Time from symptoms onset to remdesivir is associated with the risk of ICU admission: a multicentric analyses.

BACKGROUND: Shorter duration of symptoms before remdesivir has been associated with better outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate variables associated with the need of ICU admission in a cohort of hospitalized patients for COVID-19 under remdesivir including the period from symptoms onset to remdesivir. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentric study analysing all patients admitted with COVID-19 in 9 Spanish hospitals who received treatment with remdesivir in October 2020. The main outcome was the need of ICU admission after 24 h of the first dose of remdesivir. RESULTS: In our cohort of 497 patients, the median of days from symptom onset to remdesivir was 5 days, and 70 of them (14.1%) were later admitted into ICU. The clinical outcomes associated with ICU admission were days from symptoms onset (5 vs. 6; p = 0.023), clinical signs of severe disease (respiratory rate, neutrophil count, ferritin levels and very-high mortality rate in SEIMC-Score) and the use of corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory drugs before ICU. The only variable significatively associated with risk reduction in the Cox-regression analyses was ≤ 5 days from symptoms onset to RDV (HR: 0.54, CI95%: 0.31-0.92; p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: For patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, the prescription of remdesivir within 5 days from symptoms onset diminishes the need of ICU admission.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Consistent Effects of Early Remdesivir on Symptoms and Disease Progression Across At-Risk Outpatient Subgroups: Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in PINETREE Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the PINETREE study, early remdesivir treatment reduced risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations or all-cause death versus placebo by 87% by day 28 in high-risk, non-hospitalized patients. Here we report results of assessment of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) of early outpatient remdesivir, focusing on time from symptom onset and number of baseline risk factors (RFs). METHODS: PINETREE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were randomized within 7 days of symptom onset and had ≥ 1 RF for disease progression (age ≥ 60 years, obesity [body mass index ≥ 30], or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients received remdesivir intravenously (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. RESULTS: In this subgroup analysis, HTE of remdesivir by time from symptom onset at treatment initiation and number of baseline RFs was not detected. Treatment with remdesivir reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations independent of stratification by time from symptom onset to randomization. Of patients enrolled ≤ 5 days from symptom onset, 1/201 (0.5%) receiving remdesivir and 9/194 (4.6%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (hazard ratio [HR] 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.82). Of those enrolled at > 5 days from symptom onset, 1/78 (1.3%) receiving remdesivir and 6/89 (6.7%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02-1.61). Remdesivir was also effective in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalizations when stratified by number of baseline RFs for severe disease. Of patients with ≤ 2 RFs, 0/159 (0.0%) receiving remdesivir and 4/164 (2.4%) receiving placebo were hospitalized; of those with ≥ 3 RFs, 2/120 (1.7%) receiving remdesivir and 11/119 (9.2%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: In the outpatient setting, benefit of remdesivir initiated within 7 days of symptoms appeared to be consistent across patients with RFs. Therefore, it may be reasonable to broadly treat patients with remdesivir regardless of comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04501952.

Plitidepsin in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission: A long-term follow-up analysis

Introduction The APLICOV-PC study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of plitidepsin in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In this follow-up study (E-APLICOV), the incidence of post-COVID-19 morbidity was evaluated and any long-term complications were characterized. Methods Between January 18 and March 16, 2022, 34 of the 45 adult patients who received therapy with plitidepsin in the APLICOV-PC study were enrolled in E-APLICOV (median time from plitidepsin first dose to E-APLICOV enrollment, 16.8 months [range, 15.2–19.5 months]). All patients were functionally autonomous with regard to daily living (Barthel index: 100) and had normal physical examinations. Results From the APLICOV-PC date of discharge to the date of the extension visit, neither Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5) grade 3-4 complications nor QT prolongation or significant electrocardiogram (EKG) abnormalities were reported. Five (14.7%) patients had another COVID-19 episode after initial discharge from APLICOV-PC, and in 2 patients (5.9%), previously unreported chest X-ray findings were documented. Spirometry and lung-diffusion tests were normal in 29 (85.3%) and 27 (79.4%) patients, respectively, and 3 patients needed additional oxygen supplementation after initial hospital discharge. None of these patients required subsequent hospital readmission for disease-related complications. Discussion In conclusion, plitidepsin has demonstrated a favorable long-term safety profile in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. With the constraints of a low sample size and a lack of control, the rate of post-COVID-19 complications after treatment with plitidepsin is in the low range of published reports. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05121740;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121740).

Plitidepsin in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission: A long-term follow-up analysis.

Introduction: The APLICOV-PC study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of plitidepsin in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In this follow-up study (E-APLICOV), the incidence of post-COVID-19 morbidity was evaluated and any long-term complications were characterized. Methods: Between January 18 and March 16, 2022, 34 of the 45 adult patients who received therapy with plitidepsin in the APLICOV-PC study were enrolled in E-APLICOV (median time from plitidepsin first dose to E-APLICOV enrollment, 16.8 months [range, 15.2-19.5 months]). All patients were functionally autonomous with regard to daily living (Barthel index: 100) and had normal physical examinations. Results: From the APLICOV-PC date of discharge to the date of the extension visit, neither Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5) grade 3-4 complications nor QT prolongation or significant electrocardiogram (EKG) abnormalities were reported. Five (14.7%) patients had another COVID-19 episode after initial discharge from APLICOV-PC, and in 2 patients (5.9%), previously unreported chest X-ray findings were documented. Spirometry and lung-diffusion tests were normal in 29 (85.3%) and 27 (79.4%) patients, respectively, and 3 patients needed additional oxygen supplementation after initial hospital discharge. None of these patients required subsequent hospital readmission for disease-related complications. Discussion: In conclusion, plitidepsin has demonstrated a favorable long-term safety profile in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. With the constraints of a low sample size and a lack of control, the rate of post-COVID-19 complications after treatment with plitidepsin is in the low range of published reports. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05121740; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121740).

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Factors associated with critical care requirements in diabetic patients treated with dexamethasone for COVID-19 infection in the first wave of the pandemia.

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperglycemia are important risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to analyze the factors associated with the composite outcome of the necessity of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) in subjects with severe COVID-19 infection treated with dexamethasone comparing patients with DM vs. patients without DM. Research design and methods: An observational retrospective cohort study was performed, including hospitalized subjects with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥18 years old with severe COVID-19 disease requiring daily intravenous 6 mg dexamethasone treatment for 10 days. Exclusion criteria were: <18 years old, non-severe illness and/or patients in charge of ICU. Variables related to clinical and analytical parameters, glycemic control, acquired-hospital superinfections, mortality, IMV requirement, ICU admission and length of stay were included. Results: Two hundred and nine individuals with COVID-19 disease treated with dexamethasone were included. One hundred twenty-five out of these subjects (59.8%) were patients with DM. Overall, from the 209 subjects, 66 (31.6%) required IMV or were admitted to the ICU, with significant differences between patients with DM (n=50) vs. patients without DM (n=16) (76% vs. 24%, p=0.002). Among the group of subjects with DM (n=125), those who required IMV or were admitted to the ICU showed higher serum concentrations of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, D-dimer, ferritin and pro-calcitonin and significantly lower serum concentrations of albumin compared to those who did not require IMV or were not admitted to the ICU. Besides, between these two groups of patients with DM, we observed no differences in glycemic parameters, including median capillary blood glucose values, glycosylated hemoglobin, coefficient of variability and hypoglycemic episodes. In the multinomial analysis, factors independently associated with the composite outcome of IMV or admission to the ICU in the insulin-treated group were the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2 score (OR 1.55 [1.17-2.17], p=0.005) and the presence of hospital-acquired superinfections (OR 35.21 [5.11-386.99], p=0.001). Conclusions: In our study, parameters related to glycemic control were not associated with IMV requirement nor admission to the ICU in patients with DM and severe COVID-19 disease receiving daily 6 mg of dexamethasone for 10 days. However, hospital-acquired superinfections and disease severity at admission were independent factors associated with this composite outcome.

Limited Humoral and Specific T-Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in PWH With Poor Immune Reconstitution.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed humoral and cellular immune responses induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PWH) who had CD4+ T-cell counts <200/µL (HIV<200 group). METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 58 PWH in the HIV<200 group, 36 with CD4+ T-cell counts >500/µL (HIV>500 group), and 33 HIV-1-negative controls (control group). Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-S immunoglobulin [Ig] G) and the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD IgG) were quantified before and 4 weeks after the first and the second doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (at week 8). Viral neutralization activity and T-cell responses were also determined. RESULTS: At week 8, anti-S/anti-RBD IgG responses increased in all groups (P < .001). Median (interquartile range) anti-S and anti-RBD IgG levels at week 8 were 153.6 (26.4-654.9) and 171.9 (61.8-425.8) binding antibody units (BAU)/mL, respectively, in the HIV<200 group, compared with 245.6 (145-824) and 555.8 (166.4-1751) BAU/mL in the HIV>500 group and 274.7 (193.7-680.4) and 281.6 (181-831.8) BAU/mL in controls (P < .05). Neutralizing capacity and specific T-cell immune responses were absent or reduced in 33% of those in the HIV<200 group, compared with 3.7% in the HIV>500 group (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of PWH with CD4+ T-cell counts <200/µL show low anti-S/anti-RBD IgG levels, reduced in vitro neutralization activity against SARS-CoV-2, and no vaccine-induced T cells after receiving coronavirus disease 2019 mRNA vaccines.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

COVID-19-associated mucormycosis: A review of an emergent epidemic fungal infection in the era of COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when the COVID-19's second wave is still picking up in countries like India, a number of reports describe the potential association with a rise in the number of cases of mucormycosis, commonly known as the black fungus. This fungal infection has been around for centuries and affects those people whose immunity has been compromised due to severe health conditions. In this article, we provide a detailed overview of mucormycosis and discuss how COVID-19 could have caused a sudden spike in an otherwise rare disease in countries like India. The article discusses the various symptoms of the disease, class of people most vulnerable to this infection, preventive measures to avoid the disease, and various treatments that exist in clinical practice and research to manage the disease.

Clinical and Genetic Risk Factors for Acute Incident Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory COVID-19 is controversial. In addition, the association of vaccination with COVID-19-related VTE and relevant clinical and genetic risk factors remain to be elucidated. Objective: To quantify the association between ambulatory COVID-19 and short-term risk of VTE, study the potential protective role of vaccination, and investigate clinical and genetic risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from UK Biobank included participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection that was confirmed by a positive polymerase chain test reaction result between March 1, 2020, and September 3, 2021, who were then propensity score matched to COVID-19-naive people during the same period. Participants with a history of VTE who used antithrombotic drugs (1 year before index dates) or tested positive in hospital were excluded. Exposures: First infection with SARS-CoV-2, age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, obesity, vaccination status, and inherited thrombophilia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite VTE, including deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which occurred 30 days after the infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using cause-specific Cox models. Results: In 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 (10 580 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [8.0] years) and 93 179 matched uninfected participants (52 177 women [56.0%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [7.9] years), the infection was associated with an increased risk of VTE in 30 days (incidence rate of 50.99 and 2.37 per 1000 person-years for infected and uninfected people, respectively; HR, 21.42; 95% CI, 12.63-36.31). However, risk was substantially attenuated among the fully vaccinated (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.82-19.5; interaction P = .02). In patients with COVID-19, older age, male sex, and obesity were independently associated with higher risk, with adjusted HRs of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.50-2.33) per 10 years, 1.69 (95% CI, 1.30-2.19), and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.28-2.61), respectively. Further, inherited thrombophilia was associated with an HR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.15-3.66) for post-COVID-19 VTE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19, ambulatory COVID-19 was associated with a substantially increased risk of incident VTE, but this risk was greatly reduced in fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infection. Older age, male sex, and obesity were clinical risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE; factor V Leiden thrombophilia was additionally associated with double the risk, comparable with the risk of 10-year aging. These findings may reinforce the need for vaccination, inform VTE risk stratification, and call for targeted VTE prophylaxis strategies for unvaccinated outpatients with COVID-19.

Integrated use of laboratory services for multiple infectious diseases in the WHO European Region during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Technical advances in diagnostic techniques have permitted the possibility of multi-disease-based approaches for diagnosis and treatment monitoring of several infectious diseases, including tuberculosis (TB), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections (STI). However, in many countries, diagnosis and monitoring, as well as disease response programs, still operate as vertical systems, potentially causing delay in diagnosis and burden to patients and preventing the optimal use of available resources. With countries facing both human and financial resource constraints, during the COVID-19 pandemic even more than before, it is important that available resources are used as efficiently as possible, potential synergies are leveraged to maximise benefit for patients, continued provision of essential health services is ensured. For the infectious diseases, TB, HIV, hepatitis C (HCV) and STI, sharing devices and integrated services starting with rapid, quality-assured, and complete diagnostic services is beneficial for the continued development of adequate, efficient and effective treatment strategies. Here we explore the current and future potential (as well as some concerns), importance, implications and necessary implementation steps for the use of platforms for multi-disease testing for TB, HIV, HCV, STI and potentially other infectious diseases, including emerging pathogens, using the example of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Skewed Cellular Distribution and Low Activation of Functional T-Cell Responses in SARS-CoV-2 Non-Seroconvertors.

The role of T cells in the control of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been underestimated in favor of neutralizing antibodies. However, cellular immunity is essential for long-term viral control and protection from disease severity. To understand T-cell immunity in the absence of antibody generation we focused on a group of SARS-CoV-2 Non-Seroconvertors (NSC) recovered from infection. We performed an immune comparative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals stratified by the absence or presence of seroconversion and disease severity. We report high levels of total naïve and low effector CD8+ T cells in NSC. Moreover, reduced levels of T-cell activation monitored by PD-1 and activation-induced markers were observed in the context of functional SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses. Longitudinal data indicate the stability of the NSC phenotype over three months of follow-up after infection. Together, these data characterized distinctive immunological traits in NSC including skewed cellular distribution, low activation and functional SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses. This data highlights the value of T-cell immune monitoring in populations with low seroconversion rates in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Omicron and Other Variants of Concern.

The SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDTs) is an easy-to-use diagnostic tool to identify the contagious individuals and reduce the new infections. However, to be effective, Ag-RDTs require the detection of distinct variants of concern (VOC) with high analytical sensitivity. Here, we found that the VOC diverge at the nucleocapsid protein used by four commercial Ag-RDTs for the viral detection. Relative to the original D614G variant, there was a 10-fold loss of detection for the Delta and Alpha variants in certain Ag-RDTs, a reduction above the threshold required to isolate the viable virus. However, Beta and Omicron variants did not lose the detection capacity. As the new VOC arise, successful contact tracing requires continuous monitoring of Ag-RDTs performance.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0-27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0-10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0-50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.