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.).

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.

Remdesivir and corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection caused by the newly discovered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroids are used mainly in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. The main objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of remdesivir with and without corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. We conducted a prospective observational study, including adult patients consecutively hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure. Patients were divided according to treatment strategy: RDV alone versus RDV with corticosteroids. The primary outcome was the time to recovery in both treatment groups. We included 374 COVID-19 adult patients, 184 were treated with RDV, and 190 were treated with RDV and corticosteroid. Patients in the RDV group had a shorter time to recovery in comparison with patients in the RDV plus corticosteroids group at 28 days after admission [11 vs. 16 days (95% confidence Interval 9.7-12.8; 14.9-17.1; p = .016)]. Patients treated with RDV alone had a shorter length of hospital stay. The use of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy of RDV was not associated with improvement in mortality of COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir.

Remdesivir, marketed under the brand name Veklury, is an antiviral drug with a broad spectrum of activity. There were various countries where the use of Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 was authorized during the pandemic. Remdesivir was first designed to treat hepatitis C, but it was later tested for Ebola virus sickness and Marburg virus infections. Remdesivir is a prodrug designed to facilitate the intracellular transport of GS-441524 monophosphate and its subsequent biotransformation into GS-441524 triphosphate, a ribonucleotide analogue inhibitor of viral RNA polymerase. The objective of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review of Remdesivir (GS-5734), including its nomenclature, physiochemical properties, preparation methods, identification procedures, numerous qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques, ADME profiles, and pharmacological effects. In addition, the chapter provides a variety of chromatographic and spectroscopic techniques for separating brimonidine from other drugs in combination formulations.

Dual effects of NV-CoV-2 biomimetic polymer: An antiviral regimen against COVID-19.

Remdesivir (RDV) is the only antiviral drug approved for COVID-19 therapy by the FDA. Another drug LAGEVRIO™ (molnupiravir) though has not been approved yet by FDA but has been authorized on December 23, 2021, for emergency use to treat adults with mild-to moderate COVID-19 symptoms and for whom alternative COVID-19 treatment options are not clinically appropriate. The fact is that the efficacy of RDV is, however, limited in vivo though it is highly promising in vitro against SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this paper we are focusing on the action mechanism of RDV and how it can be improved in vivo. The stability of RDV alone and on encapsulation with our platform technology based polymer NV-387 (NV-CoV-2), were compared in presence of plasma in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, a non-clinical pharmacology study of NV-CoV-2 (Polymer) and NV CoV-2 (Polymer encapsulated Remdesivir) in both NL-63 infected and uninfected rats was done. In addition, the antiviral activity of NV-CoV-2 and NV-CoV-2-R was compared with RDV in a cell culture study. The results are (i) NV-CoV-2 polymer encapsulation protects RDV from plasma-mediated catabolism in both in vitro and in vivo, studies; (ii) Body weight measurements of the normal (uninfected) rats after administration of the test materials (NV-CoV-2 and NV-CoV-2-R) showed no toxic effects. (iii) Body weight measurements and survival rates of the NL-63 infected rats were similar to the uninfected rats after treatment with NV-CoV-2 and NV-CoV-2-R. Overall, the efficacy as an antiviral regimens were found in this order as below; NV-CoV-2-R > NV-CoV-2 > RDV. Our platform technology based NV-387-encapsulated-RDV (NV-CoV-2-R) drug has a dual effect against different variants of the coronaviruses. First, NV-CoV-2 is an antiviral regimen. Secondly, RDV is protected from plasma-mediated degradation in transit. All together, NV-CoV-2-R is the safest and efficient regimen against COVID-19.

Patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 outcomes on remdesivir according to baseline 4C mortality score.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir was the first antiviral to show clinical benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Previous trials demonstrated a faster time to recovery in hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir vs placebo. Current guidelines recommend treatment with remdesivir based on hospitalization status, oxygen requirements, and time from symptom onset. However, other factors may be evaluated to determine disease severity and risk for progression. The 4C mortality score is a validated, eight variable score that may be used to categorize patients by mortality risk at the time of hospital admission for COVID pneumonia. The objective of this study was to determine if the 4C mortality score may be used to predict which patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 would benefit the most from remdesivir at the time of hospital admission. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study comparing time to recovery among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir compared to those who were treated with standard of care (SOC). The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital or no longer requiring supplemental oxygen, stratified by the 4C mortality score risk group. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and time to recovery in patients who were started on remdesivir within 7 days from symptom onset vs after 7 days from symptom onset. A survival analysis was used to analyze time to recovery outcomes. RESULTS: Data was collected and analyzed for a total of 300 patients, of which 200 received remdesivir and 100 received SOC. Patients in the remdesivir group had a longer time to recovery compared to patients in the SOC group (6 days vs 4 days). This finding was driven by patients who were categorized to the intermediate risk and high risk mortality groups. Additionally, patients who received remdesivir had a longer length of hospital stay compared to those who received SOC (12 days vs 9 days). Remdesivir was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study of patients admitted with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 found that patients who were treated with remdesivir had a longer time to recovery and a longer length of stay compared to those who received SOC. These findings add to the body of evidence questioning the benefit of remdesivir therapy among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

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.

Synergistic drug combinations designed to fully suppress SARS-CoV-2 in the lung of COVID-19 patients.

Despite new antivirals are being approved against SARS-CoV-2 they suffer from significant constraints and are not indicated for hospitalized patients, who are left with few antiviral options. Repurposed drugs have previously shown controversial clinical results and it remains difficult to understand why certain trials delivered positive results and other trials failed. Our manuscript contributes to explaining the puzzle: this might have been caused by a suboptimal drug exposure and, consequently, an incomplete virus suppression, also because the drugs have mostly been used as add-on monotherapies. As with other viruses (e.g., HIV and HCV) identifying synergistic combinations among such drugs could overcome monotherapy-related limitations. In a cell culture model for SARS-CoV-2 infection the following stringent criteria were adopted to assess drug combinations: 1) identify robust, synergistic antiviral activity with no increase in cytotoxicity, 2) identify the lowest drug concentration inhibiting the virus by 100% (LIC100) and 3) understand whether the LIC100 could be reached in the lung at clinically indicated drug doses. Among several combinations tested, remdesivir with either azithromycin or ivermectin synergistically increased the antiviral activity with no increase in cytotoxicity, improving the therapeutic index and lowering the LIC100 of every one of the drugs to levels that are expected to be achievable and maintained in the lung for a therapeutically relevant period of time. These results are consistent with recent clinical observations showing that intensive care unit admission was significantly delayed by the combination of AZI and RDV, but not by RDV alone, and could have immediate implications for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 as the proposed "drug cocktails" should have antiviral activity against present and future SARS-CoV-2 variants without significant overlapping toxicity, while minimizing the onset of drug resistance. Our results also provide a validated methodology to help sort out which combination of drugs are most likely to be efficacious in vivo, based on their in vitro activity, potential synergy and PK profiles.

Reduced risk of death in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with remdesivir: a nested case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several treatment options have been proposed (e.g. steroids, heparin, antivirals and monoclonal antibodies). Remdesivir was the first antiviral approved for the treatment of COVID-19, even though controversial evidence exists concerning the efficacy. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a study to evaluate whether the use of remdesivir was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study of a retrospective cohort collecting medical records of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted in the infectious Disease Unit of Sassari University Hospital (S.C. Clinica di Malattie Infettive, AOU di Sassari, Italy), or in the Infectious Disease Unit of Foggia (AOU "Ospedali Riuniti" Foggia), between 1 July 2020 and 10 November 2021. The outcome considered was death; thus, we matched death (cases) to survivors (controls) by sex and age (1:1). RESULTS: We included in the study 342 patients, with 171 deaths (cases) and 171 survivors (controls). Remdesivir was administered to 60 people in the control group and to 18 people in the case group (35.1% vs. 10.5%, p < .0001). In the multivariate analysis, treatment with remdesivir and heparin was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.19 [95% CI :0.10-0.38], p <.0001; OR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.21-0.74] p = .004, respectively). On the contrary, diabetes, oxygen therapy and CPAP/NIV were associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study showed lower mortality in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with remdesivir.

A novel logical model of COVID-19 intracellular infection to support therapies development.

In this paper, a logical-based mathematical model of the cellular pathways involved in the COVID-19 infection has been developed to study various drug treatments (single or in combination), in different illness scenarios, providing insights into their mechanisms of action. Drug simulations suggest that the effects of single drugs are limited, or depending on the scenario counterproductive, whereas better results appear combining different treatments. Specifically, the combination of the anti-inflammatory Baricitinib and the anti-viral Remdesivir showed significant benefits while a stronger efficacy emerged from the triple combination of Baricitinib, Remdesivir, and the corticosteroid Dexamethasone. Together with a sensitivity analysis, we performed an analysis of the mechanisms of the drugs to reveal their impact on molecular pathways.

Assessing efficacy of antiviral therapy for COVID-19 patients: A case study on remdesivir with bayesian synthesis design and multistate analysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: A synthesis design and multistate analysis is required for assessing the clinical efficacy of antiviral therapy on dynamics of multistate disease progression and in reducing the mortality and enhancing the recovery of patients with COVID-19. A case study on remdesivir was illustrated for the clinical application of such a novel design and analysis. METHODS: A Bayesian synthesis design was applied to integrating the empirical evidence on the one-arm compassion study and the two-arm ACTT-1 trial for COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. A multistate model was developed to model the dynamics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients from three transient states of low, medium-, and high-risk until the two outcomes of recovery and death. The outcome measures for clinical efficacy comprised high-risk state, death, and discharge. RESULTS: The efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the risk of death and enhancing the odds of recovery were estimated as 31% (95% CI, 18-44%) and 10% (95% CI, 1-18%), respectively. Remdesivir therapy for patients with low-risk state showed the efficacy in reducing subsequent progression to high-risk state and death by 26% (relative rate (RR), 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93) and 62% (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.48), respectively. Less but still statistically significant efficacy in mortality reduction was noted for the medium- and high-risk patients. Remdesivir treated patients had a significantly shorter period of hospitalization (9.9 days) compared with standard care group (12.9 days). CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of remdesvir therapy in reducing mortality and accelerating discharge has been proved by the Bayesian synthesis design and multistate analysis.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.