Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134. FINDINGS: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (pinteraction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated. FUNDING: EU-RESPONSE.

Effect of tocilizumab, sarilumab, and baricitinib on mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) established the mortality reduction by tocilizumab (Actemra), baricitinib (Olumiant), and sarilumab (Kevzara) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, uncertainty remains about which treatment performs best in patients receiving corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES: To estimate probabilities of noninferiority between baricitinib and sarilumab compared to tocilizumab in patients treated with corticosteroids. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible RCTs assigning hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids to tocilizumab or baricitinib or sarilumab versus standard of care or placebo (control). METHODS: Reviewers independently abstracted published data and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Unpublished data, if required, were requested from authors of included studies. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality at 28 days. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven RCTs with 13 549 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias was low. Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses were used to aggregate results of each treatment versus control. The average odds ratio for mortality was 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.65, 0.94) for tocilizumab; 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.56, 1.03) for baricitinib; and 0.91 (95% CrI: 0.60, 1.40) for sarilumab. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to low. Bayesian meta-regressions with multiple priors were used to estimate probabilities of noninferiority (margin of 13% greater effect by tocilizumab). Compared to tocilizumab, there were ≤94% and 90% probabilities of noninferiority with baricitinib and sarilumab, respectively. RESULTS: All but two studies included data with only indirect evidence for the comparison of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids, there are high probabilities that both baricitinib and sarilumab are associated with similar mortality reductions in comparison to tocilizumab.

The Effect of Heparin Full-Dose Anticoagulation on Survival of Hospitalized, Non-critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-analysis of High Quality Studies.

BACKGROUND: International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate." CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

More than a 'Hundred Days War': Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in a patient with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

BACKGROUND: Few reports exist on the characteristics and outcomes of persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in immunocompromised hosts. METHODS: A 49-year-old patient with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and a renal transplant experienced multiple hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and relapses between October 2020 and February 2021. Careful chart review of medical history, hospitalizations, and microbiological testing including SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values, therapies, and imaging was undertaken. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing was performed in five viral samples to distinguish persistent infection from re-infection with a different strain. RESULTS: Sequencing confirmed that all samples tested were from the same viral lineage, indicating a long-term, persistent infection rather than re-infection with a new strain. The patient ultimately stabilized after two courses of remdesivir plus dexamethasone, replacement intravenous immunoglobulin, and bamlanivimab. Rituximab maintenance therapy for vasculitis remains on hold. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 may persist for several months in immunocompromised hosts and may go unrecognized as an ongoing active infection. More studies are needed to determine how to optimize COVID-19 treatment in this vulnerable population.

HISTORIQUE: Il existe peu de rapports sur les caractéristiques et les issues de l'infection par le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV-2) chez les hôtes immunodéprimés. MÉTHODOLOGIE: UNE PATIENTE de 49 ans receveuse d'une transplantation rénale atteinte d'une granulomatose avec polyangéite a été hospitalisée à de multiples reprises à cause d'une pneumonie à maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) et de récidives entre octobre 2020 et février 2021. Les chercheurs ont exécuté une analyse attentive du dossier pour connaître l'histoire médicale de la patiente, les hospitalisations et les tests microbiologiques effectués, y compris les valeurs seuils du cycle du SRAS-CoV-2, les traitements et les techniques d'imagerie. Ils ont procédé au séquençage du génome du SRAS-CoV-2 dans cinq prélèvements viraux pour distinguer l'infection persistante de la réinfection par une souche différente. RÉSULTATS : Le séquençage a confirmé que tous les prélèvements effectués provenaient de la même lignée virale, ce qui détermine une infection persistante prolongée plutôt qu'une réinfection par une nouvelle souche. L'état de la patiente a fini par se stabiliser après deux traitements au remdésivir combiné à de la dexaméthasone, une thérapie de substitution par immunoglobuline intraveineuse et du bamlanivimab. Un traitement d'entretien de la vasculite au rituximab demeure en suspens. CONCLUSIONS: Le SRAS-CoV-2 peut persister plusieurs mois chez les hôtes immunodéprimés, et un état d'infection active continue peut passer inaperçu. Plus d'études devront être réalisées pour déterminer le moyen d'optimiser le traitement de la COVID-19 dans cette population vulnérable.

Renin-Angiotensin System Pathway Therapeutics Associated With Improved Outcomes in Males Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to sex and to report sex-related differences in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study comparing the effects of ARB or ACE inhibitors versus no ARBs or ACE inhibitors in males versus females. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 downregulates ACE-2, potentially increasing angiotensin II (a pro-inflammatory vasoconstrictor). Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may explain sex-based differences in responses to ARBs because the ACE2 gene is on the X chromosome. We recorded baseline characteristics, comorbidities, prehospital ARBs or ACE inhibitor treatment, use of organ support and mortality, and measured RAS components at admission and days 2, 4, 7, and 14 in a subgroup ( n = 46), recorded d -dimer ( n = 967), comparing males with females. SETTING: ARBs CORONA I is a multicenter Canadian observational cohort of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19. This analysis includes patients admitted to 10 large urban hospitals across the four most populated provinces. PATIENTS: One-thousand six-hundred eighty-six patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (February 2020 to March 2021) for acute COVID-19 illness were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Males on ARBs before admission had decreased use of ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.52; p = 0.007) and vasopressors (aOR = 0.55; p = 0.011) compared with males not on ARBs or ACE inhibitors. No significant effects were observed in females for these outcomes. The test for interaction was significant for use of ventilation ( p = 0.006) and vasopressors ( p = 0.044) indicating significantly different responses to ARBs according to sex. Males had significantly higher plasma ACE-1 at baseline and angiotensin II at day 7 and 14 than females. CONCLUSIONS: ARBs use was associated with less ventilation and vasopressors in males but not females. Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may contribute to sex-based differences in outcomes and responses to ARBs in COVID-19.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements. DATA SOURCES: Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials; all languages. PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalized adults with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used the ROB-2 criteria. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important. RESULTS: We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.

Organ dysfunction and death in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in pandemic waves 1 to 3 in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There have been multiple waves in the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries. We sought to compare mortality and respiratory, cardiovascular and renal dysfunction between waves in 3 Canadian provinces. METHODS: We conducted a substudy of the ARBs CORONA I study, a multicentre Canadian pragmatic observational cohort study that examined the association of pre-existing use of angiotensin receptor blockers with outcomes in adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to April 2021 from 9 community and teaching hospitals in 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec). We excluded emergency department admissions without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. We used logistic and 0-1-inflated ß regression models to compare 28-day and in-hospital mortality, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy (RRT) between the first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in these provinces. RESULTS: A total of 520, 572 and 245 patients in waves 1, 2 and 3, respectively, were included. Patients in wave 3 were on average younger and had fewer comorbidities than those in waves 1 and 2. The unadjusted 28-day mortality rate was significantly lower in wave 3 (7.8%) than in wave 1 (18.3%) (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.78) and wave 2 (16.3%) (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the difference in 28-day mortality remained significant (adjusted OR wave 3 v. wave 1: 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.81; wave 3 v. wave 2: 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.91). In-hospital mortality findings were similar. Use of invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressors was less common in waves 2 and 3 than in wave 1, and use of RRT was less common in wave 3 than in wave 1. INTERPRETATION: Severity of illness decreased (lower mortality and less use of organ support) across waves among patients admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19, possibly owing to changes in patient demographic characteristics and management, such as increased use of dexamethasone. Continued application of proven therapies may further improve outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04510623.

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Management of COVID-19 to Prevent Hospitalization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization. Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19. Data Sources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Studies with completed outpatient trials with available results that compared fluvoxamine with placebo were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed and study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics, and the prespecified outcome of all-cause hospitalization were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and a bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability was conducted: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% CI for risk ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2.0) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). A frequentist random-effects meta-analysis was conducted as a senstivity analysis, and the results were contextualized by estimating the probability of any association (RR ≤ 1) and moderate association (RR ≤ 0.9) with reduced hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause hospitalization. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials and included 2196 participants. The RRs for hospitalization were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.08) for the bayesian weakly neutral prior, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the bayesian moderately optimistic prior, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) for the frequentist analysis. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any association with reduced hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.6%, and the probability of moderate association ranged from 81.6% to 91.8%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 3 trials, under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine showed a high probability of being associated with reduced hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. Ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates. Meanwhile, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a management option, particularly in resource-limited settings or for individuals without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for COVID-19: CMAJ

McDonald and Lee present several facts about nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir is a Health Canada-approved oral antiviral medication with activity against SARS-CoV-2 Treatment is indicated for adult (≥ 18 yr) outpatients with nonhypoxic COVID-19 who are at high risk of severe disease progression.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study.

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

Outpatient Therapies for COVID-19: How Do We Choose?

BACKGROUND: Several outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and available infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision-making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and estimated the cost per hospitalization prevented. METHODS: Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If there was >1 study, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%, and compared the cost per hospitalization prevented with the estimate for an average Medicare COVID-19 hospitalization ($21 752). Drug pricing was estimated from GoodRx, from government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge and/or final numbers become available. RESULTS: At a 5% risk of hospitalization, the estimated NNT was 80 for fluvoxamine, 91 for colchicine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 50 for molnupiravir, 28 for remdesivir, 25 for sotrovimab, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, and 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab. For drug cost per hospitalization prevented, colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were below the Medicare estimated hospitalization cost. CONCLUSIONS: Many countries are fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost, and administration complexity, this assessment serves as one means to frame treatment selection.