The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study.

Background: Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance. Results: A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: -0.84, 95%CI: (-1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Cost-effectiveness of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients in the real-world setting of Saudi arabian pandemic referral hospitals.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Favipiravir treatment versus standard of care (SC) in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients from the Saudi healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We used the patient-level simulation method to simulate a cohort of 415 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease who were admitted to two Saudi COVID-19 referral hospitals: 220 patients on Favipiravir and 195 patients on SC. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Favipiravir versus SC in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from hospital and the mean time in days to discharge one patient alive. The model was performed twice: first, using unweighted, and second, using weighted clinical and economic data. Weighting using the inverse weight probability method was performed to achieve balance in baseline characteristics. Results: In the unweighted model, base case (probabilistic) ICER estimates favored Favipiravir at savings of Saudi Riyal (SAR)1,611,511 (SAR1,998,948) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive. As to mean time to discharging one patient alive, ICERs favored Favipiravir at savings of SAR11,498 (SAR11,125). Similar results were observed in the weighted model with savings using Favipiravir of SAR1,514,893 (SAR2,453,551) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive, and savings of SAR11,989 (SAR11,277) for each day a patient is discharged alive. Conclusion: From the payer perspective, the addition of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients was cost-savings over SC. Favipiravir was associated with a higher probability of discharging patients alive and lower daily spending on hospitalization than SC.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data.

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Association of QTc Prolongation with Remdesivir Therapy in a Patient with Severe COVID-19: A Case Report

Remdesivir is a direct-acting inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is used to treat severe COVID-19 infections. We report a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who have had palpitations and syncope two days after starting remdesivir therapy. The QT interval was prolonged on the Electrocardiogram, but there were no significant electrolyte abnormalities. After completing the remdesivir regimen, the QT interval was normalized. Although the cardiac side effects of remdesivir therapy have been well documented, the link between remdesivir therapy and QT interval prolongation in patients with severe COVID-19 has only been observed in a few cases. Physicians should be aware of QTc interval prolongation associated with remdesivir treatment because this arrhythmia has the potential to cause sudden cardiac death.

A case report on the association between QTc prolongation and remdesivir therapy in a critically ill patient.

Remdesivir is a direct-acting inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is used to treat severe COVID-19 infections. We report a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who experienced palpitations and syncope two days after starting remdesivir therapy. The QTc interval was prolonged on the Electrocardiogram (ECG) without any significant electrolyte abnormalities or concomitant use of medications with QTc prolongation. Although the cardiac side effects of remdesivir therapy have been well documented, the link between remdesivir therapy and QTc interval prolongation in patients with severe COVID-19 has only been observed in a few cases. Because this arrhythmia has the potential to result in sudden cardiac death, practitioners should be aware of the QTc interval prolongation associated with remdesivir therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of favipiravir compared to supportive care in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study with propensity score matching sensitivity analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Favipiravir is a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Due to a lack of available real-world data, we assessed its effectiveness and safety in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in two public/specialty hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included patients ≥18 years) admitted April-August 2020 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab. Patients received either favipiravir (1800 mg or 1600 mg twice daily loading dose, followed by 800 mg or 600 mg twice daily) or supportive-care treatment. Patients were excluded if they were outside the study period, classified as having a mild form of the disease per WHO criteria, or had an incomplete patient file. Kaplan-Meier (KM) models were used to estimate median time to discharge. Discharge ratios, progression to mechanical ventilation, and mortality outcomes were estimated across the severity spectrum using Cox proportional-hazards models. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, median time to discharge was 10 days (95%CI = 9-10) in the favipiravir arm versus 15 days (95%CI = 14-16) in the supportive-care arm. The accelerated discharge benefit was seen across the COVID-19 spectrum of severity. The adjusted discharge ratio was 1.96 (95%CI = 1.56-2.46). Progression to mechanical ventilation was slower with favipiravir (HRadj = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.04-0.29). There was no significant effect on mortality (HRadj = 1.56, 95%CI = 0.73-3.36). There was a statistically non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the critical category (HRadj = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.99-7.89). Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. PSM analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Favipiravir was associated with clinical benefits, including accelerated discharge rate and less progression to mechanical ventilation; however, no overall mortality benefits were seen across the severity spectrum.