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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Discovery of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral synergy between remdesivir and approved drugs in human lung cells.

SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused an ongoing global pandemic with significant mortality and morbidity. At this time, the only FDA-approved therapeutic for COVID-19 is remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral nucleoside analog. Efficacy is only moderate, and improved treatment strategies are urgently needed. To accomplish this goal, we devised a strategy to identify compounds that act synergistically with remdesivir in preventing SARS-CoV-2 replication. We conducted combinatorial high-throughput screening in the presence of submaximal remdesivir concentrations, using a human lung epithelial cell line infected with a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2. This identified 20 approved drugs that act synergistically with remdesivir, many with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Strongest effects were observed with established antivirals, Hepatitis C virus nonstructural protein 5A (HCV NS5A) inhibitors velpatasvir and elbasvir. Combination with their partner drugs sofosbuvir and grazoprevir further increased efficacy, increasing remdesivir's apparent potency > 25-fold. We report that HCV NS5A inhibitors act on the SARS-CoV-2 exonuclease proofreader, providing a possible explanation for the synergy observed with nucleoside analog remdesivir. FDA-approved Hepatitis C therapeutics Epclusa® (velpatasvir/sofosbuvir) and Zepatier® (elbasvir/grazoprevir) could be further optimized to achieve potency and pharmacokinetic properties that support clinical evaluation in combination with remdesivir.

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.

Remdesivir does not affect mitochondrial DNA copy number or deletion mutation frequency in aged male rats: A short report.

Remdesivir is a leading therapy in patients with moderate to severe coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; the majority of whom are older individuals. Remdesivir is a nucleoside analog that incorporates into nascent viral RNA, inhibiting RNA-directed RNA polymerases, including that of SARS-CoV-2. Less is known about remdesivir's effects on mitochondria, particularly in older adults where mitochondria are known to be dysfunctional. Furthermore, its effect on age-induced mitochondrial mutations and copy number has not been previously studied. We hypothesized that remdesivir adversely affects mtDNA copy number and deletion mutation frequency in aged rodents. To test this hypothesis, 30-month-old male F333BNF1 rats were treated with remdesivir for three months. To determine if remdesivir adversely affects mtDNA, we measured copy number and mtDNA deletion frequency in rat hearts, kidneys, and skeletal muscles using digital PCR. We found no effects from three months of remdesivir treatment on mtDNA copy number or deletion mutation frequency in 33-month-old rats. These data support the notion that remdesivir does not compromise mtDNA quality or quantity at old age in mammals. Future work should focus on examining additional tissues such as brain and liver, and extend testing to human clinical samples.