What is the role of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: COVID-19 represents an unprecedented public health crisis caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The antiviral remdesivir is one component of treating COVID-19. Unfortunately, the trials evaluating remdesivir have reported mixed results, leading to uncertainty on when to use remdesivir. This review discusses the trials evaluating the efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 and other supporting data to help inform the role of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the start of the pandemic, there have been four randomized trials of remdesivir in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. More recently, extensive observational studies have provided supportive data. SUMMARY: The majority of trials evaluating remdesivir suggest that remdesivir is effective in the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Although there may be a benefit in some subgroups more than others, there is insufficient data to make definitive statements about benefits or lack of benefits in particular groups. Remdesivir has demonstrated clinical benefits such as decreased time in the hospital, lower progression to mechanical ventilation, and decreased utilization of other hospital resources; it is unclear if it reduces mortality, but one randomized controlled trial suggested possible survival benefits. Based on the data available, remdesivir has been approved (or authorized for early use) in 48 countries.

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.).

Coronavirus disease 2019 management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Investigations are ongoing in the search for effective therapeutics, with clinical approaches evolving based upon such evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: The antiviral agent, remdesivir, and the immunomodulator, dexamethasone, are the first therapeutics for which there is evidence of efficacy from randomized trials. Subgroup analyses suggest remdesivir is beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the lower end of the spectrum, while dexamethasone is more beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the higher end of the spectrum. We recommend that inpatients who require supplemental oxygen but are not mechanically ventilated receive both remdesivir and dexamethasone, and inpatients who require mechanical ventilation receive dexamethasone monotherapy. Additional evidence regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma, and a variety of antiinterleukin therapies is forthcoming. SUMMARY: The body of evidence related to COVID-19 therapeutics continues to evolve and, as a result, management is likely to change with time. As new evidence is generated and published, the optimal approach to managing patients with COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

USA stockpiling of remdesivir: How should the world respond?

The race to find an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still on, with only two treatment options currently authorized for emergency use and/or recommended for patients hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms: low-dose dexamethasone and remdesivir. The USA decision to stockpile the latter has resulted in widespread condemnation and in similar action being taken by some other countries. In this commentary we discuss whether stockpiling remdesivir is justified in light of the currently available evidence.

Early administration of remdesivir plus convalescent plasma therapy is effective to treat COVID-19 pneumonia in B-cell depleted patients with hematological malignancies.

Patients with hematological malignancies (HMs) are at a higher risk of developing severe form and protracted course of COVID-19 disease. We investigated whether the combination of viral replication inhibition with remdesivir and administration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins with convalescent plasma (CP) therapy might be sufficient to treat B-cell-depleted patients with COVID-19. We enrolled 20 consecutive patients with various HMs with profound B-cell lymphopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia between December 2020 and May 2021. All patients demonstrated undetectable baseline anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin levels before CP. Each patient received at least a complete course of remdesivir and at least one unit of CP. Previous anti-CD20 therapy resulted in a more prolonged SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity compared to other causes of B-cell lymphopenia (p = 0.004). Timing of CP therapy showed a significant impact on the clinical outcome. Simultaneous use of remdesivir and CP reduced time period for oxygen weaning after diagnosis (p = 0.017), length of hospital stay (p = 0.007), and PCR positivity (p = 0.012) compared to patients who received remdesivir and CP consecutively. In addition, time from the diagnosis to CP therapy affected the length of oxygen dependency (p < 0.001) and hospital stay (p < 0.0001). In those cases where there were at least 10 days from the diagnosis to plasma administration, oxygen dependency was prolonged vs. patients with shorter interval (p = 0.006). In conclusion, the combination of inhibition of viral replication with passive immunization was proved to be efficient and safe. Our results suggest the clear benefit of early, combined administration of remdesivir and CP to avoid protracted COVID-19 disease among patients with HMs and B-cell lymphopenia.

Remdésivir chez les patients hospitalisés pour la COVID-19 au Canada: essai clinique randomisé et contrôlé.

CONTEXTE: Le rôle du remdésivir dans le traitement des patients hospitalisés pour la COVID-19 reste imprécis dans un contexte international. L'essai randomisé et contrôlé (ERC) Solidarity de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a évalué le remdésivir chez des patients de nombreux pays; le Canada a inscrit des patients dans un protocole élargi de collecte de données: l'essai CATCO (Canadian Treatments for COVID-19). Nous faisons état des observations canadiennes, des données démographiques, des caractéristiques et des indicateurs cliniques qui témoignent de la variabilité des effets d'un système de santé à l'autre. MÉTHODES: Nous avons procédé à un ERC pragmatique à étiquetage en clair dans les hôpitaux canadiens, en collaboration avec l'essai Solidarity. Nous avons procédé à une attribution aléatoire des patients à 10 jours au remdésivir (200 mg par voie intraveineuse [IV] au jour 0, suivis de 100 mg IV par jour) en plus du traitement standard, ou au traitement standard seulement. L'indicateur principal était la mortalité perhospitalière. Les indicateurs secondaires incluaient les modifications de la gravité de l'état clinique, le nombre de jours sans oxygénothérapie et sans ventilation (à 28 jours), l'incidence d'un nouveau recours à l'oxygénothérapie et à la ventilation mécanique, la durée du séjour hospitalier et les taux d'effets indésirables. Nous avons effectué des analyses de sous-groupes préspécifiés selon la durée des symptômes avant le recrutement, l'âge, le sexe, et la gravité des symptômes à l'arrivée. RÉSULTATS: Parmi 52 hôpitaux canadiens, entre le 14 août 2020 et le 1er avril 2021, nous avons procédé à une attribution aléatoire de 1282 patients au remdésivir (n = 634) ou au traitement standard (n = 648). Parmi ces patients, 15 ont retiré leur consentement ou étaient encore hospitalisés, pour un échantillon total de 1267 patients. Parmi les patients auxquels on a attribué le remdésivir, la mortalité perhospitalière a été de 18,7 %, contre 22,6 % chez les patients sous traitement standard (risque relatif [RR] 0,83, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,67­1,03 et la mortalité à 60 jours a été de 24,8 % et 28,2 %, respectivement (IC de 95 % 0,72­1,07). Pour les patients non ventilés mécaniquement au départ; le recours à la ventilation mécanique a été de 8,0 % chez les patients qui recevaient le remdésivir et de 15,0 % chez ceux sous traitement standard (RR 0,53, IC de 95 % 0,38­0,75). Le nombre moyen de jours sans oxygénothérapie ni ventilation au jour 28 étaient de 15,9 (± écart-type [É.T.] 10,5) et 21,4 (± É.-T. 11,3) chez les patients sous remdésivir et de 14,2 (± É.-T. 11) et 19,5 (± É.-T. 12,3) chez les patients sous traitement standard (p = 0,006 et 0,007, respectivement). On n'a noté aucune différence quant à l'innocuité (p. ex., recours à la dialyse, changement du taux de créatinine, ou nouveaux cas d'insuffisance hépatique) entre les 2 groupes. INTERPRÉTATION: Comparativement au traitement standard, le remdésivir a eu un effet modeste, mais significatif sur certains indicateurs importants pour les patients et pour les systèmes de santé, tels que le recours à la ventilation mécanique. NUMÉRO D'ENREGISTREMENT DE LA RECHERCHE: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Remdesivir Plus Dexamethasone Versus Dexamethasone Alone for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients Requiring Supplemental O2 Therapy: A Prospective Controlled Nonrandomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which improves some clinical outcomes. Dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality. It has been hypothesized that combination of these two drugs can improve mortality. We evaluated the effect of combination on mortality of COVID-19 patients requiring O2 therapy. METHODS: A prospective quasi-experimental study, including two independent, sequential controlled cohorts, one received remdesivir-dexamethasone and the other dexamethasone alone, was designed. All COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental O2 therapy were enrolled consecutively. The sample size to power mortality was a priori calculated. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and viral clearance differences. Secondary endpoints were differences in hospitalization times, improvement in respiratory failure (PO2/FiO2) and inflammatory indices (fibrinogen, CRP, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, D-Dimer). Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to evaluate significant differences in mortality between groups. RESULTS: In total, 151 COVID-19 patients were enrolled (remdesivir/dexamethasone group, 76, and dexamethasone alone, 75). No differences in demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were observed between the 2 groups at baseline. Faster viral clearance occurred in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone (median 6 vs 16 days; P < .001). The 30-day mortality in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group was 1.3%, whereas in dexamethasone alone was 16% (P < .005). In the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone there was a reduction in hospitalization days (P < .0001) and a faster improvement in both respiratory function and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir/dexamethasone treatment is associated with significant reduction in mortality, length of hospitalization, and faster SARS-CoV-2 clearance, compared to dexamethasone alone.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Transplant Recipients Infected With SARS-CoV-2: Considerations Regarding Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Drug-Drug Interactions.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory distress (SARS)-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several therapeutic options are currently emerging but none with universal consensus or proven efficacy. Solid organ transplant recipients are perceived to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 because of their immunosuppressed conditions due to chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs). It is therefore likely that solid organ transplant recipients will be treated with these experimental antivirals. METHODS: This article is not intended to provide a systematic literature review on investigational treatments tested against COVID-19; rather, the authors aim to provide recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring of ISDs in transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 based on a review of existing data in the literature. RESULTS: Management of drug-drug interactions between investigational anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs and immunosuppressants is a complex task for the clinician. Adequate immunosuppression is necessary to prevent graft rejection while, if critically ill, the patient may benefit from pharmacotherapeutic interventions directed at limiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication. Maintaining ISD concentrations within the desired therapeutic range requires a highly individualized approach that is complicated by the pandemic context and lack of hindsight. CONCLUSIONS: With this article, the authors inform the clinician about the potential interactions of experimental COVID-19 treatments with ISDs used in transplantation. Recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustments in the context of COVID-19 are provided.

Mapping Scientific Productivity Trends and Hotspots in Remdesivir Research Publications: A Bibliometric Study from 2016 to 2021.

In response to global efforts to control and exterminate infectious diseases, this study aims to provide insight into the productivity of remdesivir research and highlight future directions. To achieve this, there is a need to summarize and curate evidence from the literature. As a result, this study carried out comprehensive scientific research to detect trends in published articles related to remdesivir using a bibliometric analysis. Keywords associated with remdesivir were used to access pertinent published articles using the Scopus database. A total of 5321 research documents were retrieved, primarily as novel research articles (n = 2440; 46%). The number of publications increased exponentially from 2020 up to the present. The papers published by the top 12 institutions focusing on remdesivir accounted for 25.69% of the overall number of articles. The USA ranked as the most productive country, with 906 documents (37.1%), equivalent to one-third of the global publications in this field. The most productive institution was Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, in the USA (103 publications). The New England Journal of Medicine was the most cited, with an h-index of 13. The publication of research on remdesivir has gained momentum in the past year. The importance of remdesivir suggests that it needs continued research to help global health organizations detect areas requiring instant action to implement suitable measures. Furthermore, this study offers evolving hotspots and valuable insights into the scientific advances in this field and provides scaling-up analysis and evidence diffusion on remdesivir.

Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-ß1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date. METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-ß1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both). FUNDING: WHO.

COVID-19 in Children.

Although COVID-19 has impacted many children, severe disease is rare and most recover with supportive care. Manifestations are diverse and often nonrespiratory. Adolescents/children with medical comorbidities are at risk for severe respiratory compromise. The most serious manifestation in previously healthy children is a delayed multisystem inflammatory syndrome with cardiac compromise in severe cases. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are available for adolescents at risk of progression and not hospitalized. Therapeutic options for severe respiratory disease with hypoxia include remdesivir and glucocorticoids. Therapies for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children include intravenous immunoglobulin and glucocorticoids. Refractory cases may benefit from additional immunomodulators.

In adults hospitalized with COVID-19, adding baricitinib vs. dexamethasone to remdesivir did not differ for MV-free survival.

SOURCE CITATION: Wolfe CR, Tomashek KM, Patterson TF, et al. Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10:888-99. 35617986.

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.