Efficacy of ribavirin and interferon-α therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To assess the efficacy and safety of ribavirin and interferon-α (RBV/IFN-α) therapy in COVID-19 patients.Methods
A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to 4 hospitals in Hubei Province, China, from 31 December 2019 to 31 March 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their exposure to RBV/IFN-α therapy within 48 h of admission. Mixed-effect Cox model and Logistic regression were used to explore the association between early treatments of RBV/IFN-α and primary outcomes.Results
Of 2037 patients included, 1281 received RBV/IFN-α (RBV, IFN-α or RBV combined with IFN-α) treatments and 756 received none of these treatments. In a mixed effect model, RBV/IFN-α therapy was not associated with progression from non-severe into severe type (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.36) or with reduction in 30-day mortality (aHR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.61-1.30). However, it was associated with a higher probability of hospital stay >15 days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.68-2.64) compared with no RBV/IFN-α therapy. The propensity score-matched cohort and subgroup analysis displayed similar results.Conclusion
RBV/IFN-α therapy was not observed to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients suggesting that RBV/IFN-α therapy should be avoided in COVID-19 treatment.
SUBMITTER: Li H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7840408 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swept rapidly throughout the world. So far, no therapeutics have yet proven to be effective. Ribavirin was recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in China because of its in vitro activity. However, evidence supporting its clinical use with good efficacy is still lacking.MethodsA total of 208 confirmed severe COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in Wuhan Union West Campus between 1 February 2020 and 10 March 2020 were enrolled in the retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the time to clinical improvement. The secondary endpoints included mortality, survival time, time to throat swab SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negative conversion, and the length of hospital stay.Results68 patients were treated with ribavirin while 140 not. There were no significant between-group differences in demographic characteristics, baseline laboratory test results, treatment, and distribution of ordinal scale scores at enrollment, except for coexisting diseases especially cancer (ribavirin group vs no ribavirin group, P = 0.01). Treatment with ribavirin was not associated with a difference in the time to clinical improvement (P = 0.48, HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.63-1.25). There were also no significant differences between-group in SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negative conversion, mortality, survival time, and the length of hospital stay.ConclusionsIn hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19, no significant benefit was observed with ribavirin treatment.
| S-EPMC7894089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interferons (IFNs) are widely used in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, a recent report of ACE2, the host factor mediating SARS-Cov-2 infection, identifying it as interferon-stimulated raised considerable safety concern. To examine the association between the use and timing of IFN-?2b and clinical outcomes, we analyzed in a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 446 COVID-19 patients in Hubei, China. Regression models estimated that early administration (?5 days after admission) of IFN-?2b was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in comparison with no admission of IFN-?2b, whereas late administration of IFN-?2b was associated with increased mortality. Among survivors, early IFN-?2b was not associated with hospital discharge or computed tomography (CT) scan improvement, whereas late IFN-?2b was associated with delayed recovery. Additionally, early IFN-?2b and umifenovir alone or together were associated with reduced mortality and accelerated recovery in comparison with treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone. We concluded that administration of IFN-?2b during the early stage of COVID-19 could induce favorable clinical responses.
| S-EPMC7368656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a major challenge all over the world, without acknowledged treatment. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been recommended to treat critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in a few reviews, but the clinical study evidence on its efficacy in COVID-19 patients was lacking.Methods325 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were enrolled from 4 government-designated COVID-19 treatment centres in southern China from December 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcomes were 28- and 60-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the total length of in-hospital and the total duration of the disease. Subgroup analysis was carried out according to clinical classification of COVID-19, IVIG dosage and timing.ResultsIn the enrolled 325 patients, 174 cases used IVIG and 151 cases did not. The 28-day mortality was improved with IVIG after adjusting confounding in overall cohort (P = 0.0014), and the in-hospital and the total duration of disease were longer in the IVIG group (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that only in patients with critical type, IVIG could significantly reduce the 28-day mortality, decrease the inflammatory response and improve some organ functions (all P < 0.05); the application of IVIG in the early stage (admission ≤ 7 days) with a high dose (> 15 g per day) exhibited significant reduction in 60-day mortality in the critical-type patients.ConclusionEarly administration of IVIG with high dose improves the prognosis of critical-type patients with COVID-19. This study provides important information on clinical application of IVIG in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including patient selection and administration dosage and timing.
| S-EPMC7557105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of IFN-based therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon β-1b) vs. favipiravir (FPV) in a cohort of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19.MethodsSingle center observational study comparing IFN-based therapy (interferon β-1b, ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) vs. FPV in non-critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allocation to either treatment group was non-random but based on changes to national treatment protocols rather than physicians' selection (quasi-experimental). We examined the association between IFN-based therapy and 28-day mortality using Cox regression model with treatment as a time-dependent covariate.ResultsThe study cohort included 222 patients, of whom 68 (28%) received IFN-based therapy. Antiviral therapy was started at a median of 5 days (3-6 days) from symptoms onset in the IFN group vs. 6 days (4-7 days) for the FPV group, P <0.0001. IFN-based therapy was associated with a lower 28-day mortality as compared to FPV (6 (9%) vs. 18 (12%)), adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] (95% Cl) = 0.27 (0.08-0.88)). No difference in hospitalization duration between the 2 groups, 9 (7-14) days vs. 9 (7-13) days, P = 0.732 was found. IFN treated group required less use of systemic corticosteroids (57%) as compared to FPV (77%), P = 0.005 after adjusting for disease severity and other confounders. Patients in the IFN treated group were more likely to have nausea and diarrhea as compared to FPV group (13%) vs. (3%), P = 0.013 and (18%) vs. (3%), P<0.0001, respectively.ConclusionEarly IFN-based triple therapy was associated with lower 28-days mortality as compared to FPV.
| S-EPMC8191942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, both tocilizumab and baricitinib have been shown to have clinical benefit compared with placebo. To date, there are few data comparing the two treatments, and their relative benefits and harms are unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab versus baricitinib in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSeven inpatient acute-care hospitals in Wisconsin.ParticipantsPatients hospitalized with COVID-19, hypoxemia, and Pao2-to-Fio2 ratio less than or equal to 300 mm Hg, who received either tocilizumab or baricitinib.InterventionsElectronic chart review.Measurements and main resultsPatients were divided into tocilizumab and baricitinib cohorts based on actual medication received. The primary outcome was hospital discharge alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 60 days, assessed by logistic regression. Three hundred eighty-two patients were included: 194 in the tocilizumab cohort and 188 in the baricitinib cohort. Most baseline characteristics in the two cohorts were similar. All patients received dexamethasone. Two patients were lost to follow-up. In the remaining 380 patients, probability of successful discharge in the two cohorts was quantitatively similar in unadjusted, multivariate-adjusted, and propensity score-matched analyses. Hospital length of stay, rates of thromboembolic events, and rates of hospital-acquired infections were all similar in the two cohorts.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who receive dexamethasone, treatment with tocilizumab or baricitinib appears to result in similar outcomes.
| S-EPMC9243240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThymosin alpha 1 (Tα1) is widely used to treat patients with COVID-19 in China; however, its efficacy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of Tα1 as a COVID-19 therapy.MethodsWe performed a multicenter cohort study in five tertiary hospitals in the Hubei province of China between December 2019 and March 2020. The patient non-recovery rate was used as the primary outcome.ResultsAll crude outcomes, including non-recovery rate (65/306 vs. 290/1,976, p = 0.003), in-hospital mortality rate (62/306 vs. 271/1,976, p = 0.003), intubation rate (31/306 vs. 106/1,976, p = 0.001), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) incidence (104/306 vs. 499/1,976, p = 0.001), acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence (26/306 vs. 66/1,976, p < 0.001), and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (14.9 ± 12.7 vs. 8.7 ± 8.2 days, p < 0.001), were significantly higher in the Tα1 treatment group. After adjusting for confounding factors, Tα1 use was found to be significantly associated with a higher non-recovery rate than non-Tα1 use (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, p = 0.028). An increased risk of non-recovery rate associated with Tα1 use was observed in the patient subgroups with maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores ≥2 (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.4-2.9, p = 0.024), a record of ICU admission (OR 5.4, 95%CI 2.1-14.0, p < 0.001), and lower PaO2/FiO2 values (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.1-3.4, p = 0.046). Furthermore, later initiation of Tα1 use was associated with a higher non-recovery rate.ConclusionTα1 use in COVID-19 patients was associated with an increased non-recovery rate, especially in those with greater disease severity.
| S-EPMC8366398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous studies using pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy suggested that patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 and low pretreatment HCV RNA level who achieved rapid virological response (RVR) can be treated for 24 weeks without compromising sustained virological response (SVR) rate. OBJECTIVES:The current study aimed to investigate the efficacy of Peg-IFN-alfa-2a plus RBV administered for a 24-week treatment course in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection and possessing the following criteria: low baseline serum HCV RNA level, absence of significant fibrosis and achievement of RVR. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this case-control study, 20 patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and favorable baseline characteristics and on-treatment response were treated with Peg-IFN and RBV for 24 weeks as the case group. Furthermore, 23 patients with the same characteristics who underwent a 48-week treatment course were selected as the control group. RESULTS:The majority of patients had no fibrosis on liver elastography. There was no statistical difference regarding age, gender, alanine transaminase (ALT) level, rs12979860 polymorphism and the level of fibrosis between the two studied groups. All patients in the 24-week treatment course achieved SVR and all the subjects who received the 48-week treatment course achieved SVR as well (P > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS:The current study confirmed that the efficacy of a 24-week regimen of Peg-IFN-alfa-2a plus RBV was similar to the 48-week treatment in the patients infected with HCV genotype 1, and low baseline HCV RNA level who achieved RVR. Response guided therapy can be efficient and cost-effective among the selected HCV genotype 1-infected patients.
| S-EPMC4330713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug that received worldwide news and media attention in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This drug was used on the basis of its antimicrobial and antiviral properties despite lack of definite evidence of clinical efficacy. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of using HCQ in treatment of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted in acute care hospitals in Bahrain.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on a random sample of patients admitted with COVID-19 between 24 February and 31 July 2020. The study was conducted in four acute care COVID-19 hospitals in Bahrain. Data was extracted from the medical records. The primary endpoint was the requirement of non-invasive ventilation, intubation, or death. Secondary endpoint was length of hospitalization for survivors. Three methods of analysis were used to control for confounding factors: logistic multivariate regression, propensity score adjusted regression, and matched propensity score analysis.ResultsA random sample of 1571 patients were included, 440 of whom received HCQ (treatment group) and 1131 did not receive it (control group). Our results showed that HCQ did not have a significant effect on primary outcomes due to COVID-19 infection when compared to controls after adjusting for confounders (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.85-2.37, P = 0.17). Co-administration of azithromycin had no effect on primary outcomes (OR 2.7, 95% CI 0.82-8.85, P = 0.10). HCQ was associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia (OR 10.9, 95% CI 1.72-69.49, P = 0.011) and diarrhea (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5, P = 0.003), but not QT prolongation (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.95-3.9, P = 0.06) or cardiac arrhythmia (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55-2.05, P = 0.85).ConclusionOur results showed no significant beneficial effect of using hydroxychloroquine on the outcome of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the risk of hypoglycemia due to hydroxychloroquine would possess a significant risk for out-of-hospital use.
| S-EPMC7822757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 characterized by refractory hypoxemia increases patient mortality because of immunosuppression effects. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunomodulatory with thymosin α1 for critical COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed in 8 government-designated treatment centers for COVID-19 patients in China from Dec. 2019 to Mar. 2020. Thymosin α1 was administrated with 1.6 mg qd or q12 h for >5 days. The primary outcomes were the 28-day and 60-day mortality, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and the total duration of the disease. Subgroup analysis was carried out according to clinical classification.ResultsOf the 334 enrolled COVID-19 patients, 42 (12.6%) died within 28 days, and 55 (16.5%) died within 60 days of hospitalization. There was a significant difference in the 28-day mortality between the thymosin α1 and non-thymosin α1-treated groups in adjusted model (P = 0.016), without obvious differences in the 60-day mortality and survival time in the overall cohort (P > 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, it was found that thymosin α1 therapy significantly reduced 28-day mortality (Hazards Ratios HR, 0.11, 95% confidence interval CI 0.02-0.63, P=0.013) via improvement of Pa02/FiO2 (P = 0.036) and prolonged the hospital length of stay (P = 0.024) as well as the total duration of the disease (P=0.001) in the critical type patients, especially those aged over 64 years, with white blood cell >6.8×109/L, neutrophil >5.3×109/L, lymphocyte < 0.73 × 109/L, PaO2/FiO2 < 196, SOFA > 3, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II > 7.ConclusionThese results suggest that treatment with thymosin α1 can markedly decrease 28-day mortality and attenuate acute lung injury in critical type COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7409727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders.ResultsOf 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a; none received rIFN-β1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73-1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30-1.44]; P = .29).ConclusionsIn this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance.
| S-EPMC7108209 | biostudies-literature