Clinical efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 in children: A propensity-score-matched analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shoji K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10259089 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 in children: A propensity-score-matched analysis.
Shoji Kensuke K Asai Yusuke Y Akiyama Takayuki T Tsuzuki Shinya S Matsunaga Nobuaki N Suzuki Setsuko S Iwamoto Noriko N Funaki Takanori T Miyairi Isao I Ohmagari Norio N
Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy 20230612 9
Clinical efficacy of remdesivir in children with COVID-19 is unclear. This propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study of children with COVID-19 showed that the rate of patients achieving defervescence on Day 4 was higher in the remdesivir group than in the non-remdesivir group, but was not statistically different (86.7% vs 73.3%, P = 0.333). ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, many children with appendicitis and COVID-19 were initially treated non-operatively and later underwent interval appendectomy. Currently, children with both appendicitis and COVID-19 frequently undergo upfront appendectomy. The impact of this return to upfront surgical management on patient outcomes is unknown. This study compared outcomes of pediatric patients with and without COVID-19 infection undergoing appendectomy.Study designA retrospective cohort study of children < 21y who underwent appendectomy from 3/19/2020 to 7/31/2022 at 50 Pediatric Health Information System children's hospitals was conducted. Children with documented COVID-19 were identified. Exclusions included preoperative ventilator or supplemental oxygen dependence, and missing data. To evaluate COVID-19 positive versus COVID-19 negative patients, we used a propensity score matched on sociodemographics, comorbidities, laparoscopy, perforation, and hospital. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests identified differences between groups in length of stay, postoperative drain placement, 30-day re-admission, and mechanical ventilation requirements.ResultsOverall, 51,861 children of median age 11y (IQR: 8-14) underwent appendectomy, of whom 1,440 (2.3%) had COVID-19. Most were male (60.3%), White (72.1%) and non-Hispanic (61.4%). Public insurance was the most common (47.5%). We created a matched cohort of 1,360 COVID-19 positive and 1,360 COVID-19 negative children. Children with COVID-19 had shorter hospitalizations (1d, IQR: 1-4 vs. 2d, IQR: 1-5, p = 0.03), less postoperative peritoneal drain placement (2.4% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.01), and fewer 30-day readmissions (9.0% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.04). However, no difference in incidence or duration of mechanical ventilation (p > 0.05) was detected.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that upfront appendectomy for children with appendicitis and COVID-19 has similar outcomes compared to children without COVID-19.Level of evidenceLevel III.
| S-EPMC11461633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir is the only antiviral agent approved for the treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Studies show conflicting results regarding its effect on mortality.MethodsIn this single center observational study, we included adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients who were treated with remdesivir were compared to controls. Remdesivir was administered for 5 days. To adjust for any imbalances in our cohort, a propensity score matched analysis was performed. The aim of our study was to analyze the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS).ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 350 patients (175 remdesivir, 175 controls) were included in our analysis. Overall, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between groups remdesivir 5.7% [10/175] vs. control 8.6% [15/175], hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-1.12, p = 0.091. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality in patients who were treated with remdesivir ≤ 7 days of symptom onset remdesivir 4.2% [5/121] vs. control 10.4% [13/125], hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75, p = 0.012 and in female patients remdesivir 2.9% [2/69] vs. control 12.2% [9/74], hazard ratio 0.18 95%CI 0.04 to 0.85, p = 0.03. Patients in the remdesivir group had a significantly longer LOS (11 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.046).ConclusionRemdesivir did not reduce in-hospital mortality in our whole propensity score matched cohort, but subgroup analysis showed a significant mortality reduction in female patients and in patients treated within ≤ 7 days of symptom onset. Remdesivir may reduce mortality in patients who are treated in the early stages of illness.
| S-EPMC9610353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundsRemdesivir (RDV) is an antiviral agent approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, is not recommended for patients with renal impairment. Due to limitations associated with prospective clinical trials, real-world data on the safety and efficacy of RDV in patients with renal impairment are necessary.MethodsPropensity score-matched (PSM) retrospective analysis was conducted between March 2020 and September 2022 in COVID-19 patients with an eGFR < 30 mL/min in four Korean hospitals. The RDV treatment group was matched to the untreated control group. The safety and clinical outcomes in patients who received RDV were analyzed.ResultsA total of 564 patients were enrolled; 229 patients received RDV either for treatment or prophylaxis. On day 5, no difference in nephrotoxicity was observed between the two groups, and liver enzyme levels were within the normal range. In multivariate analysis for new dialysis, RDV treatment was not a risk factor for new dialysis. Among the 564 patients, 417 were indicated for a 5-day course of RDV treatment and 211 patients were treated with RDV. After PSM, no differences in the clinical outcomes were observed between the two groups.ConclusionRDV use in COVID-19 patients with renal impairment did not result in significant nephrotoxicity or hepatotoxicity.
| S-EPMC10759744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir is not currently approved for patients with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2. We aimed to determine the safety of remdesivir in patients with kidney failure.MethodsThis study was a retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between May 2020 and January 2021 with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 who received remdesivir and historical controls with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020 prior to the emergency use authorization of remdesivir within a large health care system. Patients were 1:1 matched by propensity scores accounting for factors associated with treatment assignment. Adverse events and hospital outcomes were recorded by manual chart review.ResultsThe overall cohort included 34 hospitalized patients who initiated remdesivir within 72 hours of hospital admission with eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and 217 COVID-19 controls with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2. The propensity score-matched cohort included 31 remdesivir-treated patients and 31 nonremdesivir-treated controls. The mean age was 74.0 (SD=13.8) years, 57% were women, and 68% were white participants. A total of 26% had ESKD. Among patients who were not on dialysis prior to initiating remdesivir, one developed worsening kidney function (defined as ≥50% increase in creatinine or initiation of KRT) compared with three in the historical control group. There was no increased risk of cardiac arrythmia, cardiac arrest, altered mental status, or clinically significant anemia or liver function test abnormalities. There was a significantly increased risk of hyperglycemia, which may be partly explained by the increased use of dexamethasone in the remdesivir-treated population.ConclusionsIn this propensity score-matched study, remdesivir was well tolerated in patients with eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2.
| S-EPMC8967642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the estimated blood loss and the frequency of obstetric hemorrhage among pregnant women with and without COVID-19 infection. The study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration in Warsaw, Poland. From 15 May 2020 to 26 April 2021, a total of 224 parturients with COVID-19 infection were admitted for labor. The control group consisted of 300 randomly recruited pre-pandemic deliveries that took place between 15 May 2019 and 26 April 2020 at the Department. The primary outcome was the presence of postpartum hemorrhage, defined as an estimated blood loss of ≥500 mL within 24 h after birth or the need to transfuse 2 or more units of packed red blood cells (pRBCs). Secondary outcomes were the difference between hemoglobin and hematocrit levels at 24 h postpartum, the number of pRBCs units transfused, and the need for transperitoneal drainage. After applying the propensity-score-matching procedure for postpartum bleeding risk factors, 325 eligible patients were included in the final analysis, divided into 203 COVID-19 positive and 122 COVID-19 negative prepandemic deliveries. SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were characterized by a longer activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), a reduced prothrombin time (PT), and lower platelet count at initial presentation. COVID-19 deliveries were found to be associated with a higher frequency of postpartum hemorrhage, an increased estimated blood loss, the more frequent use of peritoneal drainage, and more pRBCs units transfused. During the pandemic, an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage posed another threat to SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnant women. It is essential to be aware of this when approaching COVID-19 delivery and to implement efficient preventative methods.
| S-EPMC9599331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While the relative efficacy of remdesivir as a therapeutic agent in selected patients with COVID-19 has been established, safety concerns have been raised regarding potential nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity. Our main objective was to investigate the kidney- and liver-related safety outcomes in patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir in a public hospital in New York. A propensity score-matched retrospective study was conducted in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 1 June 2020 to 10 March 2021. A total of 927 patients were included in this study (remdesivir: 427, non-remdesivir: 500; women: 51.8%; median age 61 years; median BMI: 28.5 kg/m2). Matching without replacement yielded a cohort of 248 patients (124 in each group). In the matched cohort, the remdesivir group had a significantly lower rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) (12.1% vs. 21.8%, p = 0.042), a lower rate of acute liver injury (ALI) on the verge of statistical significance (7.3% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.067), and non-significantly lower death rate (13.7% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.593) compared to the non-remdesivir group. Multivariable analyses revealed that patients treated with remdesivir were found to be associated with a significantly lower likelihood for AKI (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, p < 0.001), no association was found for ALI (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.35-1.30, p = 0.241), while a trend towards an association of patients treated with remdesivir with a lower likelihood for in-hospital death was observed (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.32-1.01, p = 0.053). In conclusion, no safety concerns with regards to renal and liver outcomes were raised in patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir. Instead, there were signals of possible nephroprotection and improved in-hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC9181125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSolid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index.ResultsAfter matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization (P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26-5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.79) was associated with better outcomes.ConclusionHospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.
| S-EPMC11458497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in-hospital mortality with intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death.
| S-EPMC8013588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. How does in-hospital mortality compare with intermediate-versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin versus no antiplatelet therapy, in treatment of COVID-19? Using data from 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (1) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (2) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). Propensity score matching utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates yielded treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate-compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. No conflict of interest exists for any author on this manuscript.
| S-EPMC7814841 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10696756 | biostudies-literature