Remdesivir and Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The impact of remdesivir (RDV) on mortality rates in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, and the mortality effect in subgroups of baseline disease severity has been incompletely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of RDV with mortality rates in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared persons receiving RDV with those receiving best supportive care (BSC). Patients hospitalized between 28 February and 28 May 2020 with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included with the development of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest radiography and hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen or oxygen saturation ≤94% with room air. The primary outcome was overall survival, assessed with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression and multivariable adjustment, including calendar time, baseline patient characteristics, corticosteroid use, and random effects for hospital. RESULTS: A total of 1138 patients were enrolled, including 286 who received RDV and 852 treated with BSC, 400 of whom received hydroxychloroquine. Corticosteroids were used in 20.4% of the cohort (12.6% in RDV and 23% in BSC). Comparing persons receiving RDV with those receiving BSC, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death was 0.46 (.31-.69) in the univariate model (P < .001) and 0.60 (.40-.90) in the risk-adjusted model (P = .01). In the subgroup of persons with baseline use of low-flow oxygen, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death in RDV compared with BSC was 0.63 (.39-1.00; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Treatment with RDV was associated with lower mortality rates than BSC. These findings remain the same in the subgroup with baseline use of low-flow oxygen.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

The Special Pathogens Research Network: Enabling Research Readiness.

The 2013-2016 epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) that originated in West Africa underscored many of the challenges to conducting clinical research during an ongoing infectious disease epidemic, both in the most affected countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, as well as in the United States and Europe, where a total of 27 patients with EVD received care in biocontainment units. The Special Pathogens Research Network (SPRN) was established in the United States in November 2016 to provide an organizational structure to leverage the expertise of the 10 Regional Ebola and Other Special Pathogen Treatment Centers (RESPTCs); it was intended to develop and support infrastructure to improve readiness to conduct clinical research in the United States. The network enables the rapid activation and coordination of clinical research in the event of an epidemic and facilitates opportunities for multicenter research when the RESPTCs are actively caring for patients requiring a biocontainment unit. Here we provide an overview of opportunities identified in the clinical research infrastructure during the West Africa EVD epidemic and the SPRN activities to meet the ongoing challenges in the context of Ebola virus and other special pathogens.