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.

A simplified pneumonia severity index (PSI) for clinical outcome prediction in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The Pneumonia Score Index (PSI) was developed to estimate the risk of dying within 30 days of presentation for community-acquired pneumonia patients and is a strong predictor of 30-day mortality after COVID-19. However, three of its required 20 variables (skilled nursing home, altered mental status and pleural effusion) are not discreetly available in the electronic medical record (EMR), resulting in manual chart review for these 3 factors. The goal of this study is to compare a simplified 17-factor version (PSI-17) to the original (denoted PSI-20) in terms of prediction of 30-day mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 2/28/20-5/28/20 were identified to compare the predictive performance between PSI-17 and PSI-20. Correlation was assessed between PSI-17 and PSI-20, and logistic regressions were performed for 30-day mortality. The predictive abilities were compared by discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Based on 1,138 COVID-19 patients, the correlation between PSI-17 and PSI-20 was 0.95. Univariate logistic regression showed that PSI-17 had performance similar to PSI-20, based on AUC, ICI and Brier Score. After adjusting for confounding variables by multivariable logistic regression, PSI-17 and PSI-20 had AUCs (95% CI) of 0.85 (0.83-0.88) and 0.86 (0.84-0.89), respectively, indicating no significant difference in AUC at significance level of 0.05. CONCLUSION: PSI-17 and PSI-20 are equally effective predictors of 30-day mortality in terms of several performance metrics. PSI-17 can be obtained without the manual chart review, which allows for automated risk calculations within an EMR. PSI-17 can be easily obtained and may be a comparable alternative to PSI-20.