Understanding the Potential Impact of Different Drug Properties on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission and Disease Burden: A Modelling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. METHODS: Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. RESULTS: The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.

Monitoring of effectiveness and safety of generic formulation of meropenem for treatment of infections at Siriraj Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In Siriraj Hospital, generic meropenem (Monem) has been available and was substituted for original meropenem, but the effectiveness and safety of using generic meropenem in a clinical setting are the main concern. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From July 2007 to June 2009, hospitalized patients aged 18 or older who received meropenem for 48 hours were identified from the pharmacy database of Siriraj hospital. A retrospective study was conducted. Three hundred patients in each of original and generic meropenem groups were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of generic to original meropenem. RESULTS: The mean age of all patients was 63 years. Most of the patients had co-morbidities. Approximately 90% of the infections were health-care associated. Drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria including ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii account for nearly 50% of all organisms. No significant difference was found regarding characteristics, type or site of infection and pathogen between generic and original groups but for more patients in the original group having cardiovascular disease and more patients in the generic group receiving immunosuppressive agents. Eighty-two to 85% received meropenem with one of appropriate indications. No statistically significant difference occurred either in an overall favorable outcome (63% vs.70.4%, p = 0.07) or in overall mortality (38% vs. 32%, p = 0.17), as well as adverse effects between the original and the generic groups. CONCLUSION: Generic meropenem (Monem) was not inferior to original meropenem for therapy of infections in the hospitalized patients at Siriraj Hospital.