Real-world experience of arbidol for Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: At a crucial time with the rapid spread of Omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus variant globally, we conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol tablets in the treatment of this variant. Methods: From Mar 26 to April 26, 2022, we conducted a prospective, open-labeled, controlled, and investigator-initiated trial involving adult patients with confirmed Omicron variant infection. Patients with asymptomatic or mild clinical status were stratified 1:2 to receive either standard-of-care (SOC) or SOC plus arbidol tablets (oral administration of 200 mg per time, three times a day for 5 days). The primary endpoint was the negative conversion rate within the first week. Results: A total of 367 patients were enrolled in the study; 246 received arbidol tablet treatment, and 121 were in the control group. The negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 within the first week in patients receiving arbidol tablets was significantly higher than that of the SOC group [47.2% (116/246) vs. 35.5% (43/121); odds ratio (OR), 1.619; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.034-2.535; P=0.035]. Compared to those in the SOC group, patients receiving arbidol tablets had a shorter negative conversion time [median 8.3 vs. 10.0 days; hazard ratio (HR), 0.645; 95% CI: 0.516-0.808; P<0.001], and a shorter duration of hospitalization (median 11.4 vs. 13.7 days; HR, 1.214; 95% CI: 0.966-1.526; P<0.001). Moreover, the addition of arbidol tablets led to better recovery of declined blood lymphocytes, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ cell counts. The most common adverse event (AE) was transaminase elevation in patients treated with arbidol tablets (3/246, 1.2%). No one withdrew from the study due to AEs or disease progression. Conclusions: As a whole, arbidol may represent an effective and safe treatment in asymptomatic-mild patients suffering from Omicron variant during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir). RESULTS: A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).

Emergency department treatment process planning: a field research, case analysis, and simulation approach.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has forced accelerated optimization of Emergency Department (ED) process, and simulation tools offer an alternative approach to strategic assessment and selection. Methods: Field research and case analysis methods were used to obtain the treatment process and medical records information from the ED of a general hospital. Minitab was used for analysis of the measurement system, and Arena was applied for simulation modelling. We established a framework for the triage protocol of ordinary and quarantined patients, analysed bottlenecks in the treatment time of the hospital's ED, and proposed an optimised management strategy. Results: The computed tomography (CT) pre-scheduling strategy simulation results demonstrated that longer CT room preparation times for quarantined people before their arrival (Tp) resulted in reduced CT scan and waiting times for quarantined patients, but these times were longer for ordinary patients. The nucleic acid priority strategy simulation results demonstrated that when the average daily number of ordinary patients (λc) was relatively stable, the hospital could guide ordinary patients to perform nucleic acid testing first followed by CT testing. However, when λc fluctuated greatly, the hospital could appropriately reduce the proportion of preferential nucleic acid testing. Furthermore, when λc was overloaded, the nucleic acid priority strategy showed no advantages. The joint analysis results demonstrated that the optimal strategy selection was significantly affected by the severity of the epidemic. The nucleic acid detection sample size optimisation strategy demonstrated that optimizing the sample size of each batch according to the number of patients could effectively reduce the waiting times for nucleic acid testing (Tn). Conclusions: Simulation tools are an alternative method for strategic evaluation and selection that do not require external factors.

Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. Setting 16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020. Participants: 150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone). Interventions Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively). Main outcome measure: Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.