Viruses |
您所在的位置：网站首页 › coronavirus epidemic › Viruses |
Viruses
|
Next Article in Journal
Antiviral Activity of Acetylsalicylic Acid against Bunyamwera Virus in Cell Culture
Previous Article in Journal
Upper Respiratory Infection Drives Clinical Signs and Inflammatory Responses Following Heterologous Challenge of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern in K18 Mice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Causes of HIV Treatment Interruption during the Last 20 Years: A Multi-Cohort Real-Life Study
Journals
Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
Topics
Information
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Awards
Testimonials
Author Services
Initiatives
Sciforum
MDPI Books
Preprints.org
Scilit
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia
JAMS
Proceedings Series
About
Overview
Contact
Careers
News
Blog
Sign In / Sign Up
Notice
clear
Notice
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader. Continue Cancel clearAll articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess. Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications. Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers. Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal. 
Journals
Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
Topics
Information
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Awards
Testimonials
Author Services
Initiatives
Sciforum
MDPI Books
Preprints.org
Scilit
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia
JAMS
Proceedings Series
About
Overview
Contact
Careers
News
Blog
Sign In / Sign Up
Submit
Journals
Viruses
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/v15040947
Submit to this Journal
Review for this Journal
Edit a Special Issue
►
▼
Article Menu
Article Menu
Academic Editors
 Giordano Madeddu
Andrea De Vito
Agnese Colpani
Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Related Info Link
Google Scholar
More by Authors Links
on DOAJ
Marocco, R.
Del Borgo, C.
Tortellini, E.
Garattini, S.
Carraro, A.
Di Trento, D.
Gasperin, A.
Grimaldi, A.
Tieghi, T.
Belvisi, V.
Kertusha, B.
Guardiani, M.
Zuccalà, P.
Alunni Fegatelli, D.
Spagnoli, A.
Lichtner, M.
LATINA COVID-group, .
on Google Scholar
Marocco, R.
Del Borgo, C.
Tortellini, E.
Garattini, S.
Carraro, A.
Di Trento, D.
Gasperin, A.
Grimaldi, A.
Tieghi, T.
Belvisi, V.
Kertusha, B.
Guardiani, M.
Zuccalà, P.
Alunni Fegatelli, D.
Spagnoli, A.
Lichtner, M.
LATINA COVID-group, .
on PubMed
Marocco, R.
Del Borgo, C.
Tortellini, E.
Garattini, S.
Carraro, A.
Di Trento, D.
Gasperin, A.
Grimaldi, A.
Tieghi, T.
Belvisi, V.
Kertusha, B.
Guardiani, M.
Zuccalà, P.
Alunni Fegatelli, D.
Spagnoli, A.
Lichtner, M.
LATINA COVID-group, .
/ajax/scifeed/subscribe
Article Views
Citations
-
Table of Contents
Altmetric
share
Share
announcement
Help
format_quote
Cite
question_answer
Discuss in SciProfiles
thumb_up
...
Endorse
textsms
...
Comment
Need Help?
Support
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website. Get Support FeedbackPlease let us know what you think of our products and services. Give Feedback InformationVisit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI. Get Information clear JSmol Viewer clear first_page settings Order Article Reprints Font Type: Arial Georgia Verdana Font Size: Aa Aa Aa Line Spacing: Column Width: Background: Open AccessArticle Use of Remdesivir in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in a Real-Life Setting during the Second and Third COVID-19 Epidemic Waves byRaffaella Marocco 1, Cosmo Del Borgo 1, Eeva Tortellini 2,* , Silvia Garattini 1,2, Anna Carraro 1,2, Daniela Di Trento 1, Andrea Gasperin 1, Alessandra Grimaldi 1, Tiziana Tieghi 1, Valeria Belvisi 1, Blerta Kertusha 1,2,  Mariasilvia Guardiani 2, Paola Zuccalà 1, Danilo Alunni Fegatelli 1, Alessandra Spagnoli 1, Miriam Lichtner 1,3 and LATINA COVID-group †
1
Infectious Diseases Unit, Santa Maria (SM) Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 04100 Latina, Italy
2
Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Neurosciences, Mental Health, and Sense Organs, NESMOS, Sapienza University of Rome, 00189 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Group members are listed in Acknowledgments.
Viruses 2023, 15(4), 947; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15040947
Received: 25 March 2023
/
Revised: 8 April 2023
/
Accepted: 8 April 2023
/
Published: 11 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Therapy)
Download
Download PDF
Download PDF with Cover
Download XML
Download Epub
Browse Figures
Review Reports
Versions Notes
Abstract: In this retrospective comparative study, we evaluated the effectiveness of remdesivir (RDSV) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Individuals hospitalized between March 2020 and August 2022 at S.M. Goretti Hospital, Latina, with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and, concomitantly, pneumonia, were included. The overall survival was the primary endpoint. The composite secondary endpoint included death or progression in severe ARDS at 40 days. The study population was stratified according to treatment into two groups: the RDSV group (patients treated with RDSV-based regimens) and the no-RDSV group (patients treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens). Factors associated with death and progression to severe ARDS or death were assessed by multivariable analysis. A total of 1153 patients (632 belonging to the RDSV group and 521 to the no-RDSV group) were studied. The groups were comparable in terms of sex, PaO2/FiO2 at admission, and duration of symptoms before hospitalization. Further, 54 patients (8.5%) in the RDSV group and 113 (21.7%) in the no-RDSV group (p < 0.001) died. RDSV was associated with a significantly reduced hazard ratio (HR) of death (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49–0.97]; p = 0.03), compared to the no-RDSV group, as well as a significantly reduced OR of progression in severe ARDS or death (OR, 0.70 [95% CI 0.49–0.98]; p = 0.04). An overall significantly higher survival rate was observed in the RDSV group (p < 0.001, by log-rank test). These findings reinforce the survival benefit of RDSV and support its routine clinical use for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Keywords: remdesivir; SARS-CoV-2; antiviral therapy; COVID-19; real-life study 1. IntroductionThe current COVID-19 pandemic, which originated in December 2019, has posed enormous healthcare challenges around the world. It has led to increased hospitalizations for pneumonia with multiorgan disorders and deaths, with new estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) of 14.9 million excess deaths associated with the pandemic in 2020 and 2021 [1,2,3].Several therapies are available for hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. Some treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, have proven to reduce the risk of progression of COVID-19, and, in the health emergency, several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the prevention and treatment of this disease, but the definition of an efficacious drug is still challenging [1,4,5,6].At the beginning of the pandemic, with no definitive curative treatment insight and a high mortality rate in vulnerable populations, health authorities sought to re-stratify risks and focus on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies, targeting hospitalized and critically ill patients [6,7].Several antiviral/antimalarial agents such as remdesivir (RDSV), ritonavir/lopinavir combination, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and immuno-modulating therapies such as tocilizumab, sarilumab, convalescent plasma, and interferon were under randomized controlled trials (RCT) in many countries in order to evaluate their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19 [4,8,9].RDSV (also known as GS-5734), developed by Gilead Sciences via collaboration with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was proposed as a potential candidate drug for the treatment of COVID-19, and recent studies have shown promising results, suggesting that it could represent a ‘molecule of hope’ for the treatment of COVID-19 [4,7,10,11]. RDSV is a nucleotide analog prodrug that inhibits viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which was first developed to treat Ebola and further demonstrated an in vitro inhibitory activity against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2 [2,12,13,14,15,16]. Furthermore, early RDSV treatment showed its efficacy in in vivo studies on SARS-CoV-2-infected macaques [17]. Several studies indicate how it shortens the recovery time of hospitalized patients [12,13,14,15,16]. In particular, the phase 3 trial of RDSV showed that both a 10-day course and a 5-day course shortened the recovery time in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 [6,8,18]. On 10 April 2020, AIFA authorizes the Solidarity study promoted by the WHO, in which different therapeutic strategies were evaluated, including antiviral RDSV and lopinavir/ritonavir alone or in combination with beta interferon, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine [9].Based on these findings, in June 2020, RDSV was proposed by the EMA as the first antiviral drug approved for the treatment of COVID-19 disease [19]. Finally, on 22 October 2020, RDSV became the first United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [11,19]. In Italy, RDSV has been available since October 2020.Here, we report a retrospective study that aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of RDSV-based regimens on hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, using mortality as the primary endpoint and mortality or progression to severe ARDS as the secondary endpoint in univariate and multivariate models in a real-life context. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Ethics StatementThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee Lazio 2 (protocol number 0038491/2022), as established by the Ministry of Health of the Italian Government. Each subject gave written informed consent for data analysis. 2.2. Study Design and PatientsA retrospective comparative study was conducted on hospitalized patients between March 2020 and August 2022 at the S.M. Goretti Hospital, Latina.Inclusion criteria were an age of >18 years, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction assay (PCR), and concurrent pneumonia.The study population included patients treated with RDSV-based regimens (RDSV group) and patients treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens (no-RDSV group).Specifically, patients belonging to the no-RDSV group met the exclusion criteria for RDSV or were hospitalized before October 2020. Exclusion criteria for RDSV use included alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels greater than 5 times the upper limit of the normal range, estimated creatinine clearance less than 30 mL per minute (by the Cockcroft–Gault formula), or duration of symptoms more than 10 days.During the study period, the most common viral variants in Italy were the wild-type Wuhan variant, the Delta variant from 2 June 2021 to 15 December 2021, and Omicron from 16 December 2021 [20].RDSV was administered intravenously in patients with radiologic evidence of pneumonia and oxygen support, following the national guidelines available at the time of hospitalization. According to local protocol, all the case patients received 200 mg of RDSV on day 1 as a loading dose, followed by 100 mg once daily for the subsequent 4 days as a maintenance dose, for a total of 5 days of treatment. RDSV-based regimens consisted of RDSV plus standard of care (SOT), including steroids, enoxaparin, and tocilizumab, whereas controls included SOT ± lopinavir/ritonavir/hydroxychloroquine. The use of steroids or tocilizumab was based on clinical judgment and on the national and local guidelines available at that time.A description of the general population enrolled was provided, considering variables such as sex distribution, age, symptoms presented at admission, PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission and the nadir, blood test values (white blood cell count, percentage of lymphocytes and neutrophils, creatinine, C-reactive protein (CRP), vaccination status, comorbidities, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and its grade (low, moderate, or severe), and death during hospitalization.The study population was stratified according to treatment into two groups: the RDSV group (patients treated with RDSV-based regimens) and the no-RDSV group (patients treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens), and the differences between them were evaluated.The effects of RDSV-based regimens were investigated using mortality as the primary endpoint and mortality or progression in severe ARDS as a composite endpoint.In order to better understand the role of antivirals, an ulterior stratification was performed in the no-RDSV group, dividing it into Lop/rit/chloro (patients receiving either lopinavir/ritonavir/chloroquine) and Other (any other, not RDSV-based, or lopinavir/ritonavir/chloroquine regimens). 2.3. Statistical AnalysisThe data are reported as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) (25th–75th percentile) for continuous variables and as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Baseline characteristics were compared by the Kruskal–Wallis test or Chi-Square, as appropriate. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of hospitalization to death, from any cause. Patients who do not have OS events were censored at the date they were last known to be alive.The primary endpoint is defined as the time from hospitalization to the first documentation of death. Patients who do not have death events will be censored at their last disease assessment date.The composite endpoint is defined as the time from hospitalization to the first documentation of progression in severe ARDS or death. Patients who do not have progression in severe ARDS or death events will be censored at their last disease assessment date.The OS probabilities were estimated in each group using the non-parametric Kaplan–Meier method and displayed graphically. The groups’ differences in OS were assessed by log-rank test. To estimate the association between RDSV use and mortality, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were applied. The proportional hazards assumption was verified using graphical methods; scaled Schoenfeld residuals and graphical checks proposed by Klein and Moeschberger were performed. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the influences of covariates on the composite endpoint. The p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. The confidence intervals were at a 95% level. All analyses were performed using the software R (version 4.2.2 R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). 3. Results 3.1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study PopulationA total of 1153 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in the study and systematically followed up during hospital stay.Specifically, 632 patients were treated with RDSV based-regimens (RDSV group) and 521 were treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens (no-RDSV group); among them, 160 received lopinavir/ritonavir/ chloroquine based-regimens (Lop/rit/chloro subgroup) and 361 did not receive any antiviral at all (Other subgroup) (Figure 1). Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population at hospital admission are shown in Table 1. In detail, 458 were females and 695 males with a median age (IQR) of 65 years [53–76] (Table 1). Overall, the median (IQR) PaO2/FiO2 at admission was 309 [243–366] and the median (IQR) duration from symptoms onset to hospitalization was 6 days [3–10] (Table 1). The two groups were comparable in terms of sex, PaO2/FiO2 at admission, and duration of symptoms before hospitalization (Table 1).Conversely, as expected, in the RDSV group, age (p < 0.001) and creatinine (p < 0.001) were lower compared to the no-RDSV group (Table 1).Furthermore, a lower proportion of patients with comorbidities was found in the RDSV group compared to the counterpart (p = 0.017). Types of comorbidities were similar, with the exception of CRF, cardiovascular diseases, and dementia (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) (Table 1).Among all patients, 981 contracted the infection during the dominance of the Wuhan original variant, 104 during the dominance of the delta variant period, and 68 during the omicron era and no differences were found in terms of vaccination status (Table 1). 3.2. Clinical Progression of the Study PopulationAs reported in Table 2, during hospitalization, 167 patients died. Among them, 113 (21.7%) belonged to the no-RDSV group and 54 (8.5%) to the RDSV group, revealing significantly lower mortality in the latter (p < 0.001) (Table 2). Concerning progression in ARDS, no differences were found between the two groups (Table 2).A lower hospital stay was observed in the RDSV group with respect to the no-RDSV group (p = 0.017) (Table 2).Regarding the analysis of adverse effects, although no serious adverse events were reported, four patients voluntarily interrupted RDSV-based regimens complaining of manifestations of allergy and tachycardia. 3.3. Survival AnalysisOverall, at 40 days, a survival probability (IQR) of 0.653 [0.584–0.712] was observed for all patients.Stratifying the study population into the RDSV and no-RDSV groups, survival probabilities of 0.681 [0.556–0.778] and 0.616 [0.537–0.686] were observed in the RDSV group and no-RDSV group, respectively, revealing a significantly higher survival rate for the RDSV group (p < 0.001, by the log-rank test) (Figure 2A). By Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the RDSV regimen was associated with a reduced hazard ratio (HR) of death, (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49–0.97]; p = 0.03), together with PaO2/FiO2 at admission (HR, 0.60 [95% CI 0.51–0.71]; p < 0.001), whereas classical factors such as age (HR, 2.11 [95% CI 1.82–2.45]; p < 0.001), and comorbidities (HR, 1.50 [95% CI 0.86–2.63]) were associated with an increased HR of death (although the latter was not significant) (Figure 2B).These results were confirmed in the second stratification. On stratifying the no-RDSV group into Lop/rit/chloro and Other subgroups, survival probabilities of 0.735 [0.624–0.864] and 0.555 [0.470–0.655] were observed, respectively, with a statistically significant difference in the OS between the three groups (p < 0.001, by the log-rank test) (Figure 2C).By Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, RDSV (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44–0.90]; p = 0.01) was confirmed to be a protective factor, as was PaO2/FiO2 at admission (HR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.51–0.72]; p < 0.001) (Figure 2D). Furthermore, the Lop/rit/chloro (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.39–1.08]; p = 0.10) regimen was found to be associated with a reduced HR of death, although not significant, whereas age (HR, 2.08 [95% CI 1.79–2.41]; p < 0.001) maintained its role in predicting the death endpoint (Figure 2D). 3.4. Analysis of Composite EndpointIn the multivariable logistic analysis, factors such as age (odds ratio (OR), 1.66 [95% CI 1.45–1.92]; p < 0.001) and comorbidities (OR, 1.60 [95% CI 1.00–2.61]; p = 0.05) were associated with progression to severe ARDS or death, whereas the RDSV regimen was associated with a reduced odds to develop the composite endpoint (OR, 0.70 [95% CI 0.49–0.98]; p = 0.04) together with lymphocytes (OR, 0.96 [95% CI 0.94–0.98]; p < 0.001) (Figure 3A).Performing the same analysis stratifying no-RDSV into the Lop/rit/chloro and Others subgroup, age (odds ratio (OR), 1.66 [95% CI 1.45–1.92]; p < 0.001) and comorbidities (OR, 1.60 [95% CI 1.00–2.61]; p = 0.05) maintained their role in predicting the composite endpoint, while the RDSV regimen confirmed in reduced OR of death or progression to severe ARDS (OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48–1.00]; p = 0.05) together with lymphocytes (OR, 0.96 [95% CI 0.94–0.98]; p < 0.001) (Figure 3B). Lop/rit/chloro regimen resulted to be associated with a reduced OR, although not significant (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.54–1.70]; p = 0.90) (Figure 3B). 4. DiscussionHere, we report the results of a retrospective comparative study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of RDSV on hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, using overall survival as the primary endpoint and death or progression in severe ARDS as the composite secondary endpoint. Overall, RDSV use within 10 days represented a protective factor associated with a statistically significant decrease in mortality or risk to develop a severe ARDS. Furthermore, a higher survival rate was observed in the RDSV-treated group compared to those who did not receive RDSV, reinforcing the survival benefit of this antiviral and supporting its clinical routine use for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.Starting from December 2021, RDSV was the only COVID-19 treatment that had received full FDA approval. However, questions remain about its real-world effectiveness. Currently, RDSV’s effectiveness in preventing deaths is still debated. Results of clinical trials and observational studies are not always in accordance, ranging from no survival benefit to significant mortality reduction.The WHO international COVID-19 guidelines recommended against its use, and after that the WHO Solidarity open-label trial showed no effects on the mortality rate among patients [21]. Conversely, other studies reported survival benefits in a subset of patients, including the pivotal adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 (ACTT-1) and propensity score matching (PSM) study conducted in the United States, which demonstrated improved clinical recovery in a certain subset of patients receiving RDSV and numerically lower inpatient mortality [21,22,23,24]. Several other real-world studies showed a significant survival benefit of this antiviral for all patients [23,24,25,26,27,28].In order to evaluate the effectiveness of RDSV-based regimens, our study population was stratified according to treatment into the RDSV group and the no-RDSV group. The two groups were comparable in terms of sex, PaO2/FiO2 at admission, and duration of symptoms before hospitalization, and the statistically significant higher age and creatinine levels found in the no-RDSV group, as well as the higher proportion of patients with comorbidities, is consistent with the fact that patients belonging to the no-RDSV group were often older people with impaired kidney function who did not meet the inclusion criteria for RDSV.Our study, conducted on 1153 hospitalized patients, reinforces the survival benefit of RDSV. In fact, in multivariate analysis, RDSV-based regimens represented a protective factor associated with a statistically significant decrease in mortality or risk to develop a severe ARDS. It should be noted that very few patients had been vaccinated at the time of hospital admission, suggesting that the benefits observed were driven at least in part by RDSV. Furthermore, most of the enrolled patients were admitted to the hospital during the predominance of wild-type Wuhan and pre-Delta strains, which were known to cause severe disease, especially among unvaccinated persons, supporting its potential beneficial role for all variants of the virus that are less pathogenic. Exploring the risk factors related to the endpoints of interest in our population, we found that classical factors such as higher age and the presence of comorbidities were associated with mortality or the risk to develop severe ARDS, while factors such as female sex and higher PaO2/FiO2 at admission resulted to be protective, in accordance with other studies [29,30,31]. These data confirm that the elderly and patients with comorbidities represent a vulnerable population to the worse outcome of COVID-19 and that the mortality of RDSV-treated patients is significantly related to the need for higher levels of O2 support. Furthermore, a lymphocyte count in a normal range was found to be associated with reduced mortality or the risk to develop severe ARDS, in accordance with the fact that lymphopenia represents a predictor of poor prognosis in COVID-19 patients, together with older age and comorbidities [32,33,34].These findings are also consistent with studies that demonstrated the efficacy of RDSV use within nine days from symptom onset in reducing in-hospital mortality, probably due to the kinetics of the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the respiratory tract [30].An ulterior analysis was performed stratifying the no-RDSV group in Lop/rit/chloro and Other subgroups in order to better understand the role of antivirals. This analysis confirmed the beneficial role of RDSV-based regimens and showed that Lop/rit/chloro regimen also was associated with a decrease in mortality compared to therapeutic regimens that did not include any antivirals at all.In the Omicron era, in which most of the population has developed a natural, and vaccine or booster-delivered immunity, the effectiveness of many antivirals, such as RDSV, remains unclear. Hence, we think it would be useful to conduct and improve randomized trials involving vaccinated patients infected by Omicron variant [35]. This is of particular relevance since a newly published multicenter randomized controlled study that aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of Paxlovid in hospitalized adult patients with Omicron variant infection showed no significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality on day 28 and the duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients with severe comorbidities, in discordance with the results obtained previously [36]. Paxlovid consists of two active principles: nirmatrelvir, which is an inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 3-chymotrypsin-like cysteine protease enzyme, and ritonavir, a protease inhibitor. It can be dispensed at community pharmacies, and, with respect to remdesivir, which needs to be administered intravenously, Paxlovid has the advantage to be administered orally. Currently, it is recommended by the WHO guidelines only for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and not for COVID-19 pneumonia, underlining the need for a safe and effective drug against severe COVID-19 [37,38].To our knowledge, there are no comparative trials between RDSV and Paxlovid. Only a study conducted on symptomatic adults hospitalized with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 that compares a five-day course with an oral derivate of RDSV to Paxlovid reports the same effectiveness between the two antivirals with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns for the oral derivate of RDSV [38].However, a recent phase 3 trial conducted in a predominantly vaccinated population infected with various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern showed the efficacy of a single subcutaneous dose of pegylated interferon lambda administered within seven days after the onset of symptoms in reducing the risk of hospitalization, giving hope for the identification of convenient, widely available, and effective antiviral therapies against COVID-19 [39].In our study population, RDSV was well tolerated, since no severe adverse events have been reported. This is in line with recent studies that provided insight into the safety of RDSV in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrated no significant harm with its use. In fact, the adverse events described are similar across all studies and may suggest that these could be a result of COVID-19 severity rather than the RDSV treatment [4].This study has several limitations, including the monocentric and retrospective nature, which does not permit generalizations about the results obtained. Furthermore, it includes a low number of vaccinated patients infected during the Omicron era.Despite these limitations, we believe that the study adds to the body of knowledge on the use of RDSV in real-world settings, considering the large size of the population, which represents a great point of strength. In summary, this retrospective study showed that RDSV-based regimens represented a protective factor that did improve mortality overall and was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of survival, supporting their use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and adding another option to the armamentarium for the treatment of patients who are at high risk to develop severe COVID-19. Author ContributionsConceptualization, M.L., R.M. and C.D.B.; methodology, M.L., S.G., A.S. and D.A.F.; software, A.S. and D.A.F.; validation, A.S. and D.A.F.; statistical analysis, A.S. and D.A.F.; investigation, P.Z., A.C. and S.G.; resources LATINA COVID-group, D.D.T., A.G. (Andrea Gasperin) and A.G. (Alessandra Grimaldi); data curation, S.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.T. and M.G.; writing—review and editing, M.L., C.D.B., R.M., A.S. and D.A.F.; visualization, T.T., B.K. and V.B.; supervision, M.L. and C.D.B.; project administration, M.L.; funding acquisition, M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.FundingThis research was funded in part by Gilead (Gilead Grant for Publication), n. 000326_21, to M.L.Institutional Review Board StatementThe study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee Lazio 2 (protocol number 0038491/2022).Informed Consent StatementInformed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.Data Availability StatementThe raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.AcknowledgmentsThe authors highly acknowledge the COVID-19 Latina Study Group from S.M. Goretti Hospital, Italy. COVID-19 Latina Study Group members are: Miriam Lichtner, Cosmo Del Borgo, Raffaella Marocco, Valeria Belvisi, Tiziana Tieghi, Margherita De Masi, Paola Zuccalà, Paolo Fabietti, Angelo Vetica, Vito Sante Mercurio, Anna Carraro, Laura Fondaco, Blerta Kertusha, Alberico Parente, Giulia Mancarella, Silvia Garattini, Andrea Gasperin, Davide Caianiello, Francesco Izzo, Sara Corazza, Sara De Maria, Luca Battisti, Daniela Di Trento, Anastasia Destro, Gaetano Brignone, Simone Cacace, Gianluca Gabrielli, Daniela Di Trento, Emanuela Del Giudice, Riccardo Lubrano, Maria Gioconda Zotti, Antonella Puorto, Marcello Ciuffreda, Antonella Sarni, Gabriella Monteforte, Rita Dal Piaz, Emanuela Viola, Carla Damiani, Antonietta Barone, Barbara Mantovani, Daniela Di Sanzo, Vincenzo Gentili, Massimo Carletti, Massimo Aiuti, Andrea Gallo, P, Salvatore Martellucci, Oliviero Riggio, Lorenzo Ridola, Maria Consiglia Bragazzi, Stefania Gioia, Silvia Nardelli, Rosanna Venere, Emiliano Valenzi, Camilla Graziosi, Niccolò Bina, Martina Fasolo, Silvano Ricci, Giovanni Blanco, Luisella Corso, Umberto Basile, Daniela Tornese, Francesco Equitani, Carmine Cosentino, Antonella Melucci, Desirè Mancini, Frida Leonetti, Gaetano Leto, Camillo Gnessi, Giuseppe Pelle, Iannarelli Angelo, Mario Iozzino, Adriano Ascarelli, Cesare Ambrogi, Iacopo Carbone, Roberto Cesareo, Francesca Marrocco, Clelia Di Pippo, Valentina Isgrò, Gabriele Bagaglini, Gabriella Bonanni, Alessandra Mecozzi, Sergio Parrocchia, Giuseppe Visconti, Giorgio Casati, Laide Romagnoli, Silvia Cavalli.Conflicts of InterestM.L. received Department grants from Gilead outside the submitted work and support for advisory board or for attending to conference from MSD, Abbvie, Gilead, GSK, Angelini, ViiV. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.ReferencesA Year without Precedent: WHO’s COVID-19 Response—World | ReliefWeb. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/year-without-precedent-who-s-COVID-19-response (accessed on 23 November 2022).Dezza, F.C.; Oliva, A.; Mauro, V.; Romani, F.E.; Aronica, R.; Savelloni, G.; Casali, E.; Valeri, S.; Cancelli, F.; Mastroianni, C.M. Real-Life Use of Remdesivir-Containing Regimens in COVID-19: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. Infez. Med. 2022, 30, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]14.9 Million Excess Deaths Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-COVID-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021 (accessed on 27 February 2023).Lin, H.X.J.; Cho, S.; Meyyur Aravamudan, V.; Sanda, H.Y.; Palraj, R.; Molton, J.S.; Venkatachalam, I. Remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment: A Review of Evidence. Infection 2021, 49, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]COVID Live—Coronavirus Statistics—Worldometer. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on 23 November 2022).Gottlieb, R.L.; Vaca, C.E.; Paredes, R.; Mera, J.; Webb, B.J.; Perez, G.; Oguchi, G.; Ryan, P.; Nielsen, B.U.; Brown, M.; et al. Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe COVID-19 in Outpatients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Aleissa, M.M.; Silverman, E.A.; Paredes Acosta, L.M.; Nutt, C.T.; Richterman, A.; Marty, F.M. New Perspectives on Antimicrobial Agents: Remdesivir Treatment for COVID-19. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 65, e01814-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Ader, F.; Bouscambert-Duchamp, M.; Hites, M.; Peiffer-Smadja, N.; Poissy, J.; Belhadi, D.; Diallo, A.; Lê, M.-P.; Peytavin, G.; Staub, T.; et al. Remdesivir plus Standard of Care versus Standard of Care Alone for the Treatment of Patients Admitted to Hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A Phase 3, Randomised, Controlled, Open-Label Trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for COVID-19—Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Agostini, M.L.; Andres, E.L.; Sims, A.C.; Graham, R.L.; Sheahan, T.P.; Lu, X.; Smith, E.C.; Case, J.B.; Feng, J.Y.; Jordan, R.; et al. Coronavirus Susceptibility to the Antiviral Remdesivir (GS-5734) Is Mediated by the Viral Polymerase and the Proofreading Exoribonuclease. mBio 2018, 9, e00221-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Chatterjee, B.; Thakur, S.S. Remdesivir and Its Combination with Repurposed Drugs as COVID-19 Therapeutics. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 830990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Mulangu, S.; Dodd, L.E.; Davey, R.T.; Tshiani Mbaya, O.; Proschan, M.; Mukadi, D.; Lusakibanza Manzo, M.; Nzolo, D.; Tshomba Oloma, A.; Ibanda, A.; et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2293–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Wang, M.; Cao, R.; Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Liu, J.; Xu, M.; Shi, Z.; Hu, Z.; Zhong, W.; Xiao, G. Remdesivir and Chloroquine Effectively Inhibit the Recently Emerged Novel Coronavirus (2019-NCoV) In Vitro. Cell Res. 2020, 30, 269–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Yin, W.; Mao, C.; Luan, X.; Shen, D.-D.; Shen, Q.; Su, H.; Wang, X.; Zhou, F.; Zhao, W.; Gao, M.; et al. Structural Basis for Inhibition of the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase from SARS-CoV-2 by Remdesivir. Science 2020, 368, 1499–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Sheahan, T.P.; Sims, A.C.; Graham, R.L.; Menachery, V.D.; Gralinski, L.E.; Case, J.B.; Leist, S.R.; Pyrc, K.; Feng, J.Y.; Trantcheva, I.; et al. Broad-Spectrum Antiviral GS-5734 Inhibits Both Epidemic and Zoonotic Coronaviruses. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9, eaal3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Malin, J.J.; Suárez, I.; Priesner, V.; Fätkenheuer, G.; Rybniker, J. Remdesivir against COVID-19 and Other Viral Diseases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 34, e00162-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Williamson, B.N.; Feldmann, F.; Schwarz, B.; Meade-White, K.; Porter, D.P.; Schulz, J.; van Doremalen, N.; Leighton, I.; Yinda, C.K.; Pérez-Pérez, L.; et al. Clinical Benefit of Remdesivir in Rhesus Macaques Infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nature 2020, 585, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Ali, K.; Azher, T.; Baqi, M.; Binnie, A.; Borgia, S.; Carrier, F.M.; Cavayas, Y.A.; Chagnon, N.; Cheng, M.P.; Conly, J.; et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Patients in Hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: A Randomized Controlled Trial. CMAJ 2022, 194, E242–E251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]EMA First COVID-19 Treatment Recommended for EU Authorisation. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/first-COVID-19-treatment-recommended-eu-authorisation (accessed on 23 November 2022).Prevalenza e Distribuzione Delle Varianti di SARS-CoV-2 di Interesse per la Sanità Pubblica in Italia. Available online: https://www.iss.it/cov19-cosa-fa-iss-varianti/-/asset_publisher/yJS4xO2fauqM/content/id/5802322 (accessed on 2 February 2023).Chokkalingam, A.P.; Hayden, J.; Goldman, J.D.; Li, H.; Asubonteng, J.; Mozaffari, E.; Bush, C.; Wang, J.R.; Kong, A.; Osinusi, A.O.; et al. Association of Remdesivir Treatment with Mortality among Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open. 2022, 5, e2244505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Garibaldi, B.T.; Wang, K.; Robinson, M.L.; Zeger, S.L.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Wang, M.-C.; Alexander, G.C.; Gupta, A.; Bollinger, R.; Xu, Y. Comparison of Time to Clinical Improvement With vs Without Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e213071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Mozaffari, E.; Chandak, A.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, S.; Thrun, M.; Gottlieb, R.L.; Kuritzkes, D.R.; Sax, P.E.; Wohl, D.A.; Casciano, R.; et al. Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Comparative Analysis of In-Hospital All-Cause Mortality in a Large Multicenter Observational Cohort. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 75, e450–e458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Olender, S.A.; Walunas, T.L.; Martinez, E.; Perez, K.K.; Castagna, A.; Wang, S.; Kurbegov, D.; Goyal, P.; Ripamonti, D.; Balani, B.; et al. Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofab278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Benfield, T.; Bodilsen, J.; Brieghel, C.; Harboe, Z.B.; Helleberg, M.; Holm, C.; Israelsen, S.B.; Jensen, J.; Jensen, T.Ø.; Johansen, I.S.; et al. Improved Survival among Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treated with Remdesivir and Dexamethasone. A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, 2031–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Diaz, G.A.; Christensen, A.B.; Pusch, T.; Goulet, D.; Chang, S.-C.; Grunkemeier, G.L.; McKelvey, P.A.; Robicsek, A.; French, T.; Parsons, G.T.; et al. Remdesivir and Mortality in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 74, 1812–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Garcia-Vidal, C.; Alonso, R.; Camon, A.M.; Cardozo, C.; Albiach, L.; Agüero, D.; Marcos, M.A.; Ambrosioni, J.; Bodro, M.; Chumbita, M.; et al. Impact of Remdesivir According to the Pre-Admission Symptom Duration in Patients with COVID-19. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, 3296–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]De Vito, A.; Poliseno, M.; Colpani, A.; Zauli, B.; Puci, M.V.; Santantonio, T.; Meloni, M.C.; Fois, M.; Fanelli, C.; Saderi, L.; et al. Reduced Risk of Death in People with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Remdesivir: A Nested Case–Control Study. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2022, 38, 2029–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Metchurtchlishvili, R.; Chkhartishvili, N.; Abutidze, A.; Endeladze, M.; Ezugbaia, M.; Bakradze, A.; Tsertsvadze, T. Effect of Remdesivir on Mortality and the Need for Mechanical Ventilation among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Real-World Data from Resource-Limited Country. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2023, 29, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Hanafusa, M.; Nawa, N.; Goto, Y.; Kawahara, T.; Miyamae, S.; Ueki, Y.; Nosaka, N.; Wakabayashi, K.; Tohda, S.; Tateishi, U.; et al. Effectiveness of Remdesivir with Corticosteroids for COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Unit: A Hospital-based Observational Study. J. Med. Virol. 2023, 95, e28168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Hidalgo-Tenorio, C.; García-Vallecillos, C.; Sequera-Arquelladas, S. COVID-19 Virgen de las Nieves TEAM Real-World Outcomes of COVID-19 Treatment with Remdesivir in a Spanish Hospital. Medicine 2021, 100, e27228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Ziadi, A.; Hachimi, A.; Admou, B.; Hazime, R.; Brahim, I.; Douirek, F.; Zarrouki, Y.; El Adib, A.R.; Younous, S.; Samkaoui, A.M. Lymphopenia in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Predictor Factor of Severity and Mortality. Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2021, 43, e38–e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Li, Q.; Cao, Y.; Chen, L.; Wu, D.; Yu, J.; Wang, H.; He, W.; Chen, L.; Dong, F.; Chen, W.; et al. Hematological Features of Persons with COVID-19. Leukemia 2020, 34, 2163–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Wu, C.; Chen, X.; Cai, Y.; Xia, J.; Zhou, X.; Xu, S.; Huang, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, X.; Du, C.; et al. Risk Factors Associated with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 180, 934–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Lee, T.C.; Boulware, D.R. Ongoing Need for Clinical Trials and Contemporary End Points for Outpatient COVID-19. Ann. Intern. Med. 2023, 176, 137–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]Liu, J.; Pan, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, M.; Ma, K.; Fan, C.; Lv, Y.; Guan, X.; Yang, Y.; Ye, X.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Paxlovid in Severe Adult Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study. Lancet Reg. Health—West. Pac. 2023, 100694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Lamontagne, F.; Agarwal, A.; Rochwerg, B.; Siemieniuk, R.A.; Agoritsas, T.; Askie, L.; Lytvyn, L.; Leo, Y.-S.; Macdonald, H.; Zeng, L.; et al. A Living WHO Guideline on Drugs for COVID-19. BMJ 2020, 370, m3379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Cao, Z.; Gao, W.; Bao, H.; Feng, H.; Mei, S.; Chen, P.; Gao, Y.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Meng, X.; et al. VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]Reis, G.; Moreira Silva, E.A.S.; Medeiros Silva, D.C.; Thabane, L.; Campos, V.H.S.; Ferreira, T.S.; Santos, C.V.Q.; Nogueira, A.M.R.; Almeida, A.P.F.G.; Savassi, L.C.M.; et al. Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] 
Figure 1.
Flow-chart of study population.
Figure 1.
Flow-chart of study population.
Figure 2.
Analysis of primary endpoint. (A). Kaplan–Meier survival curve in the RDSV and no-RDSV groups. (B) Multivariable Cox analysis of factors associated with the primary endpoint in RDSV and no-RDSV groups. (C). Kaplan–Meier survival curve in RDSV, Lop/rit/chloro, and Other. (D) Multivariable Cox analysis of factors associated with the primary endpoint in RDSV, Lop/rit/chloro, and Other.
Figure 2.
Analysis of primary endpoint. (A). Kaplan–Meier survival curve in the RDSV and no-RDSV groups. (B) Multivariable Cox analysis of factors associated with the primary endpoint in RDSV and no-RDSV groups. (C). Kaplan–Meier survival curve in RDSV, Lop/rit/chloro, and Other. (D) Multivariable Cox analysis of factors associated with the primary endpoint in RDSV, Lop/rit/chloro, and Other.
Figure 3.
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with the composite endpoint.
Figure 3.
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with the composite endpoint.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population.
VariableAllNo-RDSV GroupRDSV Grouppn1153521632 Sex (f/m) (n, %)458/695221 (42.4)/300 (57.6)237 (37.5)/395 (62.5)0.101Age65.00 [53.00–76.00]68.00 [55.00–81.00]62.00 [53.00–73.00] |
【本文地址】
公司简介
联系我们
今日新闻 |
点击排行 |
|
推荐新闻 |
图片新闻 |
|
专题文章 |