Reply to Boyd et al., "Evidence that remdesivir treatment reduces viral titers in patients with COVID-19"

Isa Faghihi,Victoria C. Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01363-24

IF: 5.938

2024-11-08

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract:Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Ahead of Print.

pharmacology & pharmacy,microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Remdesivir treatment does not reduce viral titers in patients with COVID-19

Isa Faghihi,Victoria C. Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00856-24

IF: 5.938

2024-07-19

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract:The relationship (or lack thereof) between the clinical activity of remdesivir and its ability to reduce viral titers in patients with COVID-19 has not been fully delineated. There is a misconception that remdesivir was FDA-approved for COVID-19 due to its ability to reduce viral titers. Here, we analyze all clinical studies of remedesivir in COVID-19 that quantifed SARS-CoV-2 titers. As of 28 June 2024, we show there is no significant decrease in SARS-CoV-2 viral titers in patients treted with remdesivir compared to placebo controls.

pharmacology & pharmacy,microbiology
Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Patrick O. Godwin,Bryan Polsonetti,Michael F. Caron,Thomas F. Oppelt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00900-3

2024-01-11

Infectious Diseases and Therapy

Abstract:Despite the wide availability of effective vaccines, COVID-19 continues to be an infectious disease of global importance. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral and was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for COVID-19. In clinical guidelines, remdesivir is currently the only recommended antiviral for use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with or without a supplemental oxygen requirement. It is also recommended for nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. This narrative review explores the evidence for remdesivir across various clinical outcomes and evolution of clinical guidelines through a survey over time of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. Remdesivir, compared to standard of care, appears to improve survival and disease progression in a variety of patient populations with COVID-19 across a spectrum of disease severity and SARS-CoV-2 variant periods. Remdesivir also appears to improve time to clinical recovery, increase rate of recovery, and reduce time on supplemental oxygen and readmission rates. More recent large, real-world studies further support the early use of remdesivir in a range of patient populations, including those with immunocompromising conditions.

infectious diseases
Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study

Essy Mozaffari,Aastha Chandak,Robert L Gottlieb,Chidinma Chima-Melton,Andre C Kalil,Vishnudas Sarda,Celine Der-Torossian,Thomas Oppelt,Mark Berry,Alpesh N Amin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0131

2024-02-29

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract:Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58–0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72–0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

health care sciences & services
Among Patients with COVID-19, should Remdesivir be Used for Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Carol Stephanie C Tan-Lim,Natasha Ann R Esteban-Ipac

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.vi0.7288

2024-08-15

Abstract:Background: Remdesivir is an intravenously administered antiviral drug that inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. In vitro studies have shown that remdesivir can inhibit the growth of the COVID-19 virus in infected Vero cells and can inhibit infection in human cell lines. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in treating patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods: A systematic search of electronic medical literature databases was done from inception until September 4, 2022. Search for ongoing studies and preprints was also done. Risk of bias assessment was done using Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2.0. Measures of effect used were relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis by disease severity was preplanned. The estimates for efficacy and safety of remdesivir was calculated using Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials with 13,085 participants were identified. Eight of the included studies recruited confirmed COVID-19 patients needing hospitalization, while one study limited recruitment to non-hospitalized patients. Remdesivir showed significant benefit for outpatients with mild to moderate disease with at least one risk factor for disease progression in terms of COVID 19-related hospitalization (RR 0.13 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59), all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.75), and need for medically-attended visits (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.56). For hospitalized patients, remdesivir had a slight benefit in reducing all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98). Subgroup analysis by disease severity showed a trend towards reduction in mortality among those with severe disease (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.07), with no effect on those with critical disease (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04), and inconclusive effect for those with mild-moderate disease (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.11). Remdesivir showed benefit in decreasing clinical deterioration (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.89), improving recovery rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), and reducing the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90). There was inconclusive effect on the need for ICU admission (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.22). No increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06), including serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.03), was seen. Discussion: Based on the available evidence, remdesivir shows benefit in the treatment for patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 infection. However, there was no benefit in mortality noted among those with critical disease requiring mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir demonstrated a good safety profile, with no increased risk of adverse events compared to control. These results are consistent with the international agencies' recommendations for the use of remdesivir among patients with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 infection, but not for those with critical infection. Conclusion: Current evidence supports the use of remdesivir as treatment for selected patients with COVID-19.
Real-world evaluation of early remdesivir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients during Omicron including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5

Kyle C Molina,Brandon J Webb,Victoria Kennerley,Laurel E Beaty,Tellen D Bennett,Nichole E Carlson,David A Mayer,Jennifer L Peers,Seth Russell,Matthew K Wynia,Neil R Aggarwal,Adit A Ginde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09708-z

2024-08-08

Abstract:Background: A trial performed among unvaccinated, high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 during the delta period showed remdesivir reduced hospitalization. We used our real-world data platform to determine the effectiveness of remdesivir on reducing 28-day hospitalization among outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19 during an Omicron period including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. Methods: We did a propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 7, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Electronic healthcare record data from a large health system in Colorado were linked to statewide vaccination and mortality data. We included patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or outpatient remdesivir administration. Exclusion criteria were other SARS-CoV-2 treatments or positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than seven days before remdesivir. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization up to day 28. Secondary outcomes included 28-day COVID-related hospitalization and 28-day all-cause mortality. Results: Among 29,270 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1,252 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 2,499 untreated patients. Remdesivir was associated with lower 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs. 3.3%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.39 [95% CI 0.23-0.67], p < 0.001) than no treatment. All-cause mortality at 28 days was numerically lower among remdesivir-treated patients (0.1% vs. 0.4%; aOR 0.32 [95% CI 0.03-1.40]). Similar benefit of RDV treatment on 28-day all-cause hospitalization was observed across Omicron periods, aOR (95% CI): BA.2/BA2.12.1 (0.77[0.19-2.41]), BA.4/5 (0.50[95% CI 0.50-1.01]), BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 (0.21[95% CI 0.08-0.57]. Conclusion: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 during recent Omicron surges, remdesivir was associated with lower hospitalization than no treatment, supporting current National Institutes of Health Guidelines.
Management of vulnerable patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir: a retrospective comparative effectiveness study of mortality in US hospitals

Essy Mozaffari,Aastha Chandak,Mark Berry,Paul E Sax,Paul Loubet,Yohei Doi,Alpesh N Amin,Neera Ahuja,Veronika Müller,Roman Casciano,Martin Kolditz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae512

IF: 20.999

2024-10-20

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:COVID-19 remains a major public health concern, with continued resurgences of cases and substantial risk of mortality for hospitalized patients. Remdesivir has become standard-of-care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Given the continued evolution of the disease, clinical management relies on evidence from the current endemic period. Using the PINC AI Healthcare database, effectiveness of remdesivir was evaluated among adults hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 between December 2021 and February 2024. Three cohorts were analysed: adults, elderly (≥65 years), and those with documented COVID-19 pneumonia. Analyses were stratified by oxygen requirements. Patients receiving remdesivir were matched to those not receiving remdesivir using propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine in-hospital mortality. 169,965 adults hospitalized for COVID-19 were included, of which 94,129 (55.4%) initiated remdesivir in the first two days of hospitalization. Remdesivir was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate as compared to no remdesivir among patients with no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) (aHR [95% CI]: 14-day, 0.75 [0.69-0.82]; 28-day, 0.77 [0.72-0.83]) and among those with supplemental oxygen charges (SOc): 14-day, 0.76 [0.72-0.81]; 28-day, 0.79 [0.74-0.83]) (p<0.0001, for all). Similar findings were observed for elderly patients and those hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. This evidence builds on learnings from randomized controlled trials from the pandemic era to inform clinical practices. Remdesivir was associated with significant reduction in mortality for hospitalized patients including the elderly and those with COVID-19 pneumonia.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Alain Amstutz,Benjamin Speich,France Mentré,Corina Silvia Rueegg,Drifa Belhadi,Lambert Assoumou,Charles Burdet,Srinivas Murthy,Lori Elizabeth Dodd,Yeming Wang,Kari A O Tikkinen,Florence Ader,Maya Hites,Maude Bouscambert,Mary Anne Trabaud,Mike Fralick,Todd C Lee,Ruxandra Pinto,Andreas Barratt-Due,Fridtjof Lund-Johansen,Fredrik Müller,Olli P O Nevalainen,Bin Cao,Tyler Bonnett,Alexandra Griessbach,Ala Taji Heravi,Christof Schönenberger,Perrine Janiaud,Laura Werlen,Soheila Aghlmandi,Stefan Schandelmaier,Yazdan Yazdanpanah,Dominique Costagliola,Inge Christoffer Olsen,Matthias Briel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00528-8

IF: 102.642

2023-02-01

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups.METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134.FINDINGS: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (p<sub>interaction</sub>=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events.INTERPRETATION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.FUNDING: EU-RESPONSE.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chuizhe Chen,Junde Fang,Shu Chen,Mamy Jayne Nelly Rajaofera,Xuemiao Li,Bo Wang,Qianfeng Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08525-0

2023-10-09

Abstract:Background: Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs. Research design and methods: The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs. Results: Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality. Conclusion: The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.
Corrigendum: Remdesivir (GS-5734) Impedes Enterovirus Replication Through Viral RNA Synthesis Inhibition

Wei Ye,Min Yao,Yangchao Dong,Chuantao Ye,Dan Wang,He Liu,Hongwei Ma,Hui Zhang,Libin Qi,Yuewu Yang,Yuan Wang,Liang Zhang,Linfeng Cheng,Xin Lv,Zhikai Xu,Yingfeng Lei,Fanglin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.621197

IF: 5.2

2020-11-23

Frontiers in Microbiology

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01105.].

microbiology
Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: Evidence of Effectiveness from Cohort Studies in the Omicron Era

Daniel R Kuritzkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae515

IF: 20.999

2024-10-25

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Remdesivir is the only antiviral approved for treatment of persons hospitalized for COVID-19. This supplement presents new information from real-world cohort studies reporting reduced mortality in at-risk populations and reductions in re-admission for COVID-19 in the Omicron era.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen are blood biomarkers associated with severe disease outcomes that improve in response to remdesivir

Kanal Singh,Kevin Rubenstein,Viviane Callier,Katy Shaw-Saliba,Adam Rupert,Robin Dewar,Sylvain Laverdure,Helene Highbarger,Perrine Lallemand,Meei-Li Huang,Keith R Jerome,Reigran Sampoleo,Margaret G Mills,Alexander L Greninger,Kavita Juneja,Danielle Porter,Constance A Benson,Walla Dempsey,Hana M El Sahly,Chris Focht,Nikolaus Jilg,Catharine I Paules,Rekha R Rapaka,Timothy M Uyeki,H Clifford Lane,John Beigel,Lori E Dodd,Aneesh K Mehta,Nadine G Rouphael,Jessica J Traenkner,Valeria D Cantos,Ghina Alaaeddine,Barry S Zingman,Robert Grossberg,Paul F Riska,Elizabeth Hohmann,Mariam Torres-Soto,Nikolaus Jilg,Helen Y Chu,Anna Wald,Margaret Green,Annie Luetkemeyer,Pierre-Cedric B Crouch,Hannah Jang,Susan Kline,Joanne Billings,Brooke Noren,Diego Lopez de Castilla,Jason W Van Winkle,Francis X Riedo,Robert W Finberg,Jennifer P Wang,Mireya Wessolossky,Kerry Dierberg,Benjamin Eckhardt,Henry J Neumann,Victor Tapson,Jonathan Grein,Fayyaz Sutterwala,Lanny Hsieh,Alpesh N Amin,Thomas F Patterson,Heta Javeri,Trung Vu,Roger Paredes,Lourdes Mateu,Daniel A Sweeney,Constance A Benson,Farhana Ali,William R Short,Pablo Tebas,Jessie Torgersen,Giota Touloumi,Vicky Gioukari,David Chien Lye,Sean W X Ong,Norio Ohmagari,Ayako Mikami,Gerd Fätkenheuer,Jakob J Malin,Philipp Koehler,Andre C Kalil,LuAnn Larson,Angela Hewlett,Mark G Kortepeter,C Buddy Creech,Isaac Thomsen,Todd W Rice,Babafemi Taiwo,Karen Krueger,Stuart H Cohen,George R Thompson,Cameron Wolfe,Emmanuel B Walter,Maria Frank,Heather Young,Ann R Falsey,Angela R Branche,Paul Goepfert,Nathaniel Erdmann,Otto O Yang,Jenny Ahn,Anna Goodman,Blair Merrick,Richard M Novak,Andrea Wendrow,Henry Arguinchona,Christa Arguinchona,Sarah L George,Janice Tennant,Robert L Atmar,Hana M El Sahly,Jennifer Whitaker,D Ashley Price,Christopher J A Duncan,Simeon Metallidis,Theofilos Chrysanthidis,F McLellan,Myoung-don Oh,Wan Beom Park,Eu Suk Kim,Jongtak Jung,Justin R Ortiz,Karen L Kotloff,Brian Angus,Jack David Germain Seymour,Noreen A Hynes,Lauren M Sauer,Neera Ahuja,Kari Nadeau,Patrick E H Jackson,Taison D Bell,Anastasia Antoniadou,Konstantinos Protopapas,Richard T Davey,Jocelyn D Voell,Jose Muñoz,Montserrat Roldan,Ioannis Kalomenidis,Spyros G Zakynthinos,Catharine I Paules,Fiona McGill,Jane Minton,Nikolaos Koulouris,Zafeiria Barmparessou,Edwin Swiatlo,Kyle Widmer,Nikhil Huprikar,Anuradha Ganesan,Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios,Alfredo Ponce de León,Sandra Rajme,Justino Regalado Pineda,José Arturo Martinez-Orozco,Mark Holodniy,Aarthi Chary,Timo Wolf,Christoph Stephan,Jan-Christian Wasmuth,Christoph Boesecke,Martin Llewelyn,Barbara Philips,Christopher J Colombo,Rhonda E Colombo,David A Lindholm,Katrin Mende,Tida Lee,Tahaniyat Lalani,Ryan C Maves,Gregory C Utz,Jens Lundgren,Marie Helleberg,Jan Gerstoft,Thomas Benfield,Tomas Jensen,Birgitte Lindegaard,Lothar Weise,Lene Knudsen,Isik Johansen,Lone W Madsen,Lars Østergaard,Nina Stærke,Henrik Nielsen,Timothy H Burgess,Michelle Green,Mat Makowski,Jennifer L Ferreira,Michael R Wierzbicki,Tyler Bonnett,Nikki Gettinger,Theresa Engel,Jing Wang,John H Beigel,Kay M Tomashek,Seema Nayak,Lori E Dodd,Walla Dempsey,Effie Nomicos,Marina Lee,Peter Wolff,Rhonda Pikaart-Tautges,Mohamed Elsafy,Robert Jurao,Hyung Koo,Michael Proschan,Dean Follmann,H Clifford Lane,the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) Study Group Members

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae198

2024-04-25

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter ACTT-1 clinical trial that randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 COVID-19 patients were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95%CI 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/ml vs 1.04 (95%CI 0.76-1.42) for levels < 245 pg/ml. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Antivirals in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Haoshuang Liu,Jingfeng Chen,Weihao Shao,Su Yan,Suying Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S422386

2023-11-01

Abstract:Objective: Numerous pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), and the evidence is rapidly evolving. Our aim is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods: We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of novel oral antivirals for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients until November 30, 2022, including baricitinib, ivermectin (IVM), favipiravir (FVP), chloroquine (CQ), lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/RTV), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ+AZT). The main outcomes of this network meta-analysis (NMA) were in-hospital mortality, adverse event (AE), recovery time, and improvement in peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2). For dichotomous results, the odds ratio (OR) was used, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined. We also used meta-regression to explore whether different treatments affected efficacy and safety. STATA 15.0 was used to conduct the NMA. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD 42023415743). Results: Thirty-six RCTs, with 33,555 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were included in this analysis. First, we compared the efficacy of different novel oral antivirals. Baricitinib (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.90) showed the highest probability of being the optimal probiotic species in reducing in-hospital mortality and suggested that none of the interventions reduced AE better than placebo. In terms of safety outcomes, IVM ranked first in improving the recovery time of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (mean difference (MD) -1.36, 95% CI: -2.32 to -0.39). In addition, patients were most likely to increase SpO2 (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.09 to 3.45). The meta-regression revealed no significant differences between participants using different novel oral antivirals in all outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Currently, baricitinib has reduced in-hospital mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with moderate certainty of evidence. IVM appeared to be a safer option than placebo in improving recovery time, while FVP was associated with increased SpO2 safety outcomes. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Sahar Kmal Hegazy,Samar Tharwat,Ahmed Hosny Hassan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v11.i26.6105

2023-09-16

Abstract:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic stimulates research works to find a solution to this crisis from starting 2020 year up to now. With ending of the 2021-year, various advances in pharmacotherapy against COVID-19 have emerged. Regarding antiviral therapy, casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination is a type of new immunotherapy against COVID-19. Standard antiviral therapy against COVID-19 includes Remdesivir and Favipiravir. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab) compared to standard antiviral therapy in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: 265 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction confirmed patients with indication for antiviral therapy were included in this study and were divided into 3 groups (1: 2: 2): Group A: REGN3048-3051 antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab), group B: Remdesivir, group C: Favipiravir. The study design is a single-blind non-randomized controlled trial Mansoura University Hospital owns the study's drugs. The duration of the study was about 6 mo after ethical approval. Results: Casirivimab and imdevimab achieve less need for O2 therapy and IMV, with less duration of this need than remdesivir and favipiravir. Conclusion: Group A (casirivimab and imdevimab) achieve better clinical outcomes than groups B (remdesivir) and C (favipiravir) intervention groups.
Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 virus: A narrative review and bibliometric analysis

Saeid Mezail Mawazi,Nousheen Fathima,Syed Mahmood,Sinan Mohammed Abdullah Al-Mahmood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.001

2024-09-04

Abstract:The COVID-19 epidemic has become a major international health emergency. Millions of people have died as a result of this phenomenon since it began. Has there been any successful pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 since the initial report on the virus? How many searches are undertaken to address the impact of the infection? What is the number of drugs that have undergone investigation? What are the mechanisms of action and adverse effects associated with the investigated pharmaceuticals used to treat COVID-19? Has the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved any medication to treat COVID-19? To date, our understanding is based on a restricted corpus of published investigations into the treatment of COVID-19. It is important to note that no single study comprehensively encompasses all pharmacological interventions for COVID-19. This paper provides an introductory summary of a bibliometric analysis conducted on the data about COVID-19, sourced explicitly from two platforms, namely PubMed and ScienceDirect. The analysis encompasses the period spanning from 2019 to 2022. Furthermore, this study examines the published literature about the pharmacological interventions for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), explicitly focusing on the safety and effectiveness of different medications such as Remdesivir (marketed as Veklury®), Lopinavir/Ritonavir (commercially known as Kaletra® or Aluvia®), Ribavirin, Favipiravir (marketed as Avigan®), Ivermectin, Casirivimab and Imdevimab (branded as Ronapreve®), Sotrovimab (marketed as Xevudy®), Anakinra, Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (marketed as Paxlovid®), and Galidesivir. Findings indicate that while Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir show significant efficacy in reducing hospitalization and severe outcomes, drugs like Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Ivermectin have inconsistent results. Our insights suggest a multifaceted approach incorporating these therapies can significantly improve patient outcomes. Repurposing drugs has been critical in rapidly responding to COVID-19, allowing existing medications to be used in new ways to combat the virus. Combination therapies and further research are essential to optimize treatment strategies.
Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

Susan A Olender,Katherine K Perez,Alan S Go,Bindu Balani,Eboni G Price-Haywood,Nirav S Shah,Su Wang,Theresa L Walunas,Shobha Swaminathan,Jihad Slim,BumSik Chin,Stéphane De Wit,Shamim M Ali,Alex Soriano Viladomiu,Philip Robinson,Robert L Gottlieb,Tak Yin Owen Tsang,I-Heng Lee,Hao Hu,Richard H Haubrich,Anand P Chokkalingam,Lanjia Lin,Lijie Zhong,B Nebiyou Bekele,Robertino Mera-Giler,Chloé Phulpin,Holly Edgar,Joel Gallant,Helena Diaz-Cuervo,Lindsey E Smith,Anu O Osinusi,Diana M Brainard,Jose I Bernardino,GS-US-540–5773 and GS-US-540–5807 Investigators,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1041

IF: 20.999

2020-07-24

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract Background We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. Methods GS-US-540–5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540–5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22–.68, P = .001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
SARS-CoV-2 viral load is linked to remdesivir efficacy in severe Covid-19 admitted to intensive care

M Balik,P Waldauf,I Jurisinova,E Svobodova,M Diblickova,T Tencer,J Zavora,G Smela,L Kupidlovska,V Adamkova,M Fridrichova,K Jerabkova,J Mikes,F Duska,L Dusek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71588-9

2024-09-06

Abstract:Remdesivir therapy has been declared as efficient in the early stages of Covid-19. Of the 339 patients (males 55.8%, age 71(59;77) years) with a detectable viral load, 140 were treated with remdesivir (of those 103 in the ICU and 57 immunosuppressed) and retrospectively compared with 199 patients (of those 82 in the ICU and 28 immunosuppressed) who were denied therapy due to advanced Covid-19. The viral load was estimated by detecting nucleocapsid antigen in serum (n = 155, median 217(28;1524)pg/ml), antigen in sputum (n = 18, COI 18(4.6;32)), nasopharyngeal antigen (n = 44, COI 17(8;35)) and the real-time PCR (n = 122, Ct 21(18;27)). After adjustment for confounders, patients on remdesivir had better 12-month survival (HR 0.66 (0.44;0.98), p = 0.039), particularly when admitted to the ICU (HR 0.49 (0.29;0.81), p = 0.006). For the immunocompromised patients, the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.55 (0.18;1.69), p = 0.3). The other most significant confounders were age, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, leukocyte/lymphocyte ratio, admission creatinine and immunosuppression. The impact of monoclonal antibodies or previous vaccinations was not significant. Despite frequent immune suppression including haemato-oncology diseases, lymphopenia, and higher inflammatory markers in the remdesivir group, the results support remdesivir administration with respect to widely available estimates of viral load in patients with high illness severity.
Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 from evidence in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wei Liu,Pengxiang Zhou,Ken Chen,Zhikang Ye,Fang Liu,Xiaotong Li,Na He,Ziyang Wu,Qi Zhang,Xuepeng Gong,Qiyu Tang,Xin Du,Yingqiu Ying,Xiaohan Xu,Yahui Zhang,Jinyu Liu,Yun Li,Ning Shen,Rachel J Couban,Quazi I Ibrahim,Gordon Guyatt,Suodi Zhai,Rachel J. Couban,Quazi I. Ibrahim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200647

2020-06-03

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.RESULTS:In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.INTERPRETATION:To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.

medicine, general & internal
Remdesivir-associated survival outcomes among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: real-world evidence from the Omicron dominant era

Essy Mozaffari,Aastha Chandak,Robert L Gottlieb,Chidinma Chima-Melton,Mark Berry,Alpesh N Amin,Paul E Sax,Andre C Kalil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae510

IF: 20.999

2024-10-17

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Patients with immunocompromising conditions are at an increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and mortality. Randomized clinical trials provide limited enrollment, if any, to inform outcomes of such patients treated with remdesivir. Using the US PINC AI Healthcare Database, we identified adult patients with immunocompromising conditions, hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2021 and February 2024. Primary outcome was all-cause inpatient mortality examined in propensity score (PS) matched patients in remdesivir versus non-remdesivir groups. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with cancer, hematologic malignancies, and solid organ/hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Of 28,966 patients included in the study, 16,730 (58%) received remdesivir during first two days of hospitalization. After PS matching, 8,822 patients in remdesivir and 8,822 patients in non-remdesivir group were analyzed. Remdesivir was associated with a significantly lower mortality among patients with no supplemental oxygen (aHR [95% CI]: 14-day, 0.73 [0.62-0.86]; 28-day, 0.79 [0.68-0.91]) and among those with supplemental oxygen (14-day, 0.75 [0.67-0.85]; 28-day, 0.78 [0.70-0.86]). Remdesivir was also associated with lower mortality in subgroups of patients with cancer, hematological malignancies (including leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma), and solid organ/hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In this large cohort of patients with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-19, remdesivir was associated with significant improvement in survival, including patients with varied underlying immunocompromising conditions. The integration of current real-world evidence into clinical guideline recommendations can inform clinical communities to optimize treatment decisions in the evolving COVID-19 era, extending beyond the conclusion of the public health emergency declaration.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Remdesivir versus Favipiravir in Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s457198

IF: 2.145

2024-05-16

International Journal of General Medicine

Abstract:Karuna Chavalertsakul, 1 Yuda Sutherasan, 1 Tananchai Petnak, 1 Kanin Thammavaranucupt, 2 Suppachok Kirdlarp, 2 Viboon Boonsarngsuk, 1 Somnuek Sungkanuparph 2 1 Division of Pulmonary and Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 2 Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Samut Prakan, Thailand Correspondence: Yuda Sutherasan, Division of Pulmonary and Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, 270 Rama VI Road, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand, Tel +6622011619, Fax +6622011629 Ext 2, Email Background: Remdesivir treatment was associated with a reduced 28-day mortality and recovery time among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Favipiravir is broadly used to treat COVID-19. However, various studies have had conflicting results on the efficacy of favipiravir for COVID-19. We hypothesized that remdesivir is more effective in clinical outcomes regarding the 29-day mortality rates, length of stay, and recovery rate than favipiravir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study that included adult hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients with hypoxemia. Patients were classified into two groups according to the antiviral drugs. Age, oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, and Charlson comorbidity index were used for propensity score matching. The primary objective was to determine whether the type of antiviral agent is associated with 29-day mortality. Other outcomes were the 15-day recovery rate and the length of intensive care unit or hospital stay. Results: A total of 249 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia were included. With an adjustment for propensity score-matched, there were 204 patients for further analysis (102 patients in each antiviral drug group). Remdesivir patients had higher Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) scores on Chest X-ray (14.32± 9.08 vs 11.34± 8.46; standardized mean difference =33.9%). The Charlson Comorbidity Index Scores were comparable. The prevalences of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and non-HIV immunocompromised state were higher in the remdesivir group. Regarding the primary outcomes, after adjusting by diabetes, obesity, and RALE score, there was no difference in the 29-day mortality rate between both groups [26 patients (25.5%) in the remdesivir group vs 28 patients (27.5%) in the favipiravir group]. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis at 29 days indicated no significant difference in cumulative survival rate. The two groups' adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.25, p =0.24. A Kaplan-Meier analysis on the 15-day cumulative survival rate observed a trend towards a higher survival rate in the remdesivir group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.84; p= 0.02) The proportion of patients who recovered on day 15, the length of intensive care unit(ICU) stays, and the hospital stay were not different between remdesivir and favipiravir groups (62 patients (60.8%) vs 56 patients (54.9%), p=0.39; 11.48 ± 11.88 days vs 10.87 ± 9.31 days, p =0.69; and 16.64± 14.28 days vs 16.59 ± 11.31 days, p =0.98, respectively). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, Remdesivir did not demonstrate superior benefits over Favipiravir regarding 29-day mortality, 15-day recovery rates, or hospital and ICU stay lengths. However, further investigation into the 15-day cumulative survival rate revealed a trend towards improved survival in the Remdesivir group. Keywords: remdesivir, favipiravir, moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia The global pandemic Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) was officially declared by the World Health Organization (WHO). The outbreak has profoundly impacted the healthcare and socioeconomic systems of many countries. 1 Studies on COVID-19 fatality rates among hospitalized patients have shown variations over time. The reports from 2020 to 2021 indicated mortality rates of around 17 to 50%. A study in 2023 stated that the global hospital mortality rate of COVID-19 among general patients was 16%, with variations observed across different geographic areas. 2 Several therapeutic strategies have been attempted, including antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, and immunomodulator therapy. 3 The rationale behind using antiviral agents in treating COVID-19 is inhibiting viral replication, reducing disease severity, and mitigating cytokine storms by dampening the exaggerated immune response. Early administr -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Better post-acute sequelae COVID19 observed in hospitalized COVID19 patients treated with remdesivir

Fesu,D.,Barczi,E.,Csoma,B.,Polivka,L.,Horvath,G.,Sebok,S.,Muller,V.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2024.pa5080

IF: 24.3

2024-11-01

European Respiratory Journal

Abstract:Post acute sequelae COVID19 (PASC) is still an ill-defined condition, mainly characterized by persisting symptoms following infection. Remdesivir (RDV) has been widely used as antiviral treatment for hospitalized patients needing oxygen therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the role of RDV in previously hospitalized PACS patients, assessing symptoms, pulmonary functions (PF) and quality of life (QoL). Former inpatients (N=293) presenting to post-COVID pulmonary care between 01/02/2021-03/02/2023 were categorized based on receiving RDV (N=183) or only standard of care (SOC; N=110). Patient characteristics, symptoms during and after COVID19, applied therapies, detailed PF, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), QoL were registered. Age (57.4±14.2 vs. 58.6±14.1 years) and sex (female 36.1 vs. 39.1%) were similar in both groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in RDV-group (14±13 vs. 19±19 days, p=0.022). During COVID19 more patients required oxygen in RDV-group while SOC patients received favipiravir and needed non-invasive or invasive ventilation more often. Main symptoms during COVID19 were similar, most patients reported fatigue, dyspnea and fever/chills. PASC symptom profile between the groups did not confirm differences, however in the RDV-group sleep disturbances disappeared in higher proportion and ≥50% reduction in symptoms was more common among RDV treated patients. PF and 6MWT parameters were similar, while patient reported QoL was significantly better in RDV-group. Patients treated with RDV spent less time in hospital and had more often at least 50% improvement in symptom profile at PASC indicating that this antiviral therapy might have a long-term beneficial effect on QoL.

respiratory system

Reply to Boyd et al., "Evidence that remdesivir treatment reduces viral titers in patients with COVID-19"

Remdesivir treatment does not reduce viral titers in patients with COVID-19

Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study

Among Patients with COVID-19, should Remdesivir be Used for Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Real-world evaluation of early remdesivir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients during Omicron including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5

Management of vulnerable patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir: a retrospective comparative effectiveness study of mortality in US hospitals

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Corrigendum: Remdesivir (GS-5734) Impedes Enterovirus Replication Through Viral RNA Synthesis Inhibition

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: Evidence of Effectiveness from Cohort Studies in the Omicron Era

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen are blood biomarkers associated with severe disease outcomes that improve in response to remdesivir

Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Antivirals in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 virus: A narrative review and bibliometric analysis

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

SARS-CoV-2 viral load is linked to remdesivir efficacy in severe Covid-19 admitted to intensive care

Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 from evidence in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Remdesivir-associated survival outcomes among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: real-world evidence from the Omicron dominant era

Remdesivir versus Favipiravir in Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Better post-acute sequelae COVID19 observed in hospitalized COVID19 patients treated with remdesivir