COVID-19 patients benefit from early antiviral treatment: A comparative, retrospective study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yu T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300891 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUntil now, no antiviral treatment has been proven to be effective for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The timing of oxygen therapy was considered to have a great influence on the symptomatic relief of hypoxemia and seeking medical intervention, especially in situations with insufficient medical resources, but the evidence on the timing of oxygen therapy is limited.Methods and findingsMedical charts review was carried out to collect the data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection confirmed in Tongji hospital, Wuhan from 30th December 2019 to 8th March 2020. In this study, the appropriate timing of oxygen therapy and risk factors associated with severe and fatal illness were identified and the effectiveness of antivirus on disease progression was assessed. Among 1362 patients, the prevalence of hypoxia symptoms was significantly higher in those patients with severe and fatal illness than in those with less severe disease. The onset of hypoxia symptoms was most common in the second to third week after symptom onset, and patients with critical and fatal illness experienced these symptoms earlier than those with mild and severe illness. In multivariable analyses, the risk of death increased significantly when oxygen therapy was started more than 2 days after hypoxia symptoms onset among critical patients (OR, 1.92; 95%CI, 1.20 to 3.10). Compared to the critically ill patients without IFN-a, the patients who were treated with IFN-a had a lower mortality (OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.39 to 0.91).ConclusionsEarly initiation of oxygen therapy was associated with lower mortality among critical patients. This study highlighted the importance of early oxygen therapy after the onset of hypoxia symptoms. Our results also lend support to potentially beneficial effects of IFNα on critical illness.
| S-EPMC7815117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimDespite the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic has been going on for over 5 months, there is yet to be a standard management policy for all patients including those with mild-to-moderate cases. We evaluated the role of early hospitalization in combination with early antiviral therapy with COVID-19 patients in a tertiary care university hospital.Materials and methodsThis was a prospective, observational, single-center study on probable/confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a tertiary care hospital on COVID-19 wards between March 20 and April 30, 2020. The demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were collected.ResultsWe included 174 consecutive probable/confirmed COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized in the Internal Medicine wards of the University Adult Hospital between March 20 and April 30, 2020. The median age was 45.5 (19–92) years and 91 patients (52.3%) were male. One hundred and twenty (69%) were confirmed microbiologically, 41 (23.5%) were radiologically diagnosed, and 13 (7.5%) were clinically suspected (negative microbiological and radiological findings compatible with COVID-19); 35 (20.1%) had mild, 107 (61.5%) moderate disease, and 32 (18.4%) had severe pneumonia. Out of 171 cases, 130 (74.3%) showed pneumonia; 80 were typical, and 50 showed indeterminate infiltration for COVID-19. Patients were admitted within a median of 3 days (0-14 days) after symptoms appear. The median duration of hospitalization was 4 days (0-28 days). In this case series, 13.2% patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 64.9% with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, and 18.4% with regimens including favipiravir. A total of 15 patients (8.5%) were transferred to the ICU. Four patients died (2.2%).ConclusionIn our series, 174 patients were admitted to the hospital wards for COVID-19, 69% were confirmed with PCR and/or antibody test. At the time of admission, nearly one fifth of the patients had severe diseases. Of the patients, 95.4% received hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination. The overall case fatality rate was 2.2%.
| S-EPMC8203135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic remains an immediate and present concern, yet as of now there is still no approved therapeutic available for the treatment of COVID-19.This study aimed to investigate and report evidence concerning demographic characteristics and currently-used medications that contribute to the ultimate outcomes of COVID-19 ICU patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among all COVID-19 patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Asir Central Hospital in Saudi Arabia between the 1st and 30th of June 2020. Data extracted from patients' medical records included their demographics, home medications, medications used to treat COVID-19, treatment durations, ICU stay, hospital stay, and ultimate outcome (recovery or death).Descriptive statistics and regression modelling were used to analyze and compare the results. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committees at both Asir Central Hospital and King Khalid University.ResultsA total of 118 patients with median age of 57 years having definite clinical and disease outcomes were included in the study. Male patients accounted for 87% of the study population, and more than 65% experienced at least one comorbidity. The mean hospital and ICU stay was 11.4 and 9.8 days, respectively. The most common drugs used were tocilizumab (31.4%), triple combination therapy (45.8%), favipiravir (56.8%), dexamethasone (86.7%), and enoxaparin (83%). Treatment with enoxaparin significantly reduced the length of ICU stay (p = 0.04) and was found to be associated with mortality reduction in patients aged 50-75 (p = 0.03), whereas the triple regimen therapy and tocilizumab significantly increased the length of ICU stay in all patients (p = 0.01, p = 0.02 respectively).ConclusionCOVID-19 tends to affect males more significantly than females. The use of enoxaparin is an important part of COVID-19 treatment, especially for those above 50 years of age, while the use of triple combination therapy and tocilizumab in COVID-19 protocols should be reevaluated and restricted to patients who have high likelihood of benefit.
| S-EPMC8401211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection is notably mild in children, though comorbidities may increase the risk of hospitalization and may represent a risk for increased disease severity. There is an urgent need for targeted therapies with an acceptable efficacy and safety profile. To date, most of the medicines for COVID-19-specific treatment are prescribed off-label for children due to a lack of clinical trials and consequent evidence in this population. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study investigating the safety of treatments for the prevention of severe COVID-19 in fragile pediatric patients who received monoclonal antibodies and antivirals for mild-to-moderate symptoms between December 2021 and July 2022. (3) Results: Thirty-two patients were included. Monoclonal antibodies were prescribed to 62%, intravenous antivirals to 22%, and oral antivirals to 16% of children. Sotrovimab was the most frequently prescribed drug among monoclonal antibodies and overall (59%). The second most prescribed drug was remdesivir (22%). No severe adverse drug reaction was reported. There was no progression to severe disease and no death cases due to COVID-19 or drug administration. At drug-type stratification, resolution of symptoms and swab positivity time showed no difference between the two groups at 7 and 28 days. Off-label prescriptions were 84% overall, and in similar proportions between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: in this small sample, antivirals seemed safe and showed no differences in efficacy as compared to MAbs for the early treatment of COVID-19 in fragile children, thus representing a valuable choice, even when administered off-label.
| S-EPMC9867507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, there is not any specific effective antiviral treatment for COVID-19. Although most of the COVID-19 patients have mild or moderate courses, up to 5%–10% can have severe, potentially life threatening course, there is an urgent need for effective drugs. Optimized supportive care remains the mainstay of therapy. There have been more than 300 clinical trials going on, various antiviral and immunomodulating agents are in various stages of evaluation for COVID-19 in those trials and some of them will be published in the next couple of months. Despite the urgent need to find an effective antiviral treatment for COVID-19 through randomized controlled studies, certain agents are being used all over the world based on either in-vitro or extrapolated evidence or observational studies. The most frequently used agents both in Turkey and all over the world including chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir and remdesivir will be reviewed here .Nitazoxanide and ivermectin were also included in this review as they have recently been reported to have an activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and are licensed for the treatment of some other human infections.
| S-EPMC7195979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) still presents a public threat and puts extra strain on healthcare facilities. Without an effective antiviral drug, all available treatment options are considered supportive. Tocilizumab as a treatment option has to date shown variable results. In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess predictors of mortality of COVID-19 patients (n = 300) on tocilizumab and the clinical effectiveness of this drug. The results showed that ICU admission OR = 64.6 (95% CI: 8.2, 507.4); age of the patient OR = 1.1 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.1); and number of tocilizumab doses administered by the patient OR(two doses) = 4.0 (95% CI: 1.5, 10.9), OR(three doses) = 1.5 (95% CI: 0.5, 5.1), and OR(four doses or more) = 7.2 (95% CI: 2.0, 25.5) presented strong correlation factors that may be linked to COVID-19 mortality. Furthermore, our study showed the beneficial effects of early administration of tocilizumab OR = 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1, 1.4) and longer hospital length of stay OR = 0.974 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.0) in reducing COVID-19 mortalities. High blood D-dimer concentration OR = 1.1 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.2) and reciprocal blood phosphate concentration OR = 0.008 (95% CI: 0.0, 1.2) were correlated to high mortality under SARS-CoV-2 infection. The short-term effect of a single dose of tocilizumab was a significant increase in blood BUN and liver enzymes (ALT, AST, and LDH) above their normal ranges. Furthermore, it significantly reduced CRP blood concentration, but not to normal levels (13.90 to 1.40 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Assessing the effect of different doses of tocilizumab (in terms of the number of doses, total mg, and total mg/kg administered by the patients) indicated that administering more than one dose may lead to increases in ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay of up to 14 and 22 days after the last dose of tocilizumab (6 to 14, p = 0.06, and 10 to 22, p < 0.001), with no improvement in 28- and 90-day mortality, as confirmed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. There were also clear correlations and trends between the number of doses of tocilizumab and increased blood CO2, MCV, RDW, and D-dimer concentrations and between number of doses of tocilizumab and decreased CRP, AST, and hemoglobin concentrations. Microbiology analysis showed a significant increase in the incidence of infection after tocilizumab administration (28 to 119, p < 0.001) with a median time of incidence within 6 days of the first dose of tocilizumab. A significant correlation was also found between the number of tocilizumab doses and the number of incidences of infections after tocilizumab administration r (298) = 0.396, p = 1.028 × 10-12. Based on these results and depending on the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drug, we recommend single-dose administration of tocilizumab as the optimal dosage for COVID-19 patients who do not have active bacterial infection or liver diseases, to be administered as soon as the patient is admitted to the hospital.
| S-EPMC8953525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments used for mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. To date, there are few data summarizing real-world evidence comparing the 2 mAbs. Additionally, there are insufficient data to guide administration timing relative to symptom onset. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 30-day failure rates for each agent and to identify the relationship between symptom onset and efficacy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of a 6-month period at a large community medical center. Consecutive outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 disease by nasopharyngeal (NP) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing received either bamlanivimab 700 mg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg/1200 mg. Each patient was followed for a total of 30 days. Three independent, blinded physicians performed adjudication for revisit reasons. The primary outcome was therapy-related failure, defined as COVID-19-related hospital admission within 30 days of infusion. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders that may have influenced hospital admission in either group.ResultsDuring the period from November 2020 to May 2021, 183 patients were treated with bamlanivimab and 270 with casirivimab/imdevimab. The mean age was ~67 years and body mass index 30 kg/m2. Thirty-day admission for therapy-related failure rates were 4.8% and 13.7% for casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab, respectively (P = .001). No significant differences were found between early (<3 days of symptom onset) and late administration of either mAb.ConclusionsThere was a higher failure rate with bamlanivimab vs casirivimab/imdevimab. No difference in efficacy was found between early vs late administration of either mAb.
| S-EPMC8923391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present study aimed to develop algorithms for early identification of patients who are at risk of being involved in abnormal immunothrombosis, enabling prompt interventions and averted progression of disease.
2021-10-06 | GSE167930 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundTocilizumab was approved for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy induced cytokine release syndrome and it may provide clinical benefit for selected COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed hypoxic COVID-19 patients who were consecutively admitted between March 13, 2020 and April 19, 2020. Patients with lung infiltrates and elevated inflammatory markers received a single dose of tocilizumab if no contraindication was present. Systemic steroid, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin were concomitantly used for majority of the patients.FindingsOf the 51 patients included for analysis, 28 (55%) received tocilizumab and 23 (45%) did not receive tocilizumab. Tocilizumab cohort required more invasive ventilation (68% vs. 22%) at baseline and during entire hospitalization (75% vs. 48%). The median time to clinical improvement in tocilizumab vs. no tocilizumab cohorts was 8 days (Interquartile range [IQR]: 6·25 - 9·75 days) vs. 13 days (IQR: 9·75 - 15·25 days) among patients who required mechanical ventilation at any time (Hazard ratio for clinical improvement: 1·83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·57 - 5·84) and 6·5 days vs. 7 days among all patients (Hazard ratio for clinical improvement: 1·14, 95% CI: 0·55 - 2·38), respectively. The median duration of vasopressor support and invasive mechanical ventilation were 2 days (IQR: 1·75 - 4·25 days) vs. 5 days (IQR: 4 - 8 days), p = 0.039, and 7 days (IQR: 4 - 14 days) vs. 10 days (IQR: 5 - 15 days) in tocilizumab vs. no tocilizumab cohorts, p = 0.11, respectively. Similar rates of hospital-acquired infections occurred in both cohorts (18% in tocilizumab and 22% in no tocilizumab cohort).InterpretationIn patients with severe COVID-19, tocilizumab was associated with significantly shorter duration of vasopressor support. Although not statistically significant, tocilizumab also resulted in shorter median time to clinical improvement and shorter duration of invasive ventilation. These findings require validation from ongoing clinical trials of Tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7305505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is commonly used to treat severe COVID-19, although the clinical outcome of such treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IVIG treatment in severe COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis retrospective multicentre study evaluated 28-day mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with or without IVIG treatment. Each patient treated with IVIG was matched with one untreated patient. Logistic regression and inverse probability weighting (IPW) were used to control confounding factors.ResultsThe study included 850 patients (421 IVIG-treated patients and 429 non-IVIG-treated patients). After matching, 406 patients per group remained. No significant difference in 28-day mortality was observed after IPW analysis (average treatment effect (ATE) = 0.008, 95% CI -0.081 to 0.097, p 0.863). There were no significant differences between the IVIG group and non-IVIG group for acute respiratory distress syndrome, diffuse intravascular coagulation, myocardial injury, acute hepatic injury, shock, acute kidney injury, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation except for prone position ventilation (ATE = -0.022, 95% CI -0.041 to -0.002, p 0.028).DiscussionIVIG treatment was not associated with significant changes in 28-day mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. The effectiveness of IVIG in treating patients with severe COVID-19 needs to be further investigated through future studies.
| S-EPMC8131555 | biostudies-literature