Pharmacokinetics Informs Remdesivir Dosing for Patients with Severe Renal Impairment

Background: Despite renal impairment (RI) being a risk factor for severe COVID-19, there are no approved antiviral treatment options for patients with severely impaired kidney function (eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or kidney failure) in the US. At the time remdesivir (RDV) was initially approved for the treatment of COVID-19, the impact of renal impairment (RI) on pharmacokinetics (PK) of RDV, its metabolites, and the excipient, sulfobutylether beta-cyclodextrin sodium (SBECD), was not known. Method(s): Here, we report the PK data supporting dosing of RDV in COVID-19 patients with severely impaired kidney function. PK samples for RDV and metabolites (GS-704277, GS-441524) were collected in the Phase 3 REDPINE study in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severely impaired kidney function. Participants in this double-blind study were randomized 2:1 to intravenous (IV) remdesivir (200 mg on Day 1, then 100 mg daily up to Day 5) or IV saline as placebo-to-match. SBECD PK was analyzed in a phase 1 study in non-COVID-19 participants with normal kidney function, mild and moderate RI who received 100 mg dose of remdesivir (containing 3000 mg SBECD). The population PK analysis included observations from healthy and COVID-19 patients with full range of renal function across all adult studies. Result(s): Geometric mean exposures (AUCtau) observed in REDPINE Study as compared to PINETREE Study increased up to 553% for the GS-441524 metabolite (dependent on renal elimination) and to a lesser degree GS-704277 (294%, minor renal elimination) and RDV (78.9%;an increase explained by factors other than renal function, namely, hospitalization and body weight) (Table 1). The increased PK exposures were not associated with new safety signals in this study (n=163 remdesivir, n=80 placebo). Population PK analysis identified baseline eGFR as a significant covariate for GS-704277 and GS-441524 clearance, but not for RDV itself. SBECD PK was characterized by short half-life (t1/2) (1.6 hours in normal renal function to 3.8 hours in moderate RI) and fast plasma clearance (7.9 L/h in normal renal function). Analysis of SBECD in severe RI (REDPINE) is ongoing, but accumulation is not expected based on its observed short plasma t1/2. Conclusion(s): Given the observed PK and the absence of any new safety signals associated with increased metabolite levels in patients with severely impaired kidney function, no dose adjustment is recommended for RDV in COVID-19 patients with eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, regardless of the need for dialysis.

Remdesivir in the treatment of children 28 days to < 18 years of age hospitalised with COVID-19 in the CARAVAN study

P168 Table 1Overall safety showing proportion of participants with AEsParticipants, n (%) Cohort 1n=12 Cohort 2n=12 Cohort 3n=12 Cohort 4n=12 Cohort 8n=5 TotalN=53 Any AE 11 (92) 7 (58) 9 (75) 7 (58) 4 (80) 38 (72) Grade ≥3 AE 6 (50) 2 (17) 1 (8) 4 (33) 2 (40) 15 (28) SAE 5 (42) 2 (17) 0 3 (25) 1 (20) 11 (21) Treatment discontinuation due to AE 2 (17) 0 0 0 0 2 (4) Treatment-emergent death 1 (8) 1 (8) 0 0 1 (20) 3 (6) Grade 3–4 laboratory abnormalities 9 (75) 2 (17) 4 (33) 4 (36) 3 (60) 22 (42) ConclusionsRDV was generally well tolerated in children hospitalised for COVID-19 who were 28 days and older, weighing at least 3 kg. No new safety trends for RDV were identified and a high proportion of participants had clinical improvement. CARAVAN is ongoing for enrolment of full term and preterm neonates.

SAFETY of REMDESIVIR VS PLACEBO in NONHOSPITALIZED PATIENTS with COVID-19

Background: Remdesivir (RDV), a potent nucleotide inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, effectively reduces COVID-19 related hospitalization in outpatients at high risk for progression to severe disease. However, limited data exist on the safety profile of RDV in this population. Methods: We conducted a Phase III placebo-controlled study evaluating a 3-day regimen of RDV in non-hospitalized patients who are at risk for disease progression (age>60 years or underlying comorbid condition). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous RDV (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg on days 2 to 3) or placebo (PBO). The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). AEs were evaluated through day 28 and lab abnormalities were evaluated through day 14. Results: 562 patients were randomized and initiated treatment (279, RDV;283, placebo). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Thirty percent were ≥60 years old and most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (62%), obesity (56%;median BMI, 30.7 kg/m2), and hypertension (48%). RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of any AEs between groups (Table). Patients treated with RDV had fewer Grade ≥3 and serious AEs (SAEs) compared to PBO, but had more study-drug related AEs, with the most common one being nausea (18 [6.5%] in RDV vs. 10 [3.5%] in PBO). Grade 3 or higher ALT elevation was reported in 1 (0.4%) RDV vs. 2 (0.7%) PBO treated patients. Median change from baseline in AST, ALT, and bilirubin was similar between groups (Table). Grade 3 or higher decrease in creatinine clearance (CrCl) occurred more often in RDV vs. to PBO treated patients (5.6% vs 1.9% respectively). Most decreases in creatinine clearance occurred within the normal serum creatinine range, occurred after completion of RDV therapy, and resolved on follow-up. Median changes in CrCl from baseline were similar between groups and no renal AEs were reported (Table). Incidence of cardiac-related AEs was similar between RDV and PBO groups. All bradycardia events occurred in the PBO group. No patient experienced a serious AE or drug discontinuation due to hypersensitivity. Conclusion: Treatment with RDV was safe and well tolerated in non-hospitalized patients with risk factors for COVID-19 disease progression. Patients in the RDV group had similar type, incidence, and severity of AEs and lab abnormalities as those receiving PBO.

REMDESIVIR in AN OUTPATIENT SETTING IMPROVES BIOMARKERS for PROGRESSION of COVID-19

Background: There is currently no approved treatment for patients with COVID-19 who have not been hospitalized, a setting in which early intervention may curb progression to more severe disease requiring hospitalization. We report longitudinal biomarker sampling from a Phase III (PINETREE) clinical trial to evaluate prognostic biomarkers of COVID-19 and to better understand the early remdesivir (RDV) treatment response. Methods: A Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RDV for outpatients with early stage COVID-19 who are at higher risk of disease progression (NCT04501952). Inclusion criteria were ≥60 years of age or ≥12 years of age with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. All individuals had ≤7 days of symptoms prior to randomization. A total of 562 participants were randomized 1:1 to RDV or placebo. Serum and plasma were collected for biomarker analyses in 312 patients at days 1, 3, and 14 post-treatment. All biomarker values were adjusted for baseline age and stratified by sex. Results: RDV demonstrated an 87% reduction in risk for the primary composite endpoint of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 (0.7% [2/279]) compared with placebo (5.3% [15/283]) (p=0.008). RDV treatment was associated with improved clinical outcomes in participants with higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19, including individuals ≥60 years of age, males, and/or those with diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. Furthermore, we found that biomarkers associated with inflammation and coagulation, including lactate dehydrogenase (p<0.001) and procalcitonin (p<0.001), were prognostic for COVID-19 related hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28. Finally, we found that RDV improved some biomarkers associated with COVID-19 severity by day 3 of treatment, including peripheral lymphopenia, monocyte count, and decreased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio compared to placebo (pWilcox<0.05). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that RDV treatment improves COVID-19 outcomes in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals, particularly in those ≥60 years of age, male, and/or with diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. Biomarkers of COVID-19 severity that were prognostic for poor outcomes were identified in early infection. Furthermore, our results suggest that RDV treatment leads to more rapid recovery in the lymphopenia that is commonly associated with more severe COVID-19.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of High-Risk Non-Hospitalized Individuals with COVID-19: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background. Remdesivir (RDV) is a potent nucleotide prodrug inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. This Phase 3 (GS-US-540-9012) double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 days of RDV to standard of care in non-hospitalized, high-risk participants with confirmed COVID-19. Methods. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) RDV (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg on days 2 to 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was composite COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 and compared using Cox proportional hazards model with baseline stratification factors as covariates. The primary safety endpoint was proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events. Study enrollment was terminated early for administrative reasons in light of the evolving pandemic. Results. 562 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (279, RDV;283, placebo). Baseline demographics and characteristics were balanced across arms. Overall, 52% were male, 44% were Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and 30% were ≥ 60 years old. The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (62%), obesity (56%;median BMI, 30.7), and hypertension (48%). Median baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA nasopharyngeal viral load was 6.2 log10 copies/mL. Treatment with RDV significantly reduced COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 (HR, 0.13;95% CI, 0.03 - 0.59;p = 0.008;Table 1) compared to placebo. Participants receiving RDV also had significantly lower risk for COVID-19-related medically attended visits or all-cause death by day 28 compared to placebo (HR, 0.19;95% CI, 0.07 - 0.56;p = 0.002;Table 1). No deaths occurred in either arm by day 28. There was no difference between arms in time-weighted average change in nasopharyngeal viral loads from baseline up to day 7. The proportion of patients with AEs was similar between arms (Table 1);the most common AEs in the RDV arm were nausea (11%), headache (6%), and diarrhea (4%). Conclusion. A 3-day course of IV RDV was safe, well tolerated and highly effective at preventing COVID-19 related hospitalization or death in high-risk non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Acute kidney injury in patients with moderate COVID-19 treated with RDV versus SOC

Background: Remdesivir (RDV), an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2, and its intravenous formulation excipient, cyclodextrin, are renally cleared. We sought to characterize whether RDV was associated with worsening renal function in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, oxygen saturation >94% on room air and eGFR ≥50 mL/ min/1.73m2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone. Also included in this analysis were patients who enrolled in an extension phase of the trial, receiving 10d of RDV. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1 and 100 mg daily thereafter. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined as an increase in serum creatinine from baseline and classified as Stage 1 (increase > 0.3 and % change ≤25%, or % change >25% and ≤ 100%), Stage 2 (% change >100% and ≤200%), Stage 3 (% change >200%). For AKI development (ever/never for stage 1 or greater), age-adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% Wald confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Results: 1005 patients (822 [83%] RDV, 183 [17%] SoC) with creatinine values collected through d14 were evaluated. Baseline patient demographics, creatinine, and eGFR were mostly similar between RDV vs SoC arms. Worsening renal function was observed less frequently in patients receiving RDV vs SOC (7% vs 10%, p=0.03, Table). After adjustment for age, there was no significant association of RDV with risk of AKI relative to SoC (RR=0.66;95% CI 0.40, 1.09). Most AKI events were observed in patients with baseline eGFR >90 mL/min, with few events occurring in patients with a baseline eGFR 50-59 mL/min. In patients who developed Stage 3 AKI, those treated with RDV (n=2, 0.2%) returned to baseline creatinine values while those on SOC (n=4, 2%) remained elevated to d14. No difference in AKI between treatment arms was observed in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD;RDV: n=6 [12%] vs SOC: n=2 [40%] p=0.14). Older age, history of CKD, and eGFR status at baseline were independently associated with worsening renal function. Conclusion: AKI events were observed less frequently in patients with moderately severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV compared to SoC.

Safety of remdesivir vs standard care in patients with moderate COVID-19

Background: Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut;safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting. Results: 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191;10d RDV, n=193;SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups;median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1). Conclusion: RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC. (Figure Presented).

Impact of concomitant hydroxychloroquine use on safety and efficacy of remdesivir in moderate COVID-19 patients

Background: Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HQN) is an experimental treatment for COVID-19. Effects of coadministration of HQN with RDV have not been studied and are relevant given the long half-life (∼22 days) of HQN. We report the impact of concomitant HQN and RDV use on clinical outcomes and safety in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods: We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. We compared patients on concomitant HQN (HQNpos) vs not (HQNneg). Clinical recovery was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards. Covariate adjustment included age, sex, race, region, symptom duration, oxygen support status and obesity. Recovery and adverse events (AEs) were assessed through death, discharge, or d14. Results: Of 584 patients, 199 (34%) received HQN (5d RDV: n=57 [30%];10d RDV, n=49 [25%];SoC: n=93 [47%]). Through median follow-up of 13d (range 1-41d), HQNpos patients on 5d or 10d RDV had a lower recovery rate (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.78 [0.59, 1.03], p=0.09) with longer median time to recovery (8 vs 6 days) compared to HQNneg. HQNpos compared to HQNneg patients in 5d RDV showed a trend of reduced recovery rate (HR: 0.69 [0.45,1.04], p=0.080);such an effect was not observed in 10d RDV or SoC (Table 1). More HQNpos than HQNneg patients had AEs in RDV (5/10d) or SoC arms evaluated separately, and all arms combined. This difference was significant for AEs and SAEs for all arms combined after covariate adjustment (Table 2). Conclusion: In moderate COVID-19 patients, concomitant HQN may delay recovery on RDV and showed no impact on recovery with SoC alone. The AE profile of HQNpos patients was worse than that observed for HQNneg patients, regardless of RDV treatment.

Baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement and mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19

Background: Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement at day (d) 14. Methods: We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. For this analysis, patients were followed through discharge, d14, or death. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics associated with clinical improvement in oxygen support (≥2-point improvement on a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from discharge to death) were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression methods. Results: 584 patients were randomized and treated (5/10d RDV, n=384;SoC: n=200). 159 (27%) were ≥65y, 227 (39%) female, 328 (61%) white, 102 (19%) Asian, and 99 (19%) Black. 252 participants (43%) were enrolled in Europe, 260 (45%) North America (NA), and 72 (12%) in Asia. Most patients (483 [83%]) were not on supplemental oxygen but required medical care at baseline. In a multivariable model, 5/10d RDV was significantly positively associated with clinical improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.65;p=0.0226). Significant covariables positively associated with clinical improvement included age < 65y (p< 0.0001) and region of treatment (Europe and NA vs Asia, p< 0.0001 each;Table);other examined factors were not significantly associated with clinical improvement, including gender, race, ethnicity, baseline oxygen support, duration of symptoms and hospitalization, obesity, and baseline transaminase levels. Conclusion: In moderate COVID-19 patients, after adjusting for treatment arm, age < 65y and region (NA vs Asia;Europe vs Asia) were associated with higher rates of clinical improvement. These observations recapitulate younger age as positive prognostic factor, and highlight the differences in the impact of the pandemic globally.

Gilead sciences' commitment to the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: COVID-19 has spread rapidly: from the first case in Dec 2019, the declaration of a global pandemic in Mar 2020, to Jun 18, 2020 with >8 M confirmed cases and >400,000 deaths worldwide. Throughout this rapid spread, Gilead has focused on contributing antiviral expertise and resources to help patients (pts) and communities fighting COVID-19 Methods: Gilead is supporting the efforts of governments, partnering with professionals, and community-based org., and collaborating with healthcare providers to accelerate research and access to remdesivir (RDV), the first medicine with demonstrated efficacy in treatment of COVID-19. This is a review of the programs initiated in RDV research, access, research grants and collaborative education Results: In Jan 2020 Gilead began working with government and regulatory authorities to make RDV accessible to pts globally through the compassionate use and expanded access programs. These programs has treated >2000 COVID-19 pts. By Feb 2020, several phase 3 randomized trials on RDV were initiated. Based on trials completed and published data (n= >2000), RDV was granted emergency use authorization in the US on May 1, 2020 with full approval in 5 countries thereafter and several under review elsewhere. Collectively there will be >12,000 pts enrolled in RDV clinical programs by Dec 2020. Increasing manufacturing of RDV began at-risk in Jan 2020. By May 2020 Gilead has decreased production time, increased supply and committed to donating all its 1.5 M doses. Under the licensing agreements with generic drug manufacturers, RDV will be available in 127 countries upon approval. Gilead has committed to supporting research grants to enhance the understanding of the clinical course and outcomes in vulnerable population, long-term sequelae, and evaluate real world safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies. Finally, Gilead has provided corporate grants to support the efforts of community-based orgs and public health entities to expand education on COVID-19 Conclusion: Gilead has initiated a global, multifaceted rapid response that reflects the unprecedented emergency posed by SARS-COV-2. This includes increasing RDV production, access, timely initiation of phase 3 RDV trials, and establishment of grants programs for community projects, research and education.

Geographical disparities in clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir

Background: Remdesivir (RDV), a RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, is the only treatment with demonstrated efficacy in shortening the duration of COVID-19. Here we report regional differences in clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV, as part of an open-label, randomized phase-3 trial establishing RDV treatment duration. Methods: Hospitalized patients with oxygen saturation ≤94%, a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in the past 4 days and radiographic evidence of pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV. We compared d14 clinical outcomes of patients from different geographical areas, as measured by mortality rates, change in clinical status from baseline (BL) on a 7-point ordinal scale and change in O2 requirements from BL. Based on previous analyses in compassionate use data showing region as an important predictor of outcome, Italy was examined separately from other regions. Results: 397 patients were treated with RDV, of which 229 (58%) were in the US, 77 (19%) Italy, 61 (15% in Spain), 12 (3%) Republic of Korea, 9 (2%) Singapore, 4 (1%) Germany, 4 (1%) Hong Kong and 1 (< 1%) Taiwan. BL clinical status was worse in Italy compared to other regions (72% vs 17% requiring high-flow oxygen delivery or higher), and Italian patients were more likely to be male than patients from other regions (69% vs 63%). Overall results showed 5d RDV was as effective as 10d. Mortality at d14 was higher in Italy (18%) compared to all other countries except Italy (7%). Similarly, clinical improvement at d14, measured as ≥2-point increase in the ordinal scale, was lower in Italian patients (39%) compared to all other countries combined (64%). (Fig.1). Conclusion: Overall, our results demonstrate significant geographical differences in the clinical course of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV. We observed worse outcomes, such as increased mortality and lower rate of clinical improvement, in patients from Italy compared to other regions. (Table Presented).

Remdesivir vs standard care in patients with moderate COVID-19

Background: Remdesivir (RDV) shortens time to recovery time in patients with severe COVID-19. Its effect in patients with moderate COVID-19 remains unclear. Methods: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone;patients could be discharged prior to completing per-protocol assigned treatment duration. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Patients were evaluated daily while hospitalized, and via telephone if discharged. The primary endpoint was clinical status on d11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. Results regarding the primary endpoint are expected to be published before IDWeek 2020;we plan to present d28 results at the meeting. Results: In total, 584 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (191, 5d RDV;193, 10d RDV;200, SoC). By d11, 3 2 point improvement on the ordinal scale occurred in 70% of patients in the 5d arm, 65% in the 10d arm, and 61% in the SoC arm. Patients in the 5d RDV arm were significantly more likely to have an improvement in clinical status than those receiving SoC (odds ratio [OR], 1.65;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.48;P=0.017);OR of improvement for the 10d RDV arm compared to SoC was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.88-1.95];p=0.183). This improvement in the 5-day arm over the SOC arm was noted from d6 through d11. We observed a peak of discharges corresponding with the assigned treatment duration of RDV, with increased discharges at d6 in the 5-day arm and at d11 in the 10-day arm. A worsening of clinical status of ≥ 1 point in the ordinal scale was observed more commonly in the SoC am (n=19, 10%) versus the 5d RDV (n=7, 4%) and 10d RDV (n=9, 5%). Conclusion: RDV for up to 5 days was superior to SoC in improving the clinical status of patients with moderate COVID-19 by d11. We will report d28 outcomes at the meeting. (Table Presented).

Impact of baseline alanine aminotransferase levels on the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in severe COVID-19 patients

Background: Remdesivir (RDV), a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has demonstrated potent in vitro and in vivo activity against SAR-CoV-2 and favorable clinical efficacy and tolerability in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 Elevated transaminase levels are commonly seen in patients with severe COVID-19 prior to treatment Here we report safety and clinical outcomes after RDV treatment in patients with normal versus elevated baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, involving hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with Sat<94% Patients with screening ALT or AST> 5x the upper limit of normal (ULN) were excluded from the study Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 or 10 days of intravenous RDV once daily We compared patients with baseline ALT below and above the ULN based on AASLD criteria (ALT 35 U/L for males and 25 U/L for females) Covariates for adjustment included age, sex, race and baseline oxygen support Clinical recovery and all-cause mortality were evaluated using logistic regression Clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) were assessed through day 28 Results: Of 397 patients treated with RDV, 215 (54%) had elevated baseline ALT Median ALT was 53 U/L (IQR: 40 - 78 U/L) in the high ALT group Patients with high ALT at time of RDV initiation were younger (median 58 vs 65 years, p<0 001), required less oxygen (p=0 02), and had longer symptom duration (median 10 vs 8 days, p<0.001) prior to first dose of RDV. Incidence of serious AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, and AE leading to discontinuation were similar between groups (Table1). Grade ≥3 hepatobiliary adverse events, particularly transaminase elevations, were not common but numerically higher in the high ALT group (8 8% vs 3 3%, p=0 068) Time to clinical recovery, 2-point clinical improvement, 1-point clinical improvement, room air, and death were similar between groups Conclusion: In severe COVID-19 patients, adverse events and clinical outcomes after RDV initiation were similar among patients with baseline normal ALT and those with elevated ALT (1-5x ULN)(Table Presented).