Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19 Requiring Oxygen Support: A Cross-Study Comparison from Two Large, Open-Label Studies.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir, an RNA-polymerase prodrug inhibitor approved for treatment of COVID-19, shortens recovery time and improves clinical outcomes. This prespecified analysis compared remdesivir plus standard-of-care (SOC) with SOC alone in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support in the early stage of the pandemic. METHODS: Data for 10-day remdesivir treatment plus SOC from the extension phase of an open-label study (NCT04292899) were compared with real-world, retrospective data on SOC alone (EUPAS34303). Both studies included patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 up to 30 May 2020, with oxygen saturation ≤94%, on room air or supplemental oxygen (all forms), and with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics across treatment groups. The primary endpoint was time to all-cause mortality or end of study (day 28). Time-to-discharge, with a 10-day landmark to account for duration of remdesivir treatment, was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: 1974 patients treated with remdesivir plus SOC, and 1426 with SOC alone, were included after weighting. Remdesivir significantly reduced mortality versus SOC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.54). This association was observed at each oxygen support level, with the lowest HR for patients on low-flow oxygen. Remdesivir significantly increased the likelihood of discharge at day 28 versus SOC in the 10-day landmark analysis (HR: 1.64; 95% confidence interval: 1.43-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir plus early-2020 SOC was associated with a 54% lower mortality risk and shorter hospital stays compared with SOC alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Sofosbuvir and risk of estimated glomerular filtration rate decline or end-stage renal disease in patients with renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: Sofosbuvir, a prodrug nucleoside inhibitor of hepatitis C virus, has a predominant circulating metabolite that is renally eliminated. Whether sofosbuvir is associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression is not well understood. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 30-89 mL/min/1.73 m2 treated with sofosbuvir in 76 Phase 2/3 registrational trials. We evaluated eGFR at each study visit. Separately, we performed a retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IQVIA PharMetrics Plus™) to compare the risk of incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) associated with the use of sofosbuvir or non-sofosbuvir regimens among patients with CKD using propensity score methods. Exposure, CKD status and outcomes were determined using diagnosis and medication claim codes. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to estimate ESRD risk. RESULTS: Among 4642 trial participants with baseline stage 2 CKD (eGFR 60-89 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) and 682 trial participants with stage 3 CKD (eGFR 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) mean (SD) eGFR improved from baseline to 4 weeks post-treatment (+0.7 [9.3] and +2.6 [8.8] ml/min/1.73 m2 , respectively; p < 0.001 each). In the second analysis, among 2042 patients with CKD receiving sofosbuvir-based regimens compared to 431 receiving non-sofosbuvir-based regimens, after adjusting for baseline covariates and weighting based on treatment propensity scores, there was no significant difference in risk of ESRD (adjusted HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.51-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial participants with CKD did not experience worsening eGFR during sofosbuvir-based treatment, and sofosbuvir was not associated with an increased risk of ESRD in patients with CKD in a nationally-representative administrative claims database.

Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the first-line treatment agents for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). Recently, whether the degree to which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be reduced by ETV vs TDF has been debated. We compared the incidence of HCC among treatment-naïve patients receiving TDF vs ETV in the United States. METHODS: From a large administrative medical claims database of commercially insured patients, we identified 166,933 adults with a diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B and a minimum of 12 months of prior enrolment, of whom 3934 and 6127 initiated ETV and TDF respectively. Fine-Gray hazard regression models incorporating treatment propensity scores (PS) were used to estimate the risk of HCC incidence associated with TDF vs ETV; variables considered for adjustment included demographic characteristics, concomitant medication use and baseline comorbidities, as well as competing events including liver transplantation and medication changes. RESULTS: After PS weighting, the TDF and ETV groups were well-matched. During the follow-up, 90 patients developed HCC, including 50 receiving ETV and 40 receiving TDF, giving rise to crude incidence rates of 0.62 per 100 person-years (PY) and 0.30 per 100 PY respectively. In PS-weighted, multivariable analysis, TDF was associated with a subdistribution hazard ratio for HCC of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.89) compared to ETV. Results were similar when patients ≥40 years and men and women were analysed separately. CONCLUSION: Among commercially insured, treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in the United States, treatment with TDF was associated with significantly lower risk of HCC than ETV.