Dataset Information

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials.

Methods

This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints).

Results

A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03).

Conclusions

Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SUBMITTER: Olender SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244650 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are still not fully elucidated.ObjectivesTo identify patient-level parameters, readily available at the bedside, associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality within 28 days from commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation or coronavirus disease 2019.Design setting and participantsProspective observational cohort study by the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium. Patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from February 2, 2020, to May 15, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresPatient characteristics and clinical data were assessed upon ICU admission, the commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation and for 28 days thereafter. We primarily aimed to identify time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality.ResultsOne-thousand five-hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analysis; 588 patients died in hospital within 28 days of commencing invasive mechanical ventilation (37%). Cox-regression analysis identified associations between the hazard of 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality with age (hazard ratio, 1.26 per 10-yr increase in age; 95% CI, 1.16-1.37; p < 0.001), positive end-expiratory pressure upon commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.81 per 5 cm H2O increase; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02). Time-dependent parameters associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality were serum creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.28 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41; p < 0.001), lactate (hazard ratio, 1.22 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34; p < 0.001), Paco2 (hazard ratio, 1.63 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25; p < 0.001), pH (hazard ratio, 0.89 per 0.1 increase; 95% CI, 0.8-14; p = 0.041), Pao2/Fio2 (hazard ratio, 0.58 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (hazard ratio, 0.92 per 10 mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; p = 0.003).Conclusions and relevanceThis international study suggests that in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation, older age and clinically relevant variables monitored at baseline or sequentially during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality hazard. Further investigation is warranted to validate any causative roles these parameters might play in influencing clinical outcomes.

Project description:Background: Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX) predict death in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation who develop endothelial complications. Because coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients also have coagulopathy and endotheliitis, we aimed to assess whether EASIX predicts death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on COVID-19 patients from two different cohorts [derivation (n = 1,200 patients) and validation (n = 1,830 patients)]. The endpoint was death within 28 days. The main factors were EASIX [(lactate dehydrogenase * creatinine)/thrombocytes] and aEASIX-COVID (EASIX * age), which were log2-transformed for analysis. Results: Log2-EASIX and log2-aEASIX-COVID were independently associated with an increased risk of death in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Log2-aEASIX-COVID showed a good predictive performance for 28-day mortality both in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.827) and in the validation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.820), with better predictive performance than log2-EASIX (p < 0.001). For log2 aEASIX-COVID, patients with low/moderate risk (<6) had a 28-day mortality probability of 5.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 4-6.5%], high (6-7) of 17.2% (95% CI = 14.7-19.6%), and very high (>7) of 47.6% (95% CI = 44.2-50.9%). The cutoff of log2 aEASIX-COVID = 6 showed a positive predictive value of 31.7% and negative predictive value of 94.7%, and log2 aEASIX-COVID = 7 showed a positive predictive value of 47.6% and negative predictive value of 89.8%. Conclusion: Both EASIX and aEASIX-COVID were associated with death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, aEASIX-COVID had significantly better predictive performance than EASIX, particularly for discarding death. Thus, aEASIX-COVID could be a reliable predictor of death that could help to manage COVID-19 patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether the previously described trend of improving mortality in people with coronavirus disease 2019 in critical care during the first wave was maintained, plateaued, or reversed during the second wave in United Kingdom, when B117 became the dominant strain.DesignNational retrospective cohort study.SettingAll English hospital trusts (i.e., groups of hospitals functioning as single operational units), reporting critical care admissions (high dependency unit and ICU) to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization in England Surveillance System.PatientsA total of 49,862 (34,336 high dependency unit and 15,526 ICU) patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021 (inclusive).InterventionsNot applicable.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was inhospital 28-day mortality by calendar month of admission, from March 2020 to January 2021. Unadjusted mortality was estimated, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted mortality, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, major comorbidities, social deprivation, geographic location, and operational strain (using bed occupancy as a proxy). Mortality fell to trough levels in June 2020 (ICU: 22.5% [95% CI, 18.2-27.4], high dependency unit: 8.0% [95% CI, 6.4-9.6]) but then subsequently increased up to January 2021: (ICU: 30.6% [95% CI, 29.0-32.2] and high dependency unit, 16.2% [95% CI, 15.3-17.1]). Comparing patients admitted during June-September 2020 with those admitted during December 2020-January 2021, the adjusted mortality was 59% (CI range, 39-82) higher in high dependency unit and 88% (CI range, 62-118) higher in ICU for the later period. This increased mortality was seen in all subgroups including those under 65.ConclusionsThere was a marked deterioration in outcomes for patients admitted to critical care at the peak of the second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in United Kingdom (December 2020-January 2021), compared with the post-first-wave period (June 2020-September 2020). The deterioration was independent of recorded patient characteristics and occupancy levels. Further research is required to determine to what extent this deterioration reflects the impact of the B117 variant of concern.