Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

High-Dose Inhaled Nitric Oxide for the Treatment of Spontaneously Breathing Pregnant Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO)200 improves respiratory function. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from pregnant patients hospitalized with severe bilateral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia at four teaching hospitals between March 2020 and December 2021. Two cohorts were identified: 1) those receiving standard of care alone (SoC cohort) and 2) those receiving iNO200 for 30 minutes twice daily in addition to standard of care alone (iNO200 cohort). Inhaled nitric oxide, as a novel therapy, was offered only at one hospital. The prespecified primary outcome was days free from any oxygen supplementation at 28 days postadmission. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, rate of intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. The multivariable-adjusted regression analyses accounted for age, body mass index, gestational age, use of steroids, remdesivir, and the study center. RESULTS: Seventy-one pregnant patients were hospitalized for severe bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia: 51 in the SoC cohort and 20 in the iNO200 cohort. Patients receiving iNO200 had more oxygen supplementation-free days (iNO200: median [interquartile range], 24 [23-26] days vs standard of care alone: 22 [14-24] days, P=.01) compared with patients in the SoC cohort. In the multivariable-adjusted analyses, iNO200 was associated with 63.2% (95% CI 36.2-95.4%; P<.001) more days free from oxygen supplementation, 59.7% (95% CI 56.0-63.2%; P<.001) shorter ICU length of stay, and 63.6% (95% CI 55.1-70.8%; P<.001) shorter hospital length of stay. No iNO200-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: In pregnant patients with severe bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia, iNO200 was associated with a reduced need for oxygen supplementation and shorter hospital stay.

Fecal microbiota transplant improves cognition in hepatic encephalopathy and its effect varies by donor and recipient.

Early data suggest fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) may treat hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Optimal FMT donor and recipient characteristics are unknown. We assessed the safety and efficacy of FMT in patients with prior overt HE, comparing five FMT donors. We performed an open-label study of FMT capsules, administered 5 times over 3 weeks. Primary outcomes were change in psychometric HE score (PHES) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Serial stool samples underwent shallow shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Ten patients completed FMT administration and 6-month follow-up. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score did not change after FMT (14 versus 14, p = 0.51). Thirteen minor adverse events and three serious adverse events (two unrelated to FMT) were reported. One SAE was extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Escherichia coli bacteremia. The PHES improved after three doses of FMT (+2.1, p < 0.05), after five doses of FMT (+2.9, p = 0.007), and 4 weeks after the fifth dose of FMT (+3.1, p = 0.02). Mean change in the PHES ranged from -1 to +6 by donor. Two taxa were identified by random forest analysis and confirmed by linear regression to predict the PHES- Bifidobacterium adolescentis (adjusted R2 = 0.27) and B. angulatum (adjusted R2 = 0.25)-both short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) producers. Patients who responded to FMT had higher levels of Bifidobacterium as well as other known beneficial taxa at baseline and throughout the study. The FMT donor with poorest cognitive outcomes in recipients had the lowest fecal SCFA levels. Conclusion: FMT capsules improved cognition in HE, with an effect varying by donor and recipient factors (NCT03420482).

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Remdesivir use and outcomes during the FDA COVID-19 emergency use authorization period.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) was approved for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in May 2020 under US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA). Clinical outcomes related to RDV use in hospitalized patients during the EUA period are not well described. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who received RDV under EUA. The primary outcome was clinical recovery by day 14 as determined by an eight-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included recovery and survival to day 28, and adverse events. Recovery and survival were calculated using a stratified log-rank Kaplan-Meier estimator and a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Overall, 164 patients received RDV between May and October 2020, and 153 (93.3%) had evaluable data. Most (77.1%) were hospitalized within 10 days of symptom onset, and 79.7% started RDV within 48 hours. By days 14 and 28, 96 (62.7%) and 117 patients (76.5%) met the definition of clinical recovery, respectively. Median time to recovery was 6 days [interquartile range (IQR) 4-12]. Mortality rates were 6.5% and 11.8% by days 14 and 28, respectively. Age and time to start of RDV after hospital admission were predictive of recovery and 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world experience, outcomes after 5 days of RDV therapy were comparable to those of clinical trials. Disease severity, age, and dexamethasone use influenced clinical outcomes. Time to RDV initiation appeared to affect recovery and 28-day mortality, a finding that should be explored further. Mortality rate decreased over the analysis period, which could be related to dexamethasone use and improved management of COVID-19.

High Concentrations of Nitric Oxide Inhalation Therapy in Pregnant Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Rescue therapies to treat or prevent progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hypoxic respiratory failure in pregnant patients are lacking. METHOD: To treat pregnant patients meeting criteria for severe or critical COVID-19 with high-dose (160-200 ppm) nitric oxide by mask twice daily and report on their clinical response. EXPERIENCE: Six pregnant patients were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19 at Massachusetts General Hospital from April to June 2020 and received inhalational nitric oxide therapy. All patients tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. A total of 39 treatments was administered. An improvement in cardiopulmonary function was observed after commencing nitric oxide gas, as evidenced by an increase in systemic oxygenation in each administration session among those with evidence of baseline hypoxemia and reduction of tachypnea in all patients in each session. Three patients delivered a total of four neonates during hospitalization. At 28-day follow-up, all three patients were home and their newborns were in good condition. Three of the six patients remain pregnant after hospital discharge. Five patients had two negative test results on nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 within 28 days from admission. CONCLUSION: Nitric oxide at 160-200 ppm is easy to use, appears to be well tolerated, and might be of benefit in pregnant patients with COVID-19 with hypoxic respiratory failure.