Dataset Information

Real-World Effectiveness Of Remdesivir In Adults Hospitalized With Covid-19: A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the US from February 23, 2020 through February 11, 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic COVID-19 were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death.

Results

Of 96,859 COVID-19 patients, 42,473 (43.9%) received at least one remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23,701 (55.8%) were male and 22,819 (53.7%) were non-white. Matches were found for 18,328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.22]). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1,334 deaths] for controls).

Conclusions

These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.

SUBMITTER: Garibaldi BT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8754724 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-World Effectiveness of Remdesivir in Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

Garibaldi Brian T BT Wang Kunbo K Robinson Matthew L ML Betz Joshua J Caleb Alexander G G Andersen Kathleen M KM Joseph Corey S CS Mehta Hemalkumar B HB Korwek Kimberly K Sands Kenneth E KE Fisher Arielle M AM Bollinger Robert C RC Xu Yanxun Y

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20220801 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 201 ...[more]

PMID: 34910128

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical trials were conducted under strictly controlled situations for a selected population, and their reported adverse events may not fully represent conditions in real-world patients. We aimed to estimate the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including vulnerable subpopulations, such as those with impaired renal or hepatic function and pregnant women.MethodsThis retrospective observational study included hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with remdesivir between January and December 2021 at ten hospitals. ADEs and severe ADEs (Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 3) were operationally defined and analyzed through laboratory investigations. The incidence of ADEs was compared with that of each matched control in subpopulations with renal or hepatic impairment and pregnant women.ResultsAmong 2,140 patients, 1,416 (66.2%) and 295 (13.8%) experienced at least one ADE and severe ADE, respectively. The most frequent ADE was 'hepatic injury' (42.9%), followed by anemia (27.6%). The most common severe ADEs were 'hypokalemia' (5.3%), 'hepatic injury' (2.9%), and 'anemia' (3.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of ADEs in patients relative to their respective matched-control groups, including those with renal impairment (80.0% vs. control 71.8%, P = 0.063), hepatic impairment (70.4% vs. control 75.0%, P = 0.623) and pregnant women (78.6% vs. control 63.7%, P = 0.067). However, severe ADE incidence was significantly higher in patients with renal impairment (40.8% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001). The most common severe ADEs in those were 'anemia' (15.3%), 'hypokalemia' (10.5%), and 'thrombocytopenia' (8.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe ADEs in patients with hepatic impairment or in pregnancy (P = 0.230; P = 0.085).ConclusionA significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir experienced ADEs and severe ADEs. Given the high incidence of severe ADEs, caution is required in patients with renal impairment. Further studies are needed to investigate ADEs in pregnant women and patients with hepatic impairment.

Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited.MethodsWe examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO.ResultsA total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70-0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82-0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57-0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80-0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58-0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68-0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68-0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69-0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70-0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days.ConclusionsRDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo emulate the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study) trial using real world data before its publication. GRADE directly compared second line glucose lowering drugs for their ability to lower glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).DesignObservational study.SettingOptumLabs® Data Warehouse (OLDW), a nationwide claims database in the US, 25 January 2010 to 30 June 2019.ParticipantsAdults with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 6.8-8.5% while using metformin monotherapy, identified according to the GRADE trial specifications, who also used glimepiride, liraglutide, sitagliptin, or insulin glargine.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to HbA1c ≥7.0%. Secondary outcomes were time to HbA1c >7.5%, incident microvascular complications, incident macrovascular complications, adverse events, all cause hospital admissions, and all cause mortality. Propensity scores were estimated using the gradient boosting machine method, and inverse propensity score weighting was used to emulate randomization of the treatment groups, which were then compared using Cox proportional hazards regression.Results8252 people were identified (19.7% of adults starting the study drugs in OLDW) who met eligibility criteria for the GRADE trial (glimepiride arm=4318, liraglutide arm=690, sitagliptin arm=2993, glargine arm=251). The glargine arm was excluded from analyses owing to small sample size. Median times to HbA1c ≥7.0% were 442 days (95% confidence interval 394 to 480 days) for glimepiride, 764 (741 to not calculable) days for liraglutide, and 427 (380 to 483) days for sitagliptin. Liraglutide was associated with lower risk of reaching HbA1c ≥7.0% compared with glimepiride (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.75) and sitagliptin (0.55, 0.41 to 0.73). Results were consistent for the secondary outcome of time to HbA1c >7.5%. No significant differences were observed among treatment groups for the remaining secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIn this emulation of the GRADE trial, liraglutide was statistically significantly more effective at maintaining glycemic control than glimepiride or sitagliptin when added to metformin monotherapy. Generating timely evidence on medical treatments using real world data as a complement to prospective trials is of value.

Project description:Ocrelizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody selectively targeting CD20-expressing B cells. The effect of ocrelizumab on primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) has been evaluated during phase 3 trials that enrolled patients under 55 years with a maximum Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) of 6.5. However, little is known on older disabled patients with longer disease duration. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of ocrelizumab in PPMS patients out of the ORATORIO eligibility criteria. This multicenter retrospective study collected data about the effectiveness of ocrelizumab in PPMS patients who received treatment between May 2017 and June 2022 in the Italian MS centers contributing to the Italian MS Registry who adhered to the Compassionate Use Program. The confirmed EDSS worsening (CEW) (defined as either a ≥ 1-point or ≥ 2-point increase in EDSS score from baseline that was confirmed at T12 and T24) was calculated. At the date of data extraction, out of 887 PPMS patients who had received ocrelizumab, 589 (mean age 49.7 ± 10.7 years, 242 (41.1%) females) were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 41.3 ± 12.3 months. A total of 149 (25.3%) received ocrelizumab according to the ORATORIO criteria (ORATORIO group) and 440 (74.7%) outside the ORATORIO criteria (non-ORATORIO group). No differences in terms of cumulative probabilities of 12 and 24 months of CEW of ≤ 1 point were found between ORATORIO and non-ORATORIO groups. Cox regression analyses showed that age older than 65 years (HR 2.51, 25% CI 1.07-3.65; p = 0.01) was associated with higher risk of CEW at 24 months. Patients not responding to ORATORIO criteria for reimbursability may benefit from ocrelizumab treatment, as disease activity, disease duration, and EDSS seem to not impact the disability outcome. Our results may suggest to extend the possible use of this powerful agent in selected patients under the age of 65 years.

Project description:Background and aimTwo oral antivirals (Nirmatrelvir- ritonavir and Azvudine) are widely used in China practice during the Omicron wave of the pandemic. However, little evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of these two oral antivirals in in-hospital patients. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine among adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from three Chinese PLA General Hospital medical centres. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir from Dec 10, 2022, to February 20, 2023, and did not require invasive ventilation support on admission were eligible for inclusion.ResultsAfter exclusions and propensity-score matching, the final analysis included 486 azvudine recipients and 486 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients. By 28 days of initiation of the antivirus treatment, the crude incidence rate of all-cause death was similar in both types of antivirus treatment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group 2.8 events 1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.1-3.6] vs azvudine group 3.4 events/1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.6-4.3], P = 0.38). Landmark analysis showed that all-cause death was lower in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (3.5%) group than the azvudine (6.8%, P = 0.029) within the initial 10-day admission period, while no significant difference was observed for results between 10 and 28 days follow-up. There was no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and the azvudine group in cumulative incidence of the composite disease progression event (8.6% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir vs. 10.1% with azvudine, HR, 1.22; 95% CI 0.80-1.86, P = 0.43).ConclusionAmong patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in Beijing, similar in-hospital clinical outcomes on 28 days were observed between patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and azvudine. However, it is worth noticing that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to hold an advantage over azvudine in reducing early mortality. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the efficacy of those two antivirus medications especially in early treatment.

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is standard of care for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen. The objective is to assess the clinical benefit of adding remdesivir to dexamethasone.Patients and methodsA retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requesting low-flow oxygen who received dexamethasone. Patients admitted to infectious diseases wards also received remdesivir. Primary outcome was duration of hospitalization after oxygen initiation. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital death, and death and/or transfer to the intensive care unit. To handle potential confounding by indication bias, outcome comparison was performed on propensity score-matched populations. Propensity score was estimated by a multivariable logistic model including prognostic covariates; then 1:1 matching was performed without replacement, using the nearest neighbor algorithm with a caliper of 0.10 fold the standard deviation of the propensity score as the maximal distance. Balance after matching was checked on standardized mean differences.ResultsFrom August 15th 2020, to February 28th, 2021, 325 patients were included, 101 of whom received remdesivir. At admission median time from symptoms onset was 7 days, median age: 68 years, male sex; 61%, >1 comorbidity: 58.5%. Overall 180 patients matched on propensity score were analyzed, 90 each received remdesivir plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. Median duration of hospitalization was 9 (IQR: 7-13) and 9 (IQR: 5-18) days with and without remdesivir, respectively (p = 0.37). In-hospital death rates and rates of transfer to the intensive care unit or death were 8.9 and 17.8% (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.21-1.02, p = 0.06) and 20.0 and 35.6% with and without remdesivir, respectively (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.89, p = 0.015).ConclusionIn hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving low-flow oxygen and dexamethasone, the addition of remdesivir was not associated with shorter hospitalization or lower in-hospital mortality but may have reduced the combined outcome of death and transfer to the intensive care unit.