Subject(s)
Lung Diseases/pathology , Lung Diseases/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Lung/pathology , Lung Diseases/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Recurrence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Remdesivir has been associated with accelerated recovery of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, whether it is also beneficial in patients requiring mechanical ventilation is uncertain. METHODS: All consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 were enrolled. Univariate and multivariable Cox models were used to explore the possible association between in-hospital death or hospital discharge, considered competing-risk events, and baseline or treatment-related factors, including the use of remdesivir. The rate of extubation and the number of ventilator-free days were also calculated and compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen patients requiring mechanical ventilation were observed for a median of 31 days of follow-up; 32% died, 69% were extubated, and 66% were discharged alive from the hospital. Among 33 treated with remdesivir (RDV), lower mortality (15.2% vs 38.8%) and higher rates of extubation (88% vs 60%), ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range], 11 [0-16] vs 5 [0-14.5]), and hospital discharge (85% vs 59%) were observed. Using multivariable analysis, RDV was significantly associated with hospital discharge (hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.27-3.97; Pâ =â .005) and with a nonsignificantly lower mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26-2.1; Pâ =â .560). RDV was also independently associated with extubation (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.73; Pâ =â .011), which was considered a competing risk to death in the ICU in an additional survival model. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, RDV was not associated with a significant reduction of mortality, but it was consistently associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and higher probability of hospital discharge, independent of other risk factors.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The outbreak of COVID-19 posed the issue of urgently identifying treatment strategies. Colchicine was considered for this purpose based on well-recognised anti-inflammatory effects and potential antiviral properties. In the present study, colchicine was proposed to patients with COVID-19, and its effects compared with 'standard-of-care' (SoC). METHODS: In the public hospital of Esine, northern Italy, 140 consecutive inpatients, with virologically and radiographically confirmed COVID-19 admitted in the period 5-19 March 2020, were treated with 'SoC' (hydroxychloroquine and/or intravenous dexamethasone; and/or lopinavir/ritonavir). They were compared with 122 consecutive inpatients, admitted between 19 March and 5 April 2020, treated with colchicine (1 mg/day) and SoC (antiviral drugs were stopped before colchicine, due to potential interaction). RESULTS: Patients treated with colchicine had a better survival rate as compared with SoC at 21 days of follow-up (84.2% (SE=3.3%) vs 63.6% (SE=4.1%), p=0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression survival analysis showed that a lower risk of death was independently associated with colchicine treatment (HR=0.151 (95% CI 0.062 to 0.368), p<0.0001), whereas older age, worse PaO2/FiO2, and higher serum levels of ferritin at entry were associated with a higher risk. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study may support the rationale of use of colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19. Efficacy and safety must be determined in controlled clinical trials.