RESUMO
BackgroundThe first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China. No antiviral treatment options are currently available with proven clinical efficacy. However, preliminary findings from phase III trials suggest that remdesivir is an effective and safe treatment option for COVID-19 patients with both moderate and severe disease. ObjectiveThe aim of the present meta-analysis was to investigate whether remdesivir was effective for treating COVID-19 including reduced in-hospital adverse events, oxygen support, and mortality rates. MethodsAccording to PRISMA reporting guidelines, a review was conducted from January 1 2020 until 25 August 2020 with MeSH terms including COVID-19, COVID, coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remdesivir, adenosine nucleoside triphosphate analog, Veklury using MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus. A modified Delphi process was utilized to include the studies and ensure that the objectives were addressed. Using dichotomous data for select values, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated applying Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects method in Review Manager 5.4. ResultsRandomized controlled trials pooled in 3013 participants with 46.3% (n=1,395) in the remdesivir group and 53.7% (n=1,618) in the placebo group. The placebo group had a higher risk of mortality as compared to the intervention group with significant odds ratio (OR=0.61) (95% confidence interval of 0.45 0.82; P=0.001). There was minimal heterogeneity among the studies (I2=0%). ConclusionsOur findings suggest that remdesivir extends clinical benefits by reducing mortality, adverse events and oxygen support in moderate to severely ill COVID-19 patients. Concerted efforts and further randomized placebo-controlled trials are warranted to examine the potency of antiviral drugs and immune-pathological host responses contributing to severity of COVID-19.
RESUMO
Newly emerged pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 highlight the urgent need for assays that detect levels of neutralizing antibodies that may be protective. We studied the relationship between anti-spike ectodomain (ECD) and anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG titers, and SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization (VN) titers generated by two different in vitro assays using convalescent plasma samples obtained from 68 COVID-19 patients, including 13 who donated plasma multiple times. Only 23% (16/68) of donors had been hospitalized. We also studied 16 samples from subjects found to have anti-spike protein IgG during surveillance screening of asymptomatic individuals. We report a strong positive correlation between both plasma anti-RBD and anti-ECD IgG titers, and in vitro VN titer. Anti-RBD plasma IgG correlated slightly better than anti-ECD IgG titer with VN titer. The probability of a VN titer [≥]160 was 80% or greater with anti-RBD or anti-ECD titers of [≥]1:1350. Thirty-seven percent (25/68) of convalescent plasma donors lacked VN titers [≥]160, the FDA-recommended level for convalescent plasma used for COVID-19 treatment. Dyspnea, hospitalization, and disease severity were significantly associated with higher VN titer. Frequent donation of convalescent plasma did not significantly decrease either VN or IgG titers. Analysis of 2,814 asymptomatic adults found 27 individuals with anti-RBD or anti-ECD IgG titers of [≥]1:1350, and evidence of VN [≥]1:160. Taken together, we conclude that anti-RBD or anti-ECD IgG titers can serve as a surrogate for VN titers to identify suitable plasma donors. Plasma anti-RBD or anti-ECD titer of [≥]1:1350 may provide critical information about protection against COVID-19 disease.
