Remdesivir: Effectiveness and Safety in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (ReEs-COVID-19)-Analysis of Data from Daily Practice.

Remdesivir was the first antiviral approved for treating COVID-19. We investigated its patterns of use, effectiveness and safety in clinical practice in Greece. This is a retrospective observational study of hospitalized adults who received remdesivir for COVID-19 in September 2020-February 2021. The main endpoints were the time to recovery (hospital discharge within 30 days from admission) and safety. The "early" (remdesivir initiation within 24 h since hospitalization) and "deferred" (remdesivir initiation later on) groups were compared. One thousand and four patients (60.6% male, mean age 61 years, 74.3% with severe disease, 70.9% with ≥1 comorbidities) were included, and 75.9% of them were on a 5-day regimen, and 86.8% were in the early group. Among those with a baseline mild/moderate disease, the median (95% CI) time to recovery was 8 (7-9) and 12 (11-14) days for the early and deferred groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The corresponding estimates for those with a severe disease were 10 (9-10) and 13 (11-15) days, respectively (p = 0.028). After remdesivir initiation, increased serum transaminases and an acute kidney injury were observed in 6.9% and 2.1%, respectively. Nine (0.9%) patients discontinued the treatment due to adverse events. The effectiveness of remdesivir was increased when it was taken within 24 h since admission regardless of the disease severity. Remdesivir's safety profile is similar to that described in clinical trials and other real-world cohorts.

Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Baricitinib as Adjunctive to Standard-of-Care Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) are limited. Preliminary data have shown promising results with baricitinib, but real-life experience is lacking. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of add-on baricitinib to standard-of-care (SOC) including dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with sCOVID-19. METHODS: This study is a 2-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with sCOVID-19, comparing outcomes and serious events between patients treated with SOC versus those treated with SOC and baricitinib combination. RESULTS: We included 369 patients with sCOVID-19 (males 66.1%; mean age 65.2 years; median symptom duration 6 days). The SOC was administered in 47.7% and combination in 52.3%. Patients treated with the combination reached the composite outcome (intensive care unit [ICU] admission or death) less frequently compared with SOC (22.3% vs 36.9%, P = .002). Mortality rate was lower with the combination in the total cohort (14.7% vs 26.6%, P = .005), and ICU admission was lower in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (29.7% vs 44.8%, P = .03). By multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.44, per 10-year increase), partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = .52-0.68, per 10 units increase), and use of high-flow nasal cannula (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .16-0.74) were associated with the composite outcome, whereas baricitinib use was marginally not associated with the composite outcome (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, .26-1.03). However, baricitinib use was found to be significant after inverse-probability weighted regression (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .87-0.99). No difference in serious events was noted between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In real-life settings, addition of baricitinib to SOC in patients hospitalized with sCOVID-19 is associated with decreased mortality without concerning safety signals.

Association of COVID-19 with impaired endothelial glycocalyx, vascular function and myocardial deformation 4 months after infection.

AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to endothelial and vascular dysfunction. We investigated alterations of arterial stiffness, endothelial coronary and myocardial function markers 4 months after COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a case-control prospective study, we included 70 patients 4 months after COVID-19 infection, 70 age- and sex-matched untreated hypertensive patients (positive control) and 70 healthy individuals. We measured (i) perfused boundary region (PBR) of the sublingual arterial microvessels (increased PBR indicates reduced endothelial glycocalyx thickness), (ii) flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), (iii) coronary flow reserve (CFR) by Doppler echocardiography, (iv) pulse wave velocity (PWV), (v) global left and right ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), and (vi) malondialdehyde (MDA), an oxidative stress marker, thrombomodulin and von Willebrand factor as endothelial biomarkers. COVID-19 patients had similar CFR and FMD as hypertensives (2.48 ± 0.41 vs. 2.58 ± 0.88, P = 0.562, and 5.86 ± 2.82% vs. 5.80 ± 2.07%, P = 0.872, respectively) but lower values than controls (3.42 ± 0.65, P = 0.0135, and 9.06 ± 2.11%, P = 0.002, respectively). Compared to controls, both COVID-19 and hypertensives had greater PBR5-25 (2.07 ± 0.15 µm and 2.07 ± 0.26 µm, P = 0.8 vs. 1.89 ± 0.17 µm, P = 0.001), higher PWV (carotid-femoral PWV 12.09 ± 2.50 vs. 11.92 ± 2.94, P = 0.7 vs. 10.04 ± 1.80 m/s, P = 0.036) and impaired left and right ventricular GLS (-19.50 ± 2.56% vs. -19.23 ± 2.67%, P = 0.864 vs. -21.98 ± 1.51%, P = 0.020 and -16.99 ± 3.17% vs. -18.63 ± 3.20%, P = 0.002 vs. -20.51 ± 2.28%, P < 0.001). MDA and thrombomodulin were higher in COVID-19 patients than both hypertensives and controls (10.67 ± 0.32 vs 1.76 ± 0.03, P = 0.003 vs. 1.01 ± 0.05 nmol/L, P = 0.001 and 3716.63 ± 188.36 vs. 3114.46 ± 179.18 pg/mL, P = 0.017 vs. 2590.02 ± 156.51 pg/mL, P < 0.001). Residual cardiovascular symptoms at 4 months were associated with oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction markers. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 may cause endothelial and vascular dysfunction linked to impaired cardiac performance 4 months after infection.