 therapeutics NGs could be obtained from 109 of the 194 WHO member states. There was considerable variation in guidelines and in disease severity stratifications. Therapeutic recommendations in many NGs differed substantially from the WHO guidelines. Overall in late 2022, 93% of NGs were recommending at least one treatment which had proved to be ineffective in large randomised trials, and was not recommended by WHO. Corticosteroids were not recommended in severe disease in nearly 10% of NGs despite overwhelming evidence of their benefit. NGs from countries with low-resource settings showed the greatest divergence when stratified by gross domestic product per year, Human Development Index and the Global Health Security Index.

DISCUSSION

Our study is limited to NGs that were readily accessible, and it does not reflect the availability of recommended medicines in the field. Three years after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, available COVID-19 NGs vary substantially in their therapeutic recommendations, often differ from the WHO guidelines, and commonly recommend ineffective, unaffordable or unavailable medicines.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of ivermectin (IVM) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial, yet the drug has been widely used in the world. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of IVM in patients with COVID-19. From inception to June 22, 2023, the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and scopus databases were searched for relevant observational studies on the risk of RA in migraineurs. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv to collect all relevant publications from inception to June 22, 2023. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement, PCR negative conversion, and adverse events (AEs). Revman 5.4 was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence. Thirty-three RCTs (n = 10,489) were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between IVM and controls. There were significant differences in MV requirement (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96) and AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) between the two groups. Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.

Acute Respiratory Failure From Early Pandemic COVID-19: Noninvasive Respiratory Support vs Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for initial respiratory support in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 is unclear, and the initial strategy may affect outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which initial respiratory support strategy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support and admitted to a large health care network were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high-flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary outcome was time to in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths of stay (ICU and hospital), and time to intubation.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half of the 2,354 patients (47%) who met inclusion criteria received IMV first, and 53% received initial NIRS. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 38% (37% for IMV and 39% for NIRS). Initial NIRS was associated with an increased hazard of death compared with initial IMV (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94), but also an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner that waned with time (noninvasive support by time interaction: hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with NIRS showed an increased hazard of in-hospital death.

Use of Remdesivir in children with COVID-19: report of an Italian multicenter study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is generally milder in children than in adults, however severe infection has been described in some patients. Few data are available on use of Remdesivir (RDV) in children, as most clinical trials focused on adult patients. We report a multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian Hospitals to investigate the safety of RDV in children affected by COVID-19.

METHODS

We collected the clinical data of children with COVID-19 treated with RDV between March 2020 and February 2022 in 10 Italian hospitals. Clinical data were compared according to a duration of RDV therapy more or less than 5 days. Linear regression model was used to determine the association of significant variables from the bivariate analysis to the duration of RDV therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were included, with a median age of 12.8 years. Many patients had at least one comorbidity (78%), mostly obesity. Symptoms were fever (88%), cough (74%) and dyspnea (68%). Most patients were diagnosed with pneumonia of either viral and/or bacterial etiology. Blood test showed leukopenia in 66% and increased C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in 63% of cases. Thirty-six patients received RDV for 5 days, nine patients up to 10 days. Most children who received RDV longer were admitted to the PICU (67%). Treatment with RDV was well tolerated with rare side effects: bradycardia was recorded in 6% of cases, solved in less than 24 h after discontinuation. A mild elevation of transaminases was observed in 26% of cases, however for the 8%, it was still detected before the RDV administration. Therefore, in these cases, we could not establish if it was caused by COVID-19, RDV o both. Patients who received RDV for more than 5 days waited longer for its administration after pneumonia diagnosis. The presence of comorbidities and the duration of O2 administration significantly correlated with the duration of RDV therapy at the linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our experience indicates that RDV against SARS-CoV-2 is safe and well-tolerated in pediatric populations at high risk of developing severe COVID-19. Our data suggest that delaying RDV therapy after diagnosis of pneumonia may be associated with a longer duration of antiviral therapy, especially in patients with comorbidities.

Novel subtypes of severe COVID-19 respiratory failure based on biological heterogeneity: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID).

METHODS

Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes.

RESULTS

Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model.

CONCLUSIONS

We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Interventions reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of randomized evidence

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 pandemic changed the way medical research is published, possibly forever. As the need for rapidity led to the rise of preprint servers, the undeniable drop in the overall quality of scientific publications requires an in-depth review of all available evidence. The present manuscript aims to identify and summarize all treatments which have been reported to reduce mortality in randomized trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Independent investigators searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify all randomized trials of any intervention influencing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to August 18th, 2022. Articles were selected only when they fulfilled all the following: randomized trial design; dealing with any kind of interventions in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and statistically significant reduction in mortality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 28 interventions (42 manuscripts) reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. About 60% of the studies (26/42) were multicentric, for a total of 1140 centers involved worldwide. Several of these studies were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals. Interventions with randomized evidence of mortality reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patients belonged to 5 domains: corticosteroids, immunomodulators, antimicrobials, supportive therapies, and other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions have the potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The correct treatment of future pandemics relies on large, multicentric randomized clinical trials for further evaluation of these promising strategies.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

COVID-19: On the threshold of the fifth year. The situation in Spain

Despite having emerged from pandemic status, the incidence of COVID-19 episodes has recently increased in Spain, including pediatric cases and admissions to Intensive Care Units. Several recombinant variants are circulating among us, particularly XBB arising from two Omicron BA.2 sublineages with mutations in the genes encoding the spicule proteins that could increase binding to the ACE2 receptor and be more prone to immune escape. Faced with these, 3 pharmaceutical companies have developed vaccines adapted to the XBB.1.5 sublineage that are already available for administration in our setting with risks that should not be different from those of previous mRNA vaccines and with clearly favorable benefit/risk ratios. They should be applied to patients with potential for poor COVID-19 evolution and to collectives that have a particular relationship of proximity with them. Their application should be understood not only from a perspective of individual convenience but also from that of collective responsibility. The most convenient seems to be a simultaneous immunization of COVID-19 and influenza in our environment. In the therapeutic aspect, there is little to expect right now from antisera, but the already known antiviral drugs are still available and indicated, although their efficacy will have to be reevaluated due to their impact on populations that are mostly immunized and with a better prognosis than in the past. In our opinion, it is necessary to continue to make a reasonable and timely use of masks and other non-pharmacological means of protection.

Antimicrobial consumption in an acute NHS Trust during the COVID-19 pandemic: intervention time series analysis

Objective

To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial consumption and trends of therapeutic drugs for COVID-19 treatments, including corticosteroids, remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies (tocilizumab) from April 2017 to September 2022 in a secondary care NHS Trust in England.

Methods

A retrospective intervention time series analysis was conducted for April 2017 to September 2022 at the Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust. Data were retrieved from the pharmacy dispensing system as defined daily doses (DDDs) monthly and reported per 1000 occupied bed days (OBDs). Antimicrobial consumption and COVID-19 treatment options were measured. DDDs were calculated according to the classification of antimicrobials for systemic use (J01) and for other drugs classification. Trends for antimicrobial consumption and other therapeutic drugs for treating COVID-19 were also determined in each wave in England.

Results

During the pandemic: total antibiotic consumption decreased from 826.4 to 728.2 DDDs per 1000 OBDs (P = 0.0067); piperacillin/tazobactam use increased (P < 0.0001) and ciprofloxacin use decreased (P < 0.0001); there were no changes in Access, Watch, Reserve antibiotic use, and the proportion of antifungal consumption was consistent throughout the study. The use of total antibiotics (P = 0.024), levofloxacin (P = 0.0007), piperacillin/tazobactam (P = 0.0015) and co-amoxiclav (P = 0.0198) increased during wave one. Consumption of COVID-19 treatment drugs was highest during wave two, with 624.3 DDDs per 1000 OBDs for dexamethasone (P = 0.4441), 6.8 DDDs per 1000 OBDs for remdesivir (P < 0.0001) and 35.01 DDDs per 1000 OBDs for tocilizumab (P = 0.2544).

Discussion

This study determined the consumption of antimicrobials trends before and during the pandemic. The individual wave antimicrobial consumption indicates maximum consumption in the first wave, advocating for antimicrobial stewardship and preparedness for future pandemics.

Structure-based design of SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease inhibitors

The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus with high transmissibility and mutation rate. Given the paucity of orally bioavailable antiviral drugs to combat SARS-CoV-2 infection, there is a critical need for additional antivirals with alternative mechanisms of action. Papain-like protease (PLpro) is one of the two SARS-CoV-2 encoded viral cysteine proteases essential for viral replication. PLpro cleaves at three sites of the viral polyproteins. In addition, PLpro antagonizes the host immune response upon viral infection by cleaving ISG15 and ubiquitin from host proteins. Therefore, PLpro is a validated antiviral drug target. In this study, we report the X-ray crystal structures of papain-like protease (PLpro) with two potent inhibitors, Jun9722 and Jun9843. Subsequently, we designed and synthesized several series of analogs to explore the structure-activity relationship, which led to the discovery of PLpro inhibitors with potent enzymatic inhibitory activity and antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Together, the lead compounds are promising drug candidates for further development.

Clinical development of antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

The unceasing global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) calls for the development of novel therapeutics. Although many newly developed antivirals and repurposed antivirals have been applied to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antivirals showing satisfactory clinical efficacy are few in number. In addition, the loss of sensitivity to variants of concern (VOCs) and lack of oral bioavailability have also limited the clinical application of some antivirals. These facts remind us to develop more potent and broad-spectrum antivirals with better pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties to fight against infections from SARS-CoV-2, its variants, and other human coronaviruses (HCoVs). In this review, we summarize the latest advancements in the clinical development of antivirals against infections by SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Metabolic and toxicological considerations regarding CGRP mAbs and CGRP antagonists to treat migraine in COVID-19 patients: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Migraine pharmacological therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), including monoclonal antibodies and gepants, have shown clinical effect and optimal tolerability. Interactions between treatments of COVID-19 and CGRP-related drugs have not been reviewed.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of CGRP, a description of the characteristics of each CGRP-related drug and its response predictors, COVID-19 and its treatment, the interactions between CGRP-related drugs and COVID-19 treatment, COVID-19 and vaccination-induced headache, and the neurological consequences of Covid-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinicians should be careful about using gepants for COVID-19 patients, due to the potential drug interactions with drugs metabolized via CYP3A4 cytochrome. In particular, COVID-19 treatment (especially nirmatrelvir packaged with ritonavir, as Paxlovid) should be considered cautiously. It is advisable to stop or adjust the dose (10 mg atogepant when used for episodic migraine) of gepants when using Paxlovid (except for zavegepant). CGRP moncolconal antibodies (CGRP-mAbs) do not have drug - drug interactions, but a few days' interval between a COVID-19 vaccination and the use of CGRP mAbs is recommended to allow the accurate identification of the possible adverse effects, such as injection site reaction. Covid-19- and vaccination-related headache are known to occur. Whether CGRP-related drugs would be of benefit in these circumstances is not yet known.

The Modified Clinical Progression Scale for Pediatric Patients: Evaluation as a Severity Metric and Outcome Measure in Severe Acute Viral Respiratory Illness

OBJECTIVES

To develop, evaluate, and explore the use of a pediatric ordinal score as a potential clinical trial outcome metric in children hospitalized with acute hypoxic respiratory failure caused by viral respiratory infections.

DESIGN

We modified the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale for pediatric patients (CPS-Ped) and assigned CPS-Ped at admission, days 2-4, 7, and 14. We identified predictors of clinical improvement (day 14 CPS-Ped ≤ 2 or a three-point decrease) using competing risks regression and compared clinical improvement to hospital length of stay (LOS) and ventilator-free days. We estimated sample sizes (80% power) to detect a 15% clinical improvement.

SETTING

North American pediatric hospitals.

PATIENTS

Three cohorts of pediatric patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure receiving intensive care: two influenza (pediatric intensive care influenza [PICFLU], n = 263, 31 sites; PICFLU vaccine effectiveness [PICFLU-VE], n = 143, 17 sites) and one COVID-19 ( n = 237, 47 sites).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Invasive mechanical ventilation rates were 71.4%, 32.9%, and 37.1% for PICFLU, PICFLU-VE, and COVID-19 with less than 5% mortality for all three cohorts. Maximum CPS-Ped (0 = home at respiratory baseline to 8 = death) was positively associated with hospital LOS ( p < 0.001, all cohorts). Across the three cohorts, many patients' CPS-Ped worsened after admission (39%, 18%, and 49%), with some patients progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (19%, 11%, and 17%). Despite this, greater than 76% of patients across cohorts clinically improved by day 14. Estimated sample sizes per group using CPS-Ped to detect a percentage increase in clinical improvement were feasible (influenza 15%, n = 142; 10%, n = 225; COVID-19, 15% n = 208) compared with mortality ( n > 21,000, all), and ventilator-free days (influenza 15%, n = 167).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPS-Ped can be used to describe the time course of illness and threshold for clinical improvement in hospitalized children and adolescents with acute respiratory failure from viral infections. This outcome measure could feasibly be used in clinical trials to evaluate in-hospital recovery.

Recent advances towards natural plants as potential inhibitors of SARS-Cov-2 targets

CONTEXT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is still ongoing and currently the most striking epidemic disease. With the rapid global spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants, new antivirals are urgently needed to avert a more serious crisis. Inhibitors from traditional medicines or natural plants have shown promising results to fight COVID-19 with different mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVES

To provide comprehensive and promising approaches to the medical community in the fight against this epidemic by reviewing potential plant-derived anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors.

METHODS

Structural databases such as TCMSP (http://lsp.nwu.edu.cn/tcmsp.php), TCM Database @ Taiwan (http://tcm.cmu.edu.tw/), BATMAN-TCM (http://bionet.ncpsb.org/batman-tcm/) and TCMID (http://www.megabionet.org/tcmid/), as well as PubMed, Sci Finder, Research Gate, Science Direct, CNKI, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles on TCMs and natural products against SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Seven traditional Chinese medicines formulas have unique advantages in regulating the immune system for treating COVID-19. The plant-derived natural compounds as anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors were identified based on 5 SARS-CoV-2 key proteins, namely, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), 3 C-like protease (3CLpro), papain-like protease (PLpro), spike (S) protein, and nucleocapsid (N) protein.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of natural products, such as flavonoids, terpenoids, phenols, and alkaloids, were identified, which could be used as potential SASR-Cov-2 inhibitors. These shed new light on the efficient discovery of SASR-Cov-2 inhibitors from natural products.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical Antiviral Efficacy of Remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Adaptive Platform Trial (PLATCOV)

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty over the therapeutic benefit of parenteral remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in varying treatment guidelines.

METHODS

In a multicenter open-label, controlled, adaptive, pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200 mg followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) clearance (estimated under a linear model fit to the daily log10 viral densities, days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates, in a modified intention-to-treat population. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).

RESULTS

The 2 study arms enrolled 131 patients (remdesivir n = 67, no study drug n = 64) and estimated viral clearance rates from a median of 18 swab samples per patient (a total of 2356 quantitative polymerase chain reactions). Under the linear model, compared with the contemporaneous control arm (no study drug), remdesivir accelerated mean estimated viral clearance by 42% (95% credible interval, 18%-73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric assessment of therapeutics using the method described can determine in vivo clinical antiviral efficacy rapidly and efficiently.

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.

Exploring diverse reactive warheads for the design of SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors

SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) is a validated antiviral drug target of nirmatrelvir, the active ingredient in Pfizer's oral drug Paxlovid. Drug-drug interactions limit the use of Paxlovid. In addition, drug-resistant Mpro mutants against nirmatrelvir have been identified from cell culture viral passage and naturally occurring variants. As such, there is a need for a second generation of Mpro inhibitors. In this study, we explored several reactive warheads in the design of Mpro inhibitors. We identified Jun11119R (vinyl sulfonamide warhead), Jun10221R (propiolamide warhead), Jun1112R (4-chlorobut-2-ynamide warhead), Jun10541R (nitrile warhead), and Jun10963R (dually activated nitrile warhead) as potent Mpro inhibitors. Jun10541R and Jun10963R also had potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 cells with EC50 values of 2.92 and 6.47 μM, respectively. X-ray crystal structures of Mpro with Jun10541R and Jun10221 revealed covalent modification of Cys145. These Mpro inhibitors with diverse reactive warheads collectively represent promising candidates for further development.

Remdesivir in pregnant women with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a retrospective cohort study

Data on the efficacy of remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited in pregnant patients since they have been excluded from clinical trials. We aimed to investigate some clinical outcomes following remdesivir administration in pregnancy. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on pregnant women with moderate to severe COVID-19. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups with and without remdesivir treatment. The primary outcomes of this study were the length of hospital and intensive care unit stay; respiratory parameters of hospital day 7 including respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and mode of oxygen support; discharge until days 7 and 14, and need for home oxygen therapy. Secondary outcomes included some maternal and neonatal consequences. Eighty-one pregnant women (57 in the remdesivir group and 24 in the non-remdesivir group) were included. The two study groups were comparable according to the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Of the respiratory outcomes, remdesivir was significantly associated with a reduced length of hospital stay (p = 0.021) and also with a lower level of oxygen requirement in patients on low-flow oxygen [odds ratio (OR) 3.669]. Among the maternal consequences, no patients in the remdesivir group developed preeclampsia but three patients (12.5%) experienced this complication in the non-remdesivir group (p = 0.024). Furthermore, in patients with moderate COVID-19, the percentage of emergency termination was significantly lower in remdesivir group (OR 2.46). Our results demonstrated some probable benefits of remdesivir in respiratory and also maternal outcomes. Further investigations with a larger sample size should confirm these results.

Respiratory virus infections after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: Current understanding, knowledge gaps, and recent advances

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, common community-acquired seasonal respiratory viruses (CARVs) were a significant threat to the health and well-being of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients, often resulting in severe illness and even death. The pandemic has further highlighted the significant risk that immunosuppressed patients, including allo-HCT recipients, face when infected with SARS-CoV-2. As preventive transmission measures are relaxed and CARVs circulate again among the community, including in allo-HSCT recipients, it is crucial to understand the current state of knowledge, gaps, and recent advances regarding CARV infection in allo-HCT recipients. Urgent research is needed to identify seasonal respiratory viruses as potential drivers for future pandemics.

Effect of Swine Glyco-humanized Polyclonal Neutralizing Antibody on Survival and Respiratory Failure in Patients Hospitalized With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of XAV-19, an antispike glyco-humanized swine polyclonal neutralizing antibody in patients hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

This phase 2b clinical trial enrolled adult patients from 34 hospitals in France. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 within 14 days of onset of symptoms that required hospitalization for low-flow oxygen therapy (<6 L/min of oxygen). Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 or placebo. The primary end point was the occurrence of death or severe respiratory failure between baseline and day 15.

Results

Between January 12, 2021, and April 16, 2021, 398 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to XAV-19 or placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 388 participants who received full perfusion of XAV-19 (199 patients) or placebo (189 patients). The mean (SD) age was 59.8 (12.4) years, 249 (64.2%) individuals were men, and the median time (interquartile range) from symptom onset to enrollment was 9 (7-10) days. There was no statistically significant decrease in the cumulative incidence of death or severe respiratory failure through day 15 in the XAV-19 group vs the placebo group (53/199 [26.6%] vs 48/189 [25.4%]; adjusted risk difference, 0.6%; 95% CI, -6% to 7%; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64-1.66; P = .90). In the safety population, adverse events were reported in 75.4% of 199 patients in the XAV-19 group and in 76.3% of 190 patients in the placebo group through D29.

Conclusions

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring low-flow oxygen therapy, treatment with a single intravenous dose of XAV-19, compared with placebo, did not show a significant difference in terms of disease progression at day 15.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

From Emergence to Endemicity: A Comprehensive Review of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), later renamed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019. Initially, the China office of the World Health Organization was informed of numerous cases of pneumonia of unidentified etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province at the end of 2019. This would subsequently result in a global pandemic with millions of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and millions of deaths reported to the WHO. We have analyzed most of the data published since the beginning of the pandemic to compile this comprehensive review of SARS-CoV-2. We looked at the core ideas, such as the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical symptoms, diagnostics, histopathologic findings, consequences, therapies, and vaccines. We have also included the long-term effects and myths associated with some therapeutics of COVID-19. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 virology, vaccines, medicines, and significant variants identified during the course of the pandemic. Our review article is intended to provide medical practitioners with a better understanding of the fundamental sciences, clinical treatment, and prevention of COVID-19. As of May 2023, this paper contains the most recent data made accessible.

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Remdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients' respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir.

METHODS

This was a multicentre observational cohort study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and were treated with dexamethasone. Rapid clinical improvement in response to treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 1 L of supplemental oxygen per minute or discharge from the hospital within 72 h after admission. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between remdesivir and rapid clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rate and hospitalisation duration.

RESULTS

Of 871 patients included, 445 were treated with remdesivir. There was no influence of remdesivir on the occurrence of rapid clinical improvement (62% vs 61% OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.40; p = 0.76). The in-hospital mortality was lower (14.7% vs 19.8% OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48-1.02; p = 0.06) for the remdesivir-treated patients. Rapid clinical improvement occurred more often in patients with low C-reactive protein (≤ 75 mg/L) and short duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation (< 7 days) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.56).

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir generally does not increase the incidence of rapid clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but it might have an effect in patients with short duration of symptoms and limited signs of systemic inflammation.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir in Treating Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: A Propensity Score Analysis of Real-Life Data from a Monocentric Observational Study in Times of Health Emergency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir is an antiviral agent, which was shown to be safe and effective in treating early COVID-19, but its favourable impact in hospitalised patients with non-critical disease is still under investigation. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir as a treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 by a propensity score analysis of observational data.

METHODS

In this monocentric retrospective cohort study, the effectiveness and safety of a 5-day course of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously at Day 1, then 100 mg from Days 2-5) in association with the standard of care were assessed in comparison with the standard of care only. The primary endpoint was the proportion of recovery on Day 14.

RESULTS

Of 3662 eligible inpatients who tested positive for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 genome by nasopharyngeal swab at admission, 861 (24%) non-critical patients were included in a propensity score analysis and 281 (33%) were exposed to remdesivir. In total, 242/281 (86.1%) and 435/580 (75.0%) patients recovered in exposed and non-exposed, respectively, with a relative improvement of 11.1% (95% CI + 5.8 to 16.5%; unadjusted odds ratio: 2.07, 95% CI 1.40-3.05, p = 0.0001; after adjustment by propensity score weighting, odds ratio: 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83, p = 0.001). In treated patients, 1 (0.03%) anaphylactic reaction and 1 (0.03%) acute reaction during drug injection were reported, and 24 (8.5%) patients stopped the treatment due to adverse reactions. No significant differences were found with respect to the secondary efficacy endpoints (in-hospital all-cause death, need for intensive care treatments, clinical improvement score at Day 28) and safety endpoints (any and serious adverse reactions).

CONCLUSION

A 5-day course of remdesivir in association with the standard of care effectively promoted recovery from COVID-19 among non-critical in-hospital patients and had an acceptable safety profile.

Remdesivir and SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19 progression in hematological patients: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Patients with hematological malignancies (HM) are at high risk of COVID-19 progression. Hence, early treatments to prevent progression are needed. The aim of our work was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir (RDV) and SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in patients with HM and mild-to-moderate disease in real clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in a tertiary hospital in 55 HM patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 disease diagnosed between August 2021 and July 2022 and who received RDV or mAb to prevent COVID-19 progression (related death or hospitalization). The primary endpoint was COVID-19 progression on day 28. Other outcomes were COVID-19 progression beyond day 28 and viral load evolution.

RESULTS

RDV was administered to 44 (80.0%) patients and mAb to 11 (20.0%) patients. Death occurred in 1 (1.8%) patient and hospitalization in 9 (16.4%) patients by day 28, respectively; 3 patients (5.5%) required intensive care and 8 (14.5%), oxygen support. Of note, 5 additional patients [15, (27.3%) in total] died or required hospitalization after day 28. Two hazard Cox regression models yielded the absence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, age over 65 years, and ECOG-performance status ≥ 2 as the main risk factors for COVID-19-related death or hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Our results from clinical practice suggest that RDV and SARS-CoV-2 mAb therapies elicit worse outcomes in hematological patients than those reported for high-risk population in clinical trials.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Drug repurposing for COVID-19: current evidence from randomized controlled adaptive platform trials and living systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a race to develop effective treatments largely through drug repurposing via adaptive platform trials on a global scale. Drug repurposing trials have focused on potential antiviral therapies aimed at preventing viral replication, anti-inflammatory agents, antithrombotic agents and immune modulators through a number of adaptive platform trials. Living systematic reviews have also enabled evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis as clinical trial data emerge globally.

SOURCES OF DATA

Recent published literature.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.

GROWING POINTS

Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.

An Overview on Anti-COVID-19 Drug Achievements and Challenges Ahead

The appearance of several coronavirus pandemics/epidemics during the last two decades (SARS-CoV-1 in 2002, MERS-CoV in 2012, and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019) indicates that humanity will face increasing challenges from coronaviruses in the future. The emergence of new strains with similar transmission characteristics as SARS-CoV-2 and mortality rates similar to SARS-CoV-1 (∼10% mortality) or MERS-CoV (∼35% mortality) in the future is a terrifying possibility. Therefore, getting enough preparations to face such risks is an inevitable necessity. The present study aims to review the drug achievements and challenges in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 with a combined perspective derived from pharmacology, pharmacotherapy, and medicinal chemistry insights. Appreciating all the efforts made during the past few years, there is strong evidence that the desired results have not yet been achieved and research in this area should still be pursued seriously. By expressing some pessimistic possibilities and concluding that the drug discovery and pharmacotherapy of COVID-19 have not been successful so far, this short essay tries to draw the attention of responsible authorities to be more prepared against future coronavirus epidemics/pandemics.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Bench-to-bedside: Innovation of small molecule anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs in China

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths globally, highlighting the need to develop potent prophylactic and therapeutic strategies against SARS-CoV-2. Small molecule inhibitors (remdesivir, Paxlovid, and molnupiravir) are essential complements to vaccines and play important roles in clinical treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Many advances have been made in development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors in China, but progress in discovery and characterization of pharmacological activity, antiviral mechanisms, and clinical efficacy are limited. We review development of small molecule anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs (azvudine [approved by the NMPA of China on July 25, 2022], VV116 [approved by the NMPA of China on January 29, 2023], FB2001, WPV01, pentarlandir, and cepharanthine) in China and summarize their pharmacological activity, potential mechanisms of action, clinical trials and use, and important milestones in their discovery. The role of structural biology in drug development is also reviewed. Future studies should focus on development of diverse second-generation inhibitors with excellent oral bioavailability, superior plasma half-life, increased antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, high target specificity, minimal side effects, reduced drug-drug interactions, and improved lung histopathology.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Agents and Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with SLE: A Case-Control Study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related disease (COVID-19) has spread pandemically with high rates of morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 has also posed unprecedented challenges in terms of rapid development of pharmacological countermeasures to prevent or contrast SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents and monoclonal antibodies have been specifically designed to attenuate COVID-19 morbidity and prevent mortality in vulnerable subjects, such as patients with immune-mediated diseases, but evidence for the safe and effective use of these drugs in this latter population group is scarce. Therefore, we designed a retrospective, multicentre, observational, case-control study to analyse the impact of these treatments in COVID-19 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a paradigmatic, multi-organ autoimmune disease. We identified 21 subjects treated with antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies who were matched with 42 untreated patients by age, sex, SLE extension and duration. Treated patients had higher baseline SLE disease activity index 2000 scores [SLEDAI-2K median (interquartile range) = 4 (1-5) vs. 0 (0-2); p = 0.009], higher prednisone doses [5 (0-10) mg vs. 0 (0-3) mg; p = 0.002], and more severe COVID-19 symptoms by a five-point World Health Organisation-endorsed analogue scale [1 (0-1) vs. 0 (0-1); p < 0.010] compared to untreated patients. There was no difference between groups in terms of COVID-19 outcomes and sequelae, nor in terms of post-COVID-19 SLE exacerbations. Three subjects reported mild adverse events (two with monoclonal antibodies, one with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir). These data suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antivirals and monoclonal antibodies might be safely and effectively used in patients with SLE, especially with active disease and more severe COVID-19 symptoms at presentation.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Remdesivir: Effectiveness and Safety in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (ReEs-COVID-19)-Analysis of Data from Daily Practice

Remdesivir was the first antiviral approved for treating COVID-19. We investigated its patterns of use, effectiveness and safety in clinical practice in Greece. This is a retrospective observational study of hospitalized adults who received remdesivir for COVID-19 in September 2020-February 2021. The main endpoints were the time to recovery (hospital discharge within 30 days from admission) and safety. The "early" (remdesivir initiation within 24 h since hospitalization) and "deferred" (remdesivir initiation later on) groups were compared. One thousand and four patients (60.6% male, mean age 61 years, 74.3% with severe disease, 70.9% with ≥1 comorbidities) were included, and 75.9% of them were on a 5-day regimen, and 86.8% were in the early group. Among those with a baseline mild/moderate disease, the median (95% CI) time to recovery was 8 (7-9) and 12 (11-14) days for the early and deferred groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The corresponding estimates for those with a severe disease were 10 (9-10) and 13 (11-15) days, respectively (p = 0.028). After remdesivir initiation, increased serum transaminases and an acute kidney injury were observed in 6.9% and 2.1%, respectively. Nine (0.9%) patients discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. The effectiveness of remdesivir was increased when it was taken within 24 h since admission regardless of the disease severity. Remdesivir's safety profile is similar to that described in clinical trials and other real-world cohorts.

Translatability scoring in prospective and retrospective COVID drug development cases

BACKGROUND

The ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to an enormous surge of clinical research. So far, the speed and success rate of related drug development projects, especially of vaccines, is unprecedented. For the first time, this situation allowed for the opportunistic evaluation of a translatability score, originally proposed in 2009, in a prospective manner.

METHODS

Several vaccines and treatments under development in clinical phase III trials were selected for translational scoring with the translatability score. Six prospective and six retrospective case studies were performed. The scores had to be determined for a fictive date before any results of the phase III trial were reported in any media. Spearman correlation analysis and a Kruskal Wallis test were performed for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

A significant correlation between the translatability scores and the clinical outcomes in translation was found, as judged on the basis of positive/intermediate/negative endpoint studies or market approval. The Spearman correlation analysis of all cases (r = 0.91, p < 0.001), the prospective cases alone (r = 0.93, p = 0.008), and the retrospective cases alone (r = 0.93, p = 0.008) showed a strong correlation between the score and outcome; R2 demonstrated a score-derived determination of outcomes by 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

The score detects strengths and weaknesses of a given project, resulting in the opportunity of selective amelioration of a project, as well as prospective portfolio risk balancing. Its substantial predictive value that has been demonstrated here for the first time could be of particular interest for biomedical industry (pharmaceutical and device manufacturers), funding agencies, venture capitalists, and researchers in the area. Future evaluations will have to address the generalizability of results obtained in an exceptional pandemic situation, and the potential adaptations of weighing factors/items to particular therapeutic areas.

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.

An Updated Systematic Review on Remdesivir's Safety and Efficacy in Patients Afflicted With COVID-19

Globally, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a significant impact on everyone's lives and put a tremendous strain on healthcare systems. Since the outbreak began, remdesivir has been investigated as a potential treatment for COVID-19 that may be both effective and safe. Remdesivir has had a huge impact on the disease's progression, complications, and mortality. This review provides an updated assessment of the literature regarding remdesivir's efficacy and safety for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. The search was performed through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus for articles published from 2019 to September 20, 2022. Studies that assessed remdesivir's efficacy and safety were included in this review, with clinical improvements as the primary outcome measure. Seventeen studies were identified following the implementation of the search strategy. Among them, 11 corroborated remdesivir's efficacy. Meanwhile, the remaining six studies did not observe a statistically significant difference in clinical improvement. Remdesivir is a potentially safe and effective antiviral that shows clinical improvement especially when used during the early course of the disease. However, current literature still questions its safety in patients who are afflicted with the complications of COVID-19, highlighting the need for studies on a large scale.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Single and Multiple Ascending Intravenous Infusions of PF-07304814 (Lufotrelvir) in Participants Hospitalized With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

An urgent need remains for antiviral therapies to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. PF-07304814-the prodrug (lufotrelvir) and its active moiety (PF-00835231)-is a potent inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease.

METHOD

Eligible participants were 18 to 79 years old and hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19. This first-in-human phase 1b study was designed with 2 groups: single ascending dose (SAD) and multiple ascending dose (MAD). Participants could receive local standard-of-care therapy. In SAD, participants were randomized to receive a 24-hour infusion of lufotrelvir/placebo. In MAD, participants were randomized to receive a 120-hour infusion of lufotrelvir/placebo. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety and tolerability of lufotrelvir. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lufotrelvir and PF-00835231.

RESULTS

In SAD, participants were randomized to receive 250 mg lufotrelvir (n = 2), 500 mg lufotrelvir (n = 2), or placebo (n = 4) by continuous 24-hour infusion. In MAD, participants were randomized to receive 250 mg lufotrelvir (n = 7), 500 mg lufotrelvir (n = 6), or placebo (n = 4) by continuous 120-hour infusion. No adverse events or serious adverse events were considered related to lufotrelvir. At doses of 250 and 500 mg, concentrations for the prodrug lufotrelvir and active moiety PF-00835231 increased in a dose-related manner. Unbound concentrations of the lufotrelvir active metabolite reached steady state approximately 2- and 4-fold that of in vitro EC90 following 250- and 500-mg doses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These safety and pharmacokinetic findings support the continued evaluation of lufotrelvir in clinical studies. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04535167.

COVID-19 in patients with liver disease and liver transplant: clinical implications, prevention, and management

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had enormous implications for the care of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD), cirrhosis, and liver transplant (LT). Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 vary in patients with CLD and cirrhosis compared to healthy controls, and in patients with LT compared to patients without LT. Several special considerations apply to the approach to vaccination and treatment in patients with CLD and LT. The practice of liver transplantation has also been heavily impacted by the pandemic, including persistent reductions in living donor LT and increases in LT for an indication of alcohol-related liver disease. Recent medical society guidelines strive to standardize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing in donors and recipients and the approach to transplantation after recovered from COVID-19 infection, but certain controversies remain.

Real-world use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients admitted to Italian hospitals with COVID-19: the nationwide retrospective FADOI-RECOVER study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is widely used for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir, and their outcomes during hospitalization.

METHODS

This retrospective observational multicenter study included consecutive patients, hospitalized for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (September 2020-September 2021), who were treated with remdesivir.

RESULTS

One thousand four patients were enrolled, all with onset of symptoms occurring less than 10 days before starting remdesivir; 17% of patients had 4 or more concomitant diseases. Remdesivir was well tolerated, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) being reported in 2.3% of patients. In-hospital death occurred in 80 patients (8.0%). The median timing of the first remdesivir dose was 5 days after symptom onset. The following endpoints did not differ according to the time span from the onset of symptoms to the first dose: length of hospitalization, in-hospital death, composite outcome (in-hospital death and/or endotracheal intubation). Advanced age, number of comorbidities ≥ 4, and severity of respiratory failure at admission were associated with poor in-hospital outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, remdesivir proved to be a safe and well-tolerated treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. In patients receiving remdesivir less than 3 or 5 days from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation did not differ from the rest of the sample.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

NASAFYTOL® supplementation in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: results from an exploratory open-label randomized controlled trial

Objectives

The effect and safety of Nasafytol^®, a food supplement combining curcumin, quercetin, and Vitamin D, on hospitalized COVID-19-positive patients as support to standard of care were to be assessed.

Methods

This exploratory, open-label, randomized, controlled trial was carried out among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 infection. Participants were randomly assigned to receive Nasafytol^® or Fultium^® control. The improvement of the clinical condition and occurrence of (serious) adverse events were evaluated. The study was registered on clincaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT04844658.

Results

Twenty-five patients received Nasafytol^®, and 24 received Fultium^®. Demographic characteristics were well balanced between the groups. On day 14 (or at hospital leave if < 14 days), no difference was observed between groups regarding their clinical condition, fever, or the need of oxygen therapy. At day 7, however, 19 participants had been discharged from the hospital in the Nasafytol^® arm compared to 10 participants in the Fultium^® arm. No participants were transferred to the ICU or died in the Nasafytol^® arm, vs. 4 transfers and 1 death in the Fultium^® arm. The clinical condition of participants in the Nasafytol^® arm had improved, as evidenced by a decrease in the COVID-19 WHO score. Interestingly, five SAEs occurred with Fultium^®, while no SAE was observed with Nasafytol^®.

Conclusion

Supplementation with Nasafytol^®, in addition to standard-of-care treatment, led to a faster discharge from the hospital, improved clinical conditions of participants, and a reduced risk of serious outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit or death, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.