Associations of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment with death and clinical improvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave in Beijing, China: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has mainly been shown in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir urgently needs to be determined using representative in-hospital patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre, retrospective study in five Chinese PLA General Hospital medical centers in Beijing, China. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 10 December 2022 to 20 February 2023 were eligible for inclusion. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and the control group.

RESULTS

1010 recipients of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 1010 matched controls were finally analyzed after matching. Compared with matched controls, the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group had a lower incidence rate of all-cause death (4.6/1000 vs. 6.3/1000 person-days, p = 0.013) and a higher incidence rate of clinical improvement (47.6/1000 vs. 45.8/1000 person-days, p = 0.012). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 22% lower all-cause mortality and a 14% higher incidence of clinical improvement. Initiation of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days after symptom onset was associated with a 50% lower mortality and a 26% higher clinical improvement rate. By contrast, no significant associations were identified among patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment more than 5 days after symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also associated with a 50% increase in survival days and a 12% decrease in days to clinical improvement.

CONCLUSION

Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave in Beijing, China, the early initiation of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with clinical benefits of lowering mortality and improving clinical recovery.

Secondary infections and long-term outcomes among hospitalized elderly and non-elderly patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and treated with baricitinib: a comparative study from the national centre of Hungary

Baricitinib is considered a first-line treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected adult patients with an associated cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). Our objective was to compare rates of secondary infections and long-term outcomes of elderly and non-elderly patients who received baricitinib for COVID-19. We conducted a single-centre observational study between November 2020 and September 2023, focusing on hospitalized adult SARS-CoV-2 patients with CSS, categorized as elderly (≥ 65 years) and non-elderly (< 65 years). Enrolment, severity stratification, and diagnosis of infectious complications followed predefined criteria. Outcomes of all-cause mortality and rates of non-severe and severe secondary infections were assessed at 1-year post-treatment initiation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for survival analysis. In total, 490 patients were enrolled (median age 65 ± 23 (21-100) years (years, median ± IQR, min-max); 49.18% elderly; 59.59% male). Elderly patients were admitted to the hospital significantly earlier (7 ± 5 days vs. 8 ± 4 days; p = 0.02), experienced a higher occurrence of severe COVID-19 (121/241, 50.21% vs. 98/249, 39.36%; p = 0.02), and required the use of non-invasive ventilation at baseline (167/225, 74.22% vs. 153/236, 64.83%; p = 0.03). At 1 year, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the elderly subgroup (111/241, 46.06% vs. 29/249, 11.65%; p < 0.01). At 90 days and 1 year, rates of any severe secondary infection were also more prevalent among the elderly (56/241, 23.24% vs. 37/249 14.86%; p = 0.02 and 58/241, 24.07% vs. 39/249, 15.66%; p = 0.02). In conclusion, elderly SARS-CoV-2-infected patients experience a more severe clinical course, higher secondary infection rates, and increased risk for long-term mortality, regardless of immunomodulatory therapy.

History of Changes in the Protocol of Clinical Trial of Zinc Supplementation in Treatment of COVID-19 by Hydroxychloroquine

An article published in this journal used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of combining chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) and zinc in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Findings from this study indicate that zinc supplements did not enhance the clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in improving COVID-19 treatment. Although this finding is consistent with many previous studies, several concerns regarding study protocol and trial registration, including interventions and primary outcomes, have been raised in which the protocol has been changed after the completion of the recruitment.

Acute COVID-19 treatment is not associated with health problems 2 years after hospitalization

OBJECTIVES

Various mechanisms, such as immune dysregulation, viral reservoir, and auto-immunity, are hypothesized to underlie the pathogenesis of long-term health problems after hospitalization for COVID-19. We aimed to assess the effect of in-hospital COVID-19 treatments on prominent long-term health problems.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter cohort study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Netherlands between July 2020 and October 2021. We retrospectively collected data on in-hospital COVID-19 treatments, including steroid, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral treatments. Patients completed questionnaires on self-reported recovery, dyspnea, fatigue, cognitive failures, and health-related quality of life and performed the 6-minute walk test at the 2-year follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Five hundred two patients with COVID-19 were included, all were discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and June 2021. The median age at admission was 60.0 (IQR 53.0-68.0) years and 350 (69.7%) patients were male. At hospital admission, 5/405 (1.2%) of the patients had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Among all 502 patients, the majority (248 [49.4%]) received steroids only, 57 (11.4%) anti-inflammatory treatment, 78 (15.5%) antiviral treatment, and 119 (23.7%) none during hospitalization. Long-term health problems were common in all groups. We found that in-hospital treatments were not significantly associated with health problems at 2 years after hospital discharge, nor after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with COVID-19 suffer from long-term health problems 2 years after hospital discharge. Acute treatment for COVID-19 is not associated with long-term health problems.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine for adult inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19

BACKGROUND

In China, both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) and azvudine have been granted approval to treat adult SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with moderate symptoms. Information about the clinical effect of the two available agents among inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19 is scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of Paxlovid and azvudine among adult inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in two large medical centres after the epidemic control measures were lifted in China. A new propensity score matched-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort was constructed to evaluate the in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 955 individuals were in the cohort. The antiviral therapy strategies were decided by the senior physician and the supplies of the pharmacy. A total of 451 patients were in the Paxlovid group, and 504 patients were in the azvudine group. Compared with Paxlovid, the effects of azvudine on in-hospital all-cause mortality were not significantly different, and the OR (95% CI) was 1.084 (0.822 to 1.430), and the average hospital length of stay of patients discharged alive was also similar in the azvudine group, and the difference (day) and (95% CI) was 0.530 (-0.334 to 1.393). After 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in the SOFA score was greater in the Paxlovid group than in the azvudine group (p<0.001). The change in glomerular filtration rate was not significantly different (p=0.824).

CONCLUSION

Paxlovid and azvudine had similar effectiveness on in-hospital all-cause mortality and hospital length of stay. Compared with the azvudine group, after 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in SOFA score was significantly higher in the Paxlovid group. These findings need to be verified in larger prospective studies or randomised controlled trials.

Advances in the application of traditional Chinese medicine during the COVID-19 recovery period: A review

Since the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, significant advancements has been made in research, from limited knowledge about the disease to the development of a vaccine. Although the severity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) appears to be decreasing and the threat of COVID-19 is waning, there have been widespread concerns about persistent symptoms or sequelae experienced by some patients even after recovering from COVID-19. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has shown favorable treatment outcomes during the onset of COVID-19, and extensive studies have been carried out to explore the efficacy of TCM interventions during the COVID-19 recovery period. The purpose of this review is to comprehensively analyze these studies and provide new insights for the prevention and treatment of the post-COVID-19 condition.

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established.

METHODS

In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28.

RESULTS

Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab versus no treatment in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 patients in north west London: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effectiveness of sotrovimab vs no early COVID-19 treatment in highest-risk COVID-19 patients during Omicron predominance.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using the Discover dataset in North West London. Included patients were non-hospitalised, aged ≥12 years and met ≥1 National Health Service highest-risk criterion for sotrovimab treatment. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare HRs of 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalisation/death between highest-risk sotrovimab-treated and untreated patients. Age, renal disease and Omicron subvariant subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We included 599 sotrovimab-treated patients and 5191 untreated patients. Compared with untreated patients, the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation/death (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24, 1.06; p=0.07) and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18, 1.00; p=0.051) were both lower in the sotrovimab-treated group; however, statistical significance was not reached. In the ≥65 years and renal disease subgroups, sotrovimab was associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, by 89% (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02, 0.82; p=0.03) and 82% (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05, 0.62; p=0.007), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation in sotrovimab-treated patients aged ≥65 years and with renal disease was significantly lower compared with untreated patients. Overall, risk of hospitalisation was also lower for sotrovimab-treated patients, but statistical significance was not reached.

BPR3P0128, a non-nucleoside RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and exerts synergistic antiviral activity in combination with remdesivir

Viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), a highly conserved molecule in RNA viruses, has recently emerged as a promising drug target for broad-acting inhibitors. Through a Vero E6-based anti-cytopathic effect assay, we found that BPR3P0128, which incorporates a quinoline core similar to hydroxychloroquine, outperformed the adenosine analog remdesivir in inhibiting RdRp activity (EC50 = 0.66 µM and 3 µM, respectively). BPR3P0128 demonstrated broad-spectrum activity against various severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern. When introduced after viral adsorption, BPR3P0128 significantly decreased SARS-CoV-2 replication; however, it did not affect the early entry stage, as evidenced by a time-of-drug-addition assay. This suggests that BPR3P0128's primary action takes place during viral replication. We also found that BPR3P0128 effectively reduced the expression of proinflammatory cytokines in human lung epithelial Calu-3 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. Molecular docking analysis showed that BPR3P0128 targets the RdRp channel, inhibiting substrate entry, which implies it operates differently-but complementary-with remdesivir. Utilizing an optimized cell-based minigenome RdRp reporter assay, we confirmed that BPR3P0128 exhibited potent inhibitory activity. However, an enzyme-based RdRp assay employing purified recombinant nsp12/nsp7/nsp8 failed to corroborate this inhibitory activity. This suggests that BPR3P0128 may inhibit activity by targeting host-related RdRp-associated factors. Moreover, we discovered that a combination of BPR3P0128 and remdesivir had a synergistic effect-a result likely due to both drugs interacting with separate domains of the RdRp. This novel synergy between the two drugs reinforces the potential clinical value of the BPR3P0128-remdesivir combination in combating various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

COVID-19 hospitalization risk after outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, January to August 2022, North Carolina

BACKGROUND

In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods.

RESULTS

Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.

Concordance between SARS-CoV-2 index individuals and their household contacts on index individual COVID-19 transmission cofactors: a comparison of self-reported and contact-reported information

BACKGROUND

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, several clinical trials have evaluated postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) among close contacts of an index individual with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because index individuals do not directly inform the efficacy of prevention interventions, they are seldom enrolled in COVID-19 PEP studies. However, adjusting for prognostic covariates such as an index individual's COVID-19 illness and risk behaviors can increase precision in PEP efficacy estimates, so approaches to accurately collecting this information about the index individual are needed. This analysis aimed to assess whether surveying household contacts captures the same information as surveying the index individual directly.

METHODS

REGN 2069/CoVPN 3502, a randomized controlled trial of COVID-19 PEP, enrolled household contacts of SARS-CoV-2 index individuals. CoVPN 3502-01 retrospectively enrolled and surveyed the index individuals. We compared responses to seven similar questions about the index individuals' transmission cofactors that were asked in both studies. We estimated the percent concordance between index individuals and their household contacts on each question, with 50% concordance considered equivalent to random chance.

RESULTS

Concordance between index individuals and contacts was high on the most objective questions, approximately 97% (95% CI: 90-99%) for index individual age group and 96% (88-98%) for hospitalization. Concordance was moderate for symptoms, approximately 85% (75-91%). Concordance on questions related to the index individual's behavior was only slightly better or no better than random: approximately 62% (51-72%) for whether they received COVID-19 treatment, 68% (57-77%) for sharing a bedroom, 70% (59-79%) for sharing a common room, and 49% (39-60%) for mask wearing at home. However, while contacts were surveyed within 96 h of the index individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the median time to enrollment in CoVPN 3502-01 was 240 days, which may have caused recall bias in our results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a need to survey index individuals directly in order to accurately capture their transmission cofactors, rather than relying on their household contacts to report on their behavior. The lag in enrolling participants into CoVPN 3502-01 also highlights the importance of timely enrollment to minimize recall bias.

Dosing and Administration Strategies of Tocilizumab in Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab may reduce the risk of death, length of stay, and time of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited data are available evaluating low-dose subcutaneous administration of tocilizumab in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of 2 tocilizumab dosing and administration strategies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving tocilizumab 400 mg intravenously (400 mg IV) or 162 mg subcutaneously (162 mg SC). Hospitalized patients receiving a single dose of tocilizumab were eligible for inclusion and grouped by dosing and administration strategy. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day 28. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, mechanical ventilation required after dose, 28-day readmission, 28-day mortality, and change in inflammatory markers.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients were included, with 147 who received tocilizumab 400 mg IV and 156 who received 162 mg SC. There was no significant difference in average ventilator-free days at day 28 in patients receiving 400 mg IV compared with 162 mg SC (26.4 ± 5.3 vs 25.6 ± 6.8 days, respectively; P = 0.812). There was also no difference in LOS (10.4 ± 12.6 vs 10.5 ± 14.0 days; P = 0.637), ICU LOS (3.9 ± 9.0 vs 3.5 ± 8.3 days; P = 0.679), mechanical ventilation after dose (15.6% vs 19.2%; P = 0.412), 28-day readmission (6.1% vs 9.6%; P = 0.268), or 28-day mortality (23.1% vs 25.6%; P = 0.611). Finally, there was no difference regarding change in inflammatory markers at 48 hours (P > 0.05 for all interactions).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective study involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference between tocilizumab 162 mg SC and 400 mg IV in terms of efficacy. The 162 mg SC dose may be a reasonable alternative to traditional doses.

Effectiveness of remdesivir-based therapy for moderate COVID-19: comparison of Omicron and other variant phases

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the sustained antiviral activity against Omicron variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been reported. In this single-center retrospective study, we first compared the clinical effectiveness of remdesivir-based therapy between Omicron and other variant phases of moderate COVID-19 in a real-world setting. Between Dec 2020 and July 2022, a total of 406 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were treated with remdesivir-based therapy on admission. The oxygen deterioration rate after initiation of treatment significantly decreased in the Omicron variant phase compared to the alpha and delta variant phases. In an adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, Omicron variant phase was significantly associated with delayed oxygen deterioration and early recovery from hypoxia. These favorable outcomes during the Omicron variant phase, compared to previous variant phases, might be due to the attenuation and the popularization of vaccination.

Clinical safety of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with renal insufficiency

Though remdesivir benefits COVID-19 patients, its use in those with renal dysfunction is currently limited due to concerns about possible toxic effects of accumulated sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin (SBECD) on liver and kidney. We examined renal and hepatic function for a month in renally-impaired COVID-19 patients who were treated or not treated with remdesivir to assess the safety of the drug. A retrospective study was performed in adult COVID-19 patients with glomerular filtration rates of <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 at admission to a tertiary care hospital between November 2020 and March 2022. Data on serum creatinine and liver chemistry were collected serially. A total of 101 patients with impaired renal function were analyzed, comprising 64 remdesivir-treated patients and 37 who did not receive any antiviral agent. Although remdesivir-treated patients were more likely to be infected with the Omicron variant (79.7% vs. 48.6%), baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Among patients who initially did not require dialysis, 18.4% (7/38) of remdesivir-treated patients developed acute kidney injury (AKI) at days 4-6, compared with 51.7% (15/29) of non-remdesivir-treated patients. Liver injury severity worsened in 3.1% (2/64) of remdesivir-treated patients and 5.4% (2/37) of non-remdesivir-treated patients at days 4-6. In addition, there was no significant increase in AKI and liver injury over time in remdesivir-treated patients, and there were no cases of discontinuation of remdesivir due to adverse reactions. Concerns regarding the safety of SBECD should not lead to hasty withholding of remdesivir treatment in renally-impaired COVID-19 patients.

Specific adverse outcomes associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors use in COVID-19 patients might be potentiated by remdesivir use

BACKGROUND

Due to non-consistent reports in the literature, there are uncertainties about the potential benefits and harms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIM

To investigate associations of SSRIs with clinical characteristics and unwanted outcomes among real-life severe and critical COVID-19 patients and their relationship with remdesivir (RDV) use.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 1558 COVID-19 patients of the white race treated in a tertiary center institution, among them 779 patients treated with RDV and 779 1:1 case-matched patients.

RESULTS

A total of 78 (5%) patients were exposed to SSRIs during hospitalization, similarly distributed among patients treated with RDV and matched patients (5.1 and 4.9%). No significant associations of SSRI use with age, sex, comorbidity burden, and COVID-19 severity were present in either of the two cohorts (p > 0.05 for all analyses). In multivariate analyses adjusted for clinically meaningful variables, SSRI use was significantly associated with higher mortality among RDV (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.0, p = 0.049) and matched patients (aOR 2.22, p = 0.044) and with higher risk for mechanical-ventilation (aOR 2.57, p = 0.006), venous-thromboembolism (aOR 3.69, p = 0.007), and bacteremia (aOR 2.22, p = 0.049) among RDV treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse outcomes associated with SSRI use in COVID-19 patients might be potentiated by RDV use, and clinically significant interactions between these two drug classes might exist. Although our findings raise important considerations for clinical practice, they are limited by retrospective nature of the study, lack of ethnic diversity, and the potential for unmeasured confounding factors. Future studies exploring underlying biological mechanisms are needed.

Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir combination against COVID-19 caused by omicron BA.2.2 in the elderly: A single-center large observational study

BACKGROUND

Since coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) swept the world, a variety of novel therapeutic and prevention strategies have been developed, among which nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is highly recommended. We intended to assess the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the elderly mild-to-moderate COVID-19 population caused by the omicron BA.2.2 variant in real-world settings.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted retrospectively to review the outcomes of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients admitted between April 26 and June 30, 2022. Patients' baseline characteristics were collected and assessed. Participants in the intervention group were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in addition to standard care, whereas those in the control group only received standard care. The primary outcome was the duration between the initial positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and the subsequent conversion to a negative result.

RESULTS

The analysis included 324 patients who were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and an equal number of control patients. The patient characteristics in both groups were evenly matched. The average duration from the initial positive RT-PCR to negative conversion was similar in both groups (16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 16.1 ± 6.3 days, p = .83). Control patients exhibited slower conversion in comparison to patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment within 10 days of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that administering nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 10 days of symptom onset could potentially reduce the time it takes for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients to negative RT-PCR results, thereby expanding the current usage guidelines for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Preclinical evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor RAY1216 shows improved pharmacokinetics compared with nirmatrelvir

Although vaccines are available for SARS-CoV-2, antiviral drugs such as nirmatrelvir are still needed, particularly for individuals in whom vaccines are less effective, such as the immunocompromised, to prevent severe COVID-19. Here we report an α-ketoamide-based peptidomimetic inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), designated RAY1216. Enzyme inhibition kinetic analysis shows that RAY1216 has an inhibition constant of 8.4 nM and suggests that it dissociates about 12 times slower from Mpro compared with nirmatrelvir. The crystal structure of the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro:RAY1216 complex shows that RAY1216 covalently binds to the catalytic Cys145 through the α-ketoamide group. In vitro and using human ACE2 transgenic mouse models, RAY1216 shows antiviral activities against SARS-CoV-2 variants comparable to those of nirmatrelvir. It also shows improved pharmacokinetics in mice and rats, suggesting that RAY1216 could be used without ritonavir, which is co-administered with nirmatrelvir. RAY1216 has been approved as a single-component drug named 'leritrelvir' for COVID-19 treatment in China.

Design of a SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease inhibitor with antiviral efficacy in a mouse model

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and drug-resistant mutants calls for additional oral antivirals. The SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease (PLpro) is a promising but challenging drug target. We designed and synthesized 85 noncovalent PLpro inhibitors that bind to a recently discovered ubiquitin binding site and the known BL2 groove pocket near the S4 subsite. Leads inhibited PLpro with the inhibitory constant Ki values from 13.2 to 88.2 nanomolar. The co-crystal structures of PLpro with eight leads revealed their interaction modes. The in vivo lead Jun12682 inhibited SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, including nirmatrelvir-resistant strains with EC50 from 0.44 to 2.02 micromolar. Oral treatment with Jun12682 improved survival and reduced lung viral loads and lesions in a SARS-CoV-2 infection mouse model, suggesting that PLpro inhibitors are promising oral SARS-CoV-2 antiviral candidates.

Predictors of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir receipt among COVID-19 patients in a large US health system

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.

Proteomic characteristics of the treatment trajectory of patients with COVID-19

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has prompted global concern due to its profound impact on public health and the economy. Effective treatment of COVID-19 patients in the acute phase or of those with long COVID is a major challenge. Using data-independent acquisition (DIA) technology, we performed proteomic profiling on plasma samples from 22 COVID-19 patients and six healthy controls at Dazhou Central Hospital. Random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator algorithms were used for analysis at various COVID-19 treatment stages. We identified 79 proteins that were differentially expressed between COVID-19 patients and healthy controls, mainly involving pathways associated with cell processes and binding. Across different treatment stages of COVID-19, five proteins-PI16, GPLD1, IGFBP3, KRT19, and VCAM1-were identified as potential molecular markers for dynamic disease monitoring. Furthermore, the proteins BTD, APOM, IGKV2-28, VWF, C4BPA, and C7 were identified as candidate biomarkers for distinguishing between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and negativity. Analysis of protein change profiles between the follow-up and healthy control groups highlighted cardiovascular changes as a concern for patients recovering from COVID-19. Our study revealed the infection profiles of SARS-CoV-2 at the protein expression level comparing different phases of COVID-19. DIA mass spectrometry analysis of plasma samples from COVID-19 patients undergoing treatment identified key proteins involved in signaling pathways that might be used as markers of the recovery phase. These findings provide insight for the development of therapy options and suggest potential blood biomarkers for COVID-19.

Adaptative Strategy of Immunosuppressive Drugs Dosage Adjustments When Combined With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With COVID-19

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is a promising option for preventing severe COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, concerns have arisen regarding potential drug interactions with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI). This two-phase multicentre retrospective study, involving 113 patients on tacrolimus and 13 on cyclosporine A, aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of recommendations issued by The French societies of transplantation (SFT) and pharmacology (SFPT) for CNI management in this context. The study first evaluated adherence to recommendations, CNI exposure, and clinical outcomes. Notably, 96.5% of patients on tacrolimus adhered to the recommendations, maintaining stable tacrolimus trough concentrations (C0) during nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment. After reintroduction, most patients experienced increased C0, with 42.9% surpassing 15 ng/mL, including three patients exceeding 40 ng/mL. Similar trends were observed in cyclosporine A patients, with no COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Moreover, data from 22 patients were used to refine the reintroduction strategy. Modelling analyses suggested reintroducing tacrolimus at 50% of the initial dose on day 8, and then at 100% from day 9 as the optimal approach. In conclusion, the current strategy effectively maintains consistent tacrolimus exposure during nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment, and a stepwise reintroduction of tacrolimus may be better suited to the low CYP3A recovery.

Comparative effectiveness of dexamethasone in treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States during the first year of the pandemic: Findings from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data repository

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone was approved for use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients early in the pandemic based on the RECOVERY trial, but evidence is still needed to support its real-world effectiveness in heterogeneous populations of patients with a wide range of comorbidities.

METHODS

COVID-19 inpatients represented within the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Data Enclave, prior to vaccine availability, were studied. Primary outcome was in-hospital death; secondary outcome was combined in-hospital death and severe outcome defined by use of ECMO or mechanical ventilation. Missing data were imputed with single imputation. Dexamethasone-treated patients were propensity score (PS) matched to non-dexamethasone-treated controls, stratified by remdesivir treatment and based on demographics, baseline laboratory values, comorbidities, and amount of missing data before imputation. Treatment benefit was quantified using logistic regression. Further sensitivity analyses were performed using clinical adjusters in matched groups and in strata defined by quartiles of PS.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone treatment was associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality for n = 1,263 treated, matched 1:3 to untreated, patients not receiving remdesivir (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.95, p = 0.017), and for n = 804 treated, matched 1:1 to untreated, patients receiving remdesivir (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02, p = 0.054). Treatment showed secondary outcome benefit. In sensitivity analyses, treatment effect generally remained similar with some heterogeneity of benefit across quartiles of PS, possibly reflecting concentration of benefit among the more severely affected.

CONCLUSIONS

We add evidence that dexamethasone provides benefit with respect to mortality and severe outcomes in a diverse, national hospitalized sample, prior to vaccine availability.

Early administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir leads to faster negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs than monoclonal antibodies in COVID 19 patients at high-risk for severe disease

PURPOSE

Besides the well-established efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19, the impact of early treatments, namely antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), on the time length to negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different early treatments in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding, identifying a single drug that might potentially lead to a more rapid negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study conducted at Ospedale Luigi Sacco in Milan. Data of high-risk COVID-19 patients who received early treatments between 23 December 2021 and March 2023 were extracted. The comparison across treatments was conducted using the Kruskall-Wallis test for continuous variables. Dunn's test with Bonferroni adjustment was performed for post-hoc comparisons of days to negativization. Secondly, a negative binomial regression adjusted for age, sex, number of comorbidities, immunosuppression, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status was implemented.

RESULTS

Data from 428 patients receiving early treatments were collected. The majority were treated with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and were affected by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection with BA.2 sublineage. The median length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization was 9 days [IQR 7-13 days]. We found that Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir determined a significant decrease of the length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization compared to mAbs (p = 0.003), but not compared to Remdesivir (p = 0.147) and Molnupiravir (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the importance of promptly treating high-risk COVID-19 patients with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, as it also contributes to achieving a faster time to negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs.

Eco-friendly novel deconvoluted synchronous spectrofluorimetric approach for the determination of favipiravir, levodropropizine and moxifloxacin hydrochloride as an effective therapeutic combination for COVID-19; application in laboratory prepared mixtures and spiked human plasma

In this work, a green, fast, and simple synchronous spectrofluorimetric approach has been developed to simultaneously determine favipiravir, levodropropizine, and moxifloxacin hydrochloride as co-administered medications for COVID-19 treatment in pure form and spiked human plasma. The synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy technique to analyze the studied drugs at Δλ = 110 nm enabled the determination of levodropropizine at 360 nm. Then, applying Fourier Self-Deconvolution to each spectra to measure favipiravir and moxifloxacin hydrochloride at peak amplitudes of 431 nm and 479 nm, respectively, without any interference. Favipiravir, levodropropizine, and moxifloxacin hydrochloride could be sensitively determined using the described approach over concentration ranges of 20-300 ng/mL, 10-600 ng/mL, and 50-500 ng/mL, respectively. The method's validation was carried out effectively in accordance with guidelines recommended by the ICH. Finally, the Eco-scale and Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI) techniques have been used to evaluate the greenness of the proposed method.

Nurses' Experience After First Wave of COVID-19: Implications for a Trauma-Informed Workforce

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted nurses worldwide, increasing their risk of burnout and compassion fatigue. Although the literature on nurse deployment has been limited, this study describes nurses' experience and assesses their professional quality of life after the first phase of the pandemic and redeployment efforts.

METHODS

In 2020, nurses returning from their deployment to COVID-19 treatment units were invited to complete the Professional Quality of Life Survey and gather for debrief sessions, referred to as campfires, in which semistructured questions about their experiences were administered among clinical nurses and nurse leaders. Employing a mixed methods design, the authors conducted descriptive statistics for survey responses and inductive thematic analysis to identify emergent themes from open-ended questions.

RESULTS

A total of 19 campfires were held with 278 nurse participants. Of the 278 participants, 220 completed surveys. Of these, 194 (88%) represented 30 nurse leaders and 164 staff nurses. The majority of surveyed nurses in both groups reported compassion satisfaction despite reporting moderate levels of burnout and secondary traumatic stress. Qualitative themes from campfires with clinical nurses and nurse leaders revealed similarities, such as concern for safety and lack of choices and transparency, although each group faced unique challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings related to post deployment and adverse psychological health suggest that a trauma-informed approach (ie, staff autonomy, physical and psychological safety, transparency, offering choices, leveraging voices, and collaboration) by leaders could enhance a culture of wellness, build resilience, and mitigate empathic burnout and also proactively and strategically thinking about preventive measures for future catastrophic events.

Combination therapy of high-dose intravenous anakinra and baricitinib in patients with critical COVID-19: Promising results from retrospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combination treatment of high-dose intravenous anakinra and baricitinib in patients with critically ill COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary center with diagnosis of COVID-19 patients.Study population consisted of patients with positive polymerase chain reaction and computer tomography findings compatible with COVID-19 as well as critical illness.

RESULTS

Data of 15 patients in combination group and 43 patients in control group were evaluated and included into the study. Overall mortality was 46.7 % (n = 7) in combination arm and 69.8 % (n = 30) in control group although it was not statistically significant (p = 0.1). Similarly, need of intubation was also lower in combination arm (46.7 %) compared to control group (69.8 %), it was not significantly different (p = 0.1). ICU admission was significantly lower in combination (46.7 %, n = 7) arm than control group (76.7 %, n = 33) (p = 0.03, Odds ratio [OR]:4.7). Development of severe infection (20 %, n = 3 vs 25 %, n = 9/36), pulmonary embolism (6.7 %, n = 1 vs 0), myocardial infarction (6.7 %, n = 1 vs 2.6 %, n = 1/38) and pneumothorax (13.3 %, n = 2 vs 2.6 %, n = 1/38) were not different between two groups (p = 0.7, p = 0.3, p = 0.5 and p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis only cHIS score was associated with high mortality (p = 0.018, OR:2.8, [95 % confidence interval: 1.2-6.6]). In survival analysis, mortality rate was significantly lower in combination arm than control group (Log-Rank:p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy of high-dose anakinra and baricitinib may be an adequate treatment option in patients with COVID-19 who had critical disease and has acceptable safety profile.

Questioning the "Ease" in disease: Was living with HIV a burden or boost during the first wave of Covid-19 in France? A qualitative study (COVIDHIV)

INTRODUCTION

Clinical research has focused on risk factors and treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), particularly in people with a comorbidity including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but little attention has been paid to the care pathway. This article aims to show how living with HIV may have been a biopsychosocial burden or boost in care pathways for Covid-19.

METHOD

People living with HIV (PLHIV) from 9 clinical centers were invited to participate in this qualitative study. The sampling was purposive with a maximum variation in their sociodemographic profiles. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until data saturation, then coded for thematic analysis, using an inductive general approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 34 PLHIV of which 20 had SARS-COV-2 once. They were 24 males, 26 born in France; median age: 55. Twenty had a CD4 number above 500, and all were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). HIV appeared as a burden when Covid-19 symptoms reminded HIV seroconversion, fear of contamination, and triggered questions about ART effectiveness. HIV was not considered relevant when diagnosing Covid-19, caused fear of disclosure when participants sought SARS-COV-2 testing, and its care in hospitals was disrupted by the pandemic. ART-pill fatigue caused avoidance for Covid-19 treatment. As a boost, living with HIV led participants to observe symptoms, to get advice from healthcare professionals, and screening access through them. Some participants could accept the result of screening or a clinical diagnosis out of resilience. Some could consider ART or another drug prescribed by their HIV specialist help them to recover from Covid-19.

CONCLUSION

Living with HIV could function as a burden and/or a boost in the care pathways for Covid-19, according to patients' relationship to their HIV history, comorbidities and representation of ART. Covid-19 in PLHIV needs further qualitative study to gain a more comprehensive assessment of the pandemic's consequences on their lives and coping strategies.

Effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in kidney transplant recipients with severe kidney dysfunction infected with COVID-19

Transplant patients face an elevated risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) morbidity and mortality and commonly encounter renal dysfunction. Nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted through the kidneys. The dosage of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) needs to be adjusted according to the degree of renal function impairment. Nevertheless, NR is not recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min) due to a dearth of associated research. In this study, we focus on kidney transplant patients and document and analyze the experiences of using NR in individuals with severe kidney dysfunction. This was a retrospective multicenter study that included transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 in five major tertiary hospitals in China from December 2022 to June 2023. The outcomes consisted of the disease progression rate by day 28, individual disease progression events, safety outcomes, information on adverse events (AEs), and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants. Data were presented with descriptive statistics. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22. In total, 40 patients were included in the analysis. Considering the potential interaction between drugs, all patients temporarily discontinued their immunosuppressants during the NR treatment. None of the 32 moderate patients experienced disease progression. However, among the eight patients with critical COVID-19, unfortunately, two of them died. During the medication period, four patients experienced a total of six AEs associated with NR. None of them experienced AEs with a maximum grade of ≥3. Blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants were monitored in 22 of 40 patients, and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants did not show a significant increase, but some patients experienced lower blood drug concentrations. Our findings supported the use of NR therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 in transplant patients with severe renal insufficiency. A modified dose of NR was well-tolerated.

A Short Update on the Use of Monoclonal Antibodies in COVID-19

Monoclonal antibodies in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 have been crucial in reducing severe infections when vaccines were unavailable. However, as the virus and its variants have changed over time, the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies has been questioned. This technical note highlights the need to assess the antiviral activity of these antibodies against new variants and adapt treatment strategies accordingly. On the one hand, in vitro studies have suggested reduced susceptibility of the latest variants to monoclonal antibodies, whereas clinical data still show benefits in reducing severe illness and mortality, indicating that laboratory results do not always mirror real-world outcomes. As a result, although resistance to monoclonal antibodies can develop over time, they could still have an important role in COVID-19 treatment, especially when used in combination, and ongoing research aims to identify effective antibodies against new variants.

Comparable outcomes of outpatient remdesivir and sotrovimab among high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 during the omicron BA.1 surge

Studies conducted prior to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron demonstrated that sotrovimab and remdesivir reduced hospitalization among high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, their effectiveness has not been directly compared. This study examined all high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received either remdesivir or sotrovimab at Mayo Clinic during the Omicron BA.1 surge from January to March 2022. COVID-19-related hospitalization or death within 28 days were compared between the two treatment groups. Among 3257 patients, 2158 received sotrovimab and 1099 received remdesivir. Patients treated with sotrovimab were younger and had lower comorbidity but were more likely to be immunocompromised than remdesivir-treated patients. The majority (89%) had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.5% and 1.0% in remdesivir and sotrovimab, respectively, p = .15) and mortality within 28 days (0.4% in both groups, p = .82) were similarly low. A propensity score weighted analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the outcomes between the two groups. We demonstrated favorable outcomes that were not significantly different between patients treated with remdesivir or sotrovimab.

COVID-19 Rebound After VV116 vs Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

With the widespread use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, accumulating data have revealed potential viral load rebound after treatment.

Objective

To compare COVID-19 rebound after a standard 5-day course of antiviral treatment with VV116 vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a single-center, investigator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Shanghai, China. Adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between December 20, 2022, and January 19, 2023, and randomly allocated to receive either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Interventions

Participants in the VV116 treatment group received oral 600-mg VV116 tablets every 12 hours on day 1 and 300 mg every 12 hours on days 2 through 5. Participants in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment group received oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir tablets with 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir every 12 hours for 5 days. Participants were followed up every other day until day 28 and every week until day 60.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was viral load rebound (VLR), defined as a half-log increase in viral RNA copies per milliliter compared with treatment completion. Secondary outcomes included a reduction in the cycle threshold value of 1.5 or more, time until VLR, and symptom rebound, defined as an increase of more than 2 points in symptom score compared with treatment completion. The primary outcome and secondary outcomes were analyzed using the full analysis set. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the per protocol set. Adverse events were analyzed using the safety analysis set.

Results

The full analysis set included 345 participants (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.8] years; 175 [50.7%] were men) who received VV116 (n = 165) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 180). Viral load rebound occurred in 33 patients (20.0%) in the VV116 group and 39 patients (21.7%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .70). Symptom rebound occurred in 41 of 160 patients (25.6%) in the VV116 group and 40 of 163 patients (24.5%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .82). Viral whole-genome sequencing of 24 rebound cases revealed the same lineage at baseline and at viral load rebound in each case.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, viral load rebound and symptom rebound were both common after a standard 5-day course of treatment with either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Prolongation of treatment duration might be investigated to reduce COVID-19 rebound.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200066811.

The Potential of Anti-coronavirus Plant Secondary Metabolites in COVID-19 Drug Discovery as an Alternative to Repurposed Drugs: A Review

In early 2020, a global pandemic was announced due to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), known to cause COVID-19. Despite worldwide efforts, there are only limited options regarding antiviral drug treatments for COVID-19. Although vaccines are now available, issues such as declining efficacy against different SARS-CoV-2 variants and the aging of vaccine-induced immunity highlight the importance of finding more antiviral drugs as a second line of defense against the disease. Drug repurposing has been used to rapidly find COVID-19 therapeutic options. Due to the lack of clinical evidence for the therapeutic benefits and certain serious side effects of repurposed antivirals, the search for an antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2 with fewer side effects continues. In recent years, numerous studies have included antiviral chemicals from a variety of plant species. A better knowledge of the possible antiviral natural products and their mechanism against SARS-CoV-2 will help to develop stronger and more targeted direct-acting antiviral agents. The aim of the present study was to compile the current data on potential plant metabolites that can be investigated in COVID-19 drug discovery and development. This review represents a collection of plant secondary metabolites and their mode of action against SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry (COVID-PR): Protocol Considerations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Over the past 2 years, several drugs have been approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, but their safety during pregnancy remains poorly understood. This study aims to assess the relative risk of obstetric, neonatal, and infant outcomes associated with the use of drugs specifically indicated for the treatment of COVID-19 compared with other drug treatment strategies. The purpose of this article is to present elements of the study protocol.

METHODS

The COVID-19 International Drug Pregnancy Registry (COVID-PR) is a noninterventional, postmarketing cohort study. Pregnant women receiving treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or antiviral drugs for mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 are matched 1:1 with pregnant women not receiving these study-specific drugs, based on calendar time, country, gestational age at enrollment, and COVID-19 severity. Participants complete online questionnaires at enrollment, during pregnancy, and for 12 months after delivery of liveborn infants. The study began enrolling participants on 1 December 2021 and is set to span 5 years for each drug of interest.

DISCUSSION

The COVID-PR is designed to evaluate the safety profile of each studied drug. Additionally, it may allow for an analysis of the effects of COVID-19 drug exposure during relevant gestational periods on specific neonatal outcomes. Although the sample size will be too small to detect associations with rare outcomes, the study has the potential to generate hypotheses for future research. Ultimately, these data can provide valuable insights for evidence-based decisions about COVID-19 treatment during pregnancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05013632. EU PAS EUPAS42517.

Experiences of telehealth among people receiving alcohol and other drug treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for future telehealth delivery

INTRODUCTION

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated the rapid uptake of telehealth to deliver treatment for alcohol and other drug (AOD) concerns. However, little is known about how the move from in-person to telehealth delivery impacted clients' experience of care. This qualitative study aimed to explore experiences of telehealth among people receiving alcohol and other drug treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their preferences regarding future telehealth care.

METHODS

Participants were aged 34-66 years (M = 44 years, 60% male) and were recruited from Victorian AOD treatment services and consumer networks. A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (i) experiences of the practical impacts of telehealth; (ii) experiences of telehealth interactions; and (iii) preferences for future telehealth. Contextual factors, including location and socioeconomic status, were found to impact clients' ability to access reliable telehealth with sufficient privacy. While telehealth was generally associated with increased treatment engagement (for a typically stigmatised population), participants noted varying effects on the therapeutic alliance. Although in-person treatment was generally favoured, participants often valued telehealth as a modality to provide empathic care during the pandemic. Participants expressed a preference for a hybrid treatment model in the future, in which they could choose a combination of telehealth and in-person services.

CONCLUSION

Client and clinician information and training are vital to improve the future delivery of telehealth for AOD treatment.

Post-stroke rehabilitation in the peri-pandemic COVID-19 era

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which arose in late 2019, caused extensive destruction, impacting a substantial proportion of the worldwide population and leading to millions of deaths. Although COVID-19 is mainly linked to respiratory and pulmonary complications, it has the potential to affect neurologic structures as well. Neurological involvement may manifest as minimal and reversible; however, a notable proportion of cases have exhibited pronounced neurological consequences, such as strokes. Endothelial inflammation, hypercoagulation, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system alterations, and cardiogenic embolism are the pathophysiological mechanisms of stroke under COVID-19 circumstances. Physical activity and exercise have improved several aspects of post-stroke recovery, including cardiovascular health, walking capacity, and upper limb strength. They are commonly used to assist stroke survivors in overcoming their motor restrictions. Furthermore, stroke rehabilitation can incorporate a range of specific techniques, including body-weight-supported treadmill applications, constraint-induced movement therapy, robotic rehabilitation interventions, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and prism adaptation training. Under pandemic conditions, there were several barriers to neurological rehabilitation. The most significant of these were individual's fear of infection, which caused them to postpone their rehabilitation applications and rehabilitation areas being converted into COVID-19 units. The primary emphasis had turned to COVID-19 treatment. Several valuable data and views were gained in reorganizing rehabilitation during the pandemic, contributing to establishing future views in this regard.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) related to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen SRs with meta-analysis published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 108 overlapping reports, based on 43 individual primary studies [3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 40 non-RCTs]. In outpatient settings the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced overall mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease compared with controls (from moderate to low certainty of evidence); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease in both immunized and non-immunized patients. No differences in the occurrence of any adverse events between groups were observed in the large majority of SRs; serious adverse events, including adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, were reported with lower prevalence in nirmatrelvir recipients compared with controls (from low to moderate certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate certainty of evidence from SRs that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces mortality, clinical progression and hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared with controls, without increasing the occurrence of overall and serious adverse events. Based on the overall methodological assessment, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.

Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19 patients: therapy's side effects and effect on mortality

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of tocilizumab use on mortality and the potential side effects in COVID-19 patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The intensive care patients were divided into the tocilizumab group and the control group. Hemogram, biochemistry, acute phase reactant values, age, gender, comorbidity, and culture results were recorded on the 0th, 3rd, 7th, and 14th days. Factors affecting mortality between and within the groups and side effects were examined.

RESULTS

32.14% of the patients were female, and 67.85% were male. The tocilizumab group had high alanine aminotransferase and potassium on day 3. On day 7, low levels of platelet, glucose, international normalized ratio, prothrombin time, and active partial thromboplastin time levels were observed. Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and fibrinogen levels were low on days 3 and 7. The relationship between the tocilizumab treatment and mortality was statistically not significant, although the APACHE score was low. In the tocilizumab group, the presence of additional disease and reproduction in culture significantly increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the risks of side effects, tocilizumab was used in COVID-19 treatment since it is an interleukin-6 blocker. Although the first publications stated that the treatment could decrease the mortality rate, later meta-analyses did not support these results. Our study also found that using tocilizumab did not make a difference in long-term mortality. We also observed that the known side effects were seen in short-term use.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevention of COVID-19 severity in pregnant and postpartum women: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant women have an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Evaluation of drugs with a safety reproductive toxicity profile is a priority. At the beginning of the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was recommended for COVID-19 treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in eight teaching hospitals in Spain to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HCQ in reducing viral shedding and preventing COVID-19 progression. Pregnant and postpartum women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR (with or without mild COVID-19 signs/symptoms) and a normal electrocardiogram were randomized to receive either HCQ orally (400 mg/day for 3 days and 200 mg/day for 11 days) or placebo. PCR and electrocardiogram were repeated at day 21 after treatment start. Enrollment was stopped before reaching the target sample due to low recruitment rate. Trial registration EudraCT #: 2020-001587-29, on April 2, 2020.

CLINICAL TRIALS

gov # NCT04410562, registered on June 1, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 116 women (75 pregnant and 41 post-partum) were enrolled from May 2020 to June 2021. The proportion of women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR at day 21 was lower in the HCQ group (21.8%, 12/55) than in the placebo group (31.6%, 18/57), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.499). No differences were observed in COVID-19 progression, adverse events, median change in QTc, hospital admissions, preeclampsia or poor pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HCQ was found to be safe in pregnant and postpartum women with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the prevalence of infection was decreased in the HCQ group, the statistical power was insufficient to confirm the potential beneficial effect of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.

Evaluation of physicians prescribing of COVID-19 guideline-directed outpatient treatments in a primary care walk-in clinic

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory virus that has afflicted millions of individuals in the United States. A few medications have been determined to be beneficial for outpatient treatment. The medications in use against mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting during the study period are nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and bebtelovimab. Proper assessment and treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting is critical to reducing rates of disease progression and hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the prescribing by internal medicine physicians for mild-to-moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guideline-directed COVID-19 outpatient treatment options.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review examining the outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 by internal medicine physicians between February 2022 and August 2022. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older, had a positive home or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, completed a telehealth visit within 7 days of the positive test, and were prescribed either nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, or bebtelovimab for COVID-19 treatment. The primary end point was the appropriateness of COVID-19 treatment in the outpatient setting based on NIH guidelines, patient characteristics, and prescribing information for the medications. The secondary end point was hospitalization within 30 days of initiation of outpatient COVID-19 treatment. The presence or absence of a clinical pharmacist consultation at the time of prescribing was recorded as a process measure.

RESULTS

A total of 376 encounters were assessed, of which 226 were included and analyzed. A total of 210 participants (93%) received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The remaining participants received molnupiravir or bebtelovimab. Overall, guideline-concordant treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was prescribed for 200 participants (88%). Among patient characteristics, only glomerular filtration rate (GFR) had a statistically significant difference between groups prescribed medication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Fifty-six participants (25%) received clinical pharmacist consultation. Three participants were hospitalized for COVID-19 within 30 days of receiving an appropriately prescribed medication for treatment. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was the only medication potentially prescribed inappropriately due to lack of being renally dose adjusted and the extensive drug-drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was the most prescribed medication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, consistent with its position as first-line therapy and widespread accessibility. The study results will inform future educational opportunities, such as in-service presentations and handouts, that may improve the prescribing of outpatient treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 moving forward.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Proposing lead compounds for the development of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding inhibitors

The COVID-19 pandemic has had deleterious effects on the world and demands urgent measures to find therapeutic agents to combat the current and related future outbreaks. The entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the host's cell is facilitated by the interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding domain (sRBD) and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2). Although the interface of sRBD involved in the sRBD-hACE2 interaction has been projected as a primary vaccine and drug target, currently no small-molecule drugs have been approved for covid-19 treatment targeting sRBD. Herein structure-based virtual screening and molecular dynamics (MD) simulation strategies were applied to identify novel potential small-molecule binders of the SARS-CoV-2 sRBD from an sRBD-targeted compound library as leads for the development of anti-COVID-19 drugs. The library was initially screened against sRBD by using the GOLD docking program whereby 19 compounds were shortlisted based on docking scores after using a control compound to set the selection cutoff. The stability of each compound in MD simulations was used as a further standard to select four hits namely T4S1820, T4589, E634-1449, and K784-7078. Analyses of simulations data showed that the four compounds remained stably bound to sRBD for ≥ 80 ns with reasonable affinities and interacted with pharmacologically important amino acid residues. The compounds exhibited fair solubility, lipophilicity, and toxicity-propensity characteristics that could be improved through lead optimization regimes. The overall results suggest that the scaffolds of T4S1820, E634-1449, and K784-7078 could serve as seeds for developing potent small-molecule inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding and cell entry.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

A Risk Profile Using Simple Hematologic Parameters to Assess Benefits From Baricitinib in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-2

BACKGROUND

The ACTT risk profile, which was developed from ACTT-1 (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1), demonstrated that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the high-risk quartile (characterized by low absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], high absolute neutrophil count [ANC], and low platelet count at baseline) benefited most from treatment with the antiviral remdesivir. It is unknown which patient characteristics are associated with benefit from treatment with the immunomodulator baricitinib.

OBJECTIVE

To apply the ACTT risk profile to the ACTT-2 cohort to investigate potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of ACTT-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401579).

SETTING

Sixty-seven trial sites in 8 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 999; 85% U.S. participants).

INTERVENTION

Baricitinib+remdesivir versus placebo+remdesivir.

MEASUREMENTS

Mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, and recovery, all within 28 days; ALC, ANC, and platelet count trajectories.

RESULTS

In the high-risk quartile, baricitinib+remdesivir was associated with reduced risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86]; P = 0.020), decreased progression to IMV or death (HR, 0.57 [CI, 0.35 to 0.93]; P = 0.024), and improved recovery rate (HR, 1.53 [CI, 1.16 to 2.02]; P = 0.002) compared with placebo+remdesivir. After 5 days, participants receiving baricitinib+remdesivir had significantly larger increases in ALC and significantly larger decreases in ANC compared with control participants, with the largest effects observed in the high-risk quartile.

LIMITATION

Secondary analysis of data collected before circulation of current SARS-CoV-2 variants.

CONCLUSION

The ACTT risk profile identifies a subgroup of hospitalized patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment and captures a patient phenotype of treatment response to an immunomodulator and an antiviral. Changes in ALC and ANC trajectory suggest a mechanism whereby an immunomodulator limits severe COVID-19.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Remdesivir for COVID-19 in Hospitalized Children: A Phase 2/3 Study

OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir decreases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection progressing to severe disease in adults. This study evaluated remdesivir safety and pharmacokinetics in infants and children.

METHODS

This was a phase 2/3, open-label trial in children aged 28 days to 17 years hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants received for ≤10 days once-daily intravenous remdesivir doses defined using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling (for ≥40 kg, 200 mg day 1, then 100 mg/day; for age ≥28 days and ≥3 to <40 kg, 5 mg/kg day 1, then 2.5 mg/kg/day). Sparse pharmacokinetic samples were analyzed using population-pharmacokinetic approaches for remdesivir and metabolites GS-704277 and GS-441524.

RESULTS

Among 53 participants, at enrollment the median (Q1, Q3) number of days of COVID-19 symptoms was 5 (3, 7) and hospitalization was 1 (1, 3). Underlying conditions included obesity in 19 (37%), asthma in 11 (21%), and cardiac disorders in 11 (21%). Median duration of remdesivir treatment was 5 days (range, 1-10). Remdesivir treatment had no new apparent safety trends. Two participants discontinued treatment because of adverse events including elevated transaminases; both had elevated transaminases at baseline. Three deaths occurred during treatment (and 1 after). When compared with phase 3 adult data, estimated mean pediatric parameters (area under the concentration-time curve over 1 dosing interval, AUCτ, Cmax, and Cτ) were largely overlapping but modestly increased (remdesivir, 33%-129%; GS-704277, 37%-124%; GS-441524, 0%-60%). Recovery occurred for 62% of participants on day 10 and 83% at last assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

In infants and children with COVID-19, the doses of remdesivir evaluated provided drug exposure similar to adult dosing. In this study with a small sample size, no new safety concerns were observed.