Arbidol is associated with increased in-hospital mortality among 109 patients with severe COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral therapy has been considered as an ordinary intervention for COVID-19 patients. However, the effectiveness of antiviral therapy is uncertain. This study was designed to determine the association between the antiviral therapy and in-hospital mortality among severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This study enrolled severe COVID-19 patients admitted to four designated hospitals in Wuhan, China. The use of antiviral treatments, demographics, laboratory variables, co-morbidities, complications, and other treatments were compared between survival and fatal cases. The association between antiviral agents and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 109 severe COVID-19 patients (mean age 65.43) were enrolled for analysis, among which, 61 (56.0%) patients were discharged alive, and 48 (44.0%) died during hospitalization. We found no association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) treatment and the in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.195, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.023-1.679). Besides, ribavirin (OR = 0.738, 95% CI = 0.344-1.582), oseltamivir (OR = 0.765, 95% CI = 0.349-1.636), and interferon-alpha (IFN-α) (OR = 0.371, 95% CI = 0.112-1.236) were not associated with the in-hospital mortality. However, arbidol monotherapy (OR = 5.027, 95% CI = 1.795-14.074) or the combination of arbidol and oseltamivir (OR = 5.900, 95% CI = 1.190-29.247) was associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, the multiple logistic regression identified a significant association between the use of arbidol and the in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR = 4.195, 95% CI = 1.221-14.408). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that LPV/r, IFN-α, ribavirin, or oseltamivir have no beneficial effects on the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients, whereas the use of arbidol is associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

Uncovering two phases of early intercontinental COVID-19 transmission dynamics.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an ongoing global crisis, but how the virus spread across the world remains poorly understood. This is of vital importance for informing current and future pandemic response strategies. METHODS: We performed two independent analyses, travel network-based epidemiological modelling and Bayesian phylogeographic inference, to investigate the intercontinental spread of COVID-19. RESULTS: Both approaches revealed two distinct phases of COVID-19 spread by the end of March 2020. In the first phase, COVID-19 largely circulated in China during mid-to-late January 2020 and was interrupted by containment measures in China. In the second and predominant phase extending from late February to mid-March, unrestricted movements between countries outside of China facilitated intercontinental spread, with Europe as a major source. Phylogenetic analyses also revealed that the dominant strains circulating in the USA were introduced from Europe. However, stringent restrictions on international travel across the world since late March have substantially reduced intercontinental transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses highlight that heterogeneities in international travel have shaped the spatiotemporal characteristics of the pandemic. Unrestricted travel caused a large number of COVID-19 exportations from Europe to other continents between late February and mid-March, which facilitated the COVID-19 pandemic. Targeted restrictions on international travel from countries with widespread community transmission, together with improved capacity in testing, genetic sequencing and contact tracing, can inform timely strategies for mitigating and containing ongoing and future waves of COVID-19 pandemic.