Comparison of Outcomes in Patients Requiring Mechanical Circulatory Support Who Received Cangrelor in Addition to Anticoagulation Versus Anticoagulation Alone.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of cangrelor administered concurrently with heparin or bivalirudin in patients on mechanical circulatory support. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients consecutively admitted between January 2016 and October 2020. SETTING: A tertiary medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit put on mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or non-AMI indications. Patients who received cangrelor underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting during the index event or within the last year. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of major bleeding, defined by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization criteria, in patients with mechanical circulatory support receiving cangrelor plus anticoagulation with heparin or bivalirudin with or without aspirin versus patients who did not receive cangrelor. Sixty-eight patients were included in the study. Twenty-nine patients received cangrelor, and 39 did not. Cangrelor was not associated with an increase in major bleeding; however, the CI was wide (adjusted hazard ratio 1.93, 95% CI 0.61-6.11; p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving cangrelor did not appear to be at higher risk of major bleeding compared to patients not receiving cangrelor. Larger trials should be conducted to better evaluate the safety of cangrelor in patients with mechanical circulatory support.

The safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in a postmarketing surveillance study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and to assess mortality and health status in participants receiving remdesivir in real-world settings in Japan. METHODS: This postmarketing surveillance study used an all-case surveillance method for enrollment. Participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection administered remdesivir from July 2020 to November 2021 in Japan were eligible for inclusion. The observation period was from remdesivir treatment initiation to 4 weeks after the end of treatment or treatment discontinuation. Clinical status and outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared across subgroups at baseline, Day 14, Day 28, and the final observation point. RESULTS: The analysis included 2128 participants (mean age, 67 years; 71.4 % male; 84.1 % with current comorbidities). ADRs and serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) were reported among 10.4 % and 1.2 % participants, respectively. Overall, 191/2127 participants died (mortality rate [95 % confidence interval], 11.10 [9.66-12.75] per 100 person-months), 1511/2127 showed clinical improvement (117.8 [112.0-123.9] per 100 person-months), 1392/2127 recovered (103.9 [98.6-110.0] per 100 person-months), and 216/324 were extubated (107.0 [93.6-122.3] per 100 person-months). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ADRs and SADRs was low, and no new safety concerns were identified. Observed mortality and clinical improvement results were consistent with prior studies, confirming remdesivir's benefits in real-world settings in Japan.

Safety and Efficacy of Cangrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cangrelor is a potent intravenous non-thienopyridine P2Y12 inhibitor. We conducted a network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared with the oral P2Y12 inhibition, clopidogrel, or placebo in acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: This meta-analysis followed the Cochrane collaboration guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and the need for blood transfusion. RESULTS: The analysis was comprised of 6 studies including 26,444 patients treated with cangrelor, clopidogrel, or placebo. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, or major bleeding. Cangrelor was associated with a higher risk of minor bleeding than clopidogrel or placebo, with no difference in requiring blood transfusion. CONCLUSION: Cangrelor has comparable outcomes to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and can be used as a reliable alternative in this population.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of inhaled remdesivir in healthy participants.

Intravenous remdesivir (RDV) is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals with coronavirus disease 2019. RDV undergoes intracellular metabolic activation to form the active triphosphate, GS-443902, and other metabolites. Alternative administration routes, including localized pulmonary delivery, can lower systemic exposure and maximize exposure at the site of action. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of inhaled RDV in healthy adults. This phase Ia, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluated inhaled RDV in healthy participants randomized 4:1 to receive RDV or placebo as single doses (4 cohorts) or multiple once-daily doses (3 cohorts). Doses in cohorts 1-6 were administered as an aerosolized solution for inhalation through a sealed facemask; doses in cohort 7 were administered as an aerosolized solution for inhalation through a mouthpiece. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Seventy-two participants were enrolled (inhaled RDV, n = 58 and placebo, n = 14). Following single RDV doses, RDV, GS-704277, and GS-441524 plasma PK parameters indicated dose-proportional increases in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) extrapolated to infinite time, AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration, and maximum observed concentration. Analyte plasma concentrations after multiple RDV doses were consistent with those for single-dose RDV. Analyte plasma exposures were lower when RDV was administered with a mouthpiece versus a sealed facemask. The most common adverse events included nausea, dizziness, and cough. Single- and multiple-dose inhaled RDV exhibited linear and dose-proportional plasma PK. Administration of RDV via inhalation was generally safe and well-tolerated.

Considerations and Challenges in the Remdesivir COVID-19 Pediatric Development Program.

The US Food and Drug Administration is committed to the development of effective antiviral regimens for pediatric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including infants and neonates. On April 25, 2022, the approved indication of remdesivir (RDV) was expanded to include pediatric patients 28 days and older and weighing at least 3 kg with positive results of direct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral testing, who are: Hospitalized, or Not hospitalized and have mild to moderate COVID-19 and are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. Given the similar course of COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients, the approval of RDV for use in pediatric patients is supported by the safety and efficacy data from adequate and well-controlled phase 3 trials in adults and adolescents; and by the safety and pharmacokinetic data from a single-arm, open-label, phase 2/3 pediatric clinical trial of 53 pediatric patients at least 28 days of age and weighing at least 3 kg with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19. At the time of the April 25, 2022, approval action, the US Food and Drug Administration also revoked the emergency use authorization for RDV that previously covered this pediatric population. This article summarizes key issues and regulatory considerations involved in the RDV COVID-19 pediatric development program, including the evolution of the emergency use authorization issued for RDV as results from registrational studies became available, and discusses lessons learned.

Remdesivir-induced Bradycardia is not Associated with Worse Outcome in Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, is primarily a respiratory illness but is known to cause extrapulmonary manifestations, especially on the cardiovascular system. Bradycardia is commonly reported in COVID-19 patients despite no prior history of occurrence, and many studies have shown an association with increased mortality. Multiple case reports have been published showcasing remdesivir potentially causing bradycardia. Our aim was to investigate the incidence of bradycardia in patients receiving remdesivir and examine the association with disease severity and survival outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including 160 COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir for 5 days. Patients' demographics, comorbidities, medication, vital signs, laboratory tests and outcome were recorded. Bradycardia was defined as a heart rate < 60 beats/min and severe bradycardia < 50 beats/min. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen (73.8%) patients experienced at least one episode of bradycardia during hospitalisation. Bradycardia was present in 12 (7.5%) patients before treatment with remdesivir. The rate of bradycardia increased up to the 6th day of hospitalisation (40.6%) and subsequently diminished and normalised within 5 days after the last remdesivir dose (5% at Day 10). Severe bradycardia was observed in 13 (7.5%) patients. No difference was observed in ICU admission between groups (bradycardia vs no bradycardia). When we stratified patients according to the outcome of hospitalisation, no significant difference was observed in the occurrence of bradycardia between groups (alive vs dead) [p = 0.853]. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with remdesivir may be associated with new-onset bradycardia in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. However, bradycardia is transient and is not associated with ICU admission and mortality.

Remdesivir: an overview of patenting trends, clinical evidence on COVID-19 treatment, pharmacology and chemistry.

By December 2021, the COVID-19 caused approximately 6.1 million deaths around the world. Several vaccines have been approved, but there is still a need for non-prophylactic treatments for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug approved for emergency use against COVID-19 in several countries, but one of the first clinical trials was inconclusive about the mortality reduction, although the drug showed a reduction in the recovery time of hospitalized patients. Thus, the present investigation revisits the clinical evidence of using remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment, patent status, pharmacology and chemistry. We found 184 families of patents in the Cortellis database, and concerning the clinical evidence, we retrieved 14 systematic reviews with meta-analysis involving remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19, discussing the reduction of adverse events, hospitalization days, mortality rate and the mechanical ventilation period.

Linear mixed model analysis to evaluate correlations between remdesivir adverse effects with age and gender of patients with mild Covid-19 pneumonia.

We aimed to assess longitudinal changes in clinical indexes of corona disease 2019 (Covid-19) patients with mild pulmonary infection during 5 days of remdesivir therapy and determine the effect of age and gender on remdesivir adverse effects (AE). Patients' clinical data including inflammatory markers, liver and renal function tests, and heart rate (HR) were extracted from medical records. Linear mixed model (LMM) was used to analyze longitudinal changes in patients' clinical indexes. Gender and age were inserted in LMM as covariates to find their correlation with AE and clinical indexes. Of 84 patients, 35 patients met our criteria for the study. There were significant increases in mean levels of white blood cell (WBC; p = 0.005), alanine aminotransferase (ALT; p = 0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.001), blood urea nitrogen (BUN; p = 0.001), and creatinine (p = 0.006), whereas mean levels of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.005), C-reactive protein (p = 0.001), alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.001), and potassium (p = 0.003) decreased significantly. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.001) and HR (p = 0.001) showed a notable decline over the course of treatment. LMM analysis showed that mean changes in WBC (ß = 0.94, p = 0.029), creatinine (ß = 0.12, p = 0.020), and HR (ß = 6.47, p = 0.008) were greater in males than in females. Also, age of patients had a significant effect on the mean changes of WBC (ß = -0.02, p = 0.023), sodium (ß = -0.06, p = 0.010), BUN (ß = 0.23, p = 0.001), and HR (ß = -0.29, p = 0.001). Despite no renal and liver dysfunction, Covid-19 patients with mild pulmonary infection may develop some remdesivir AE and attributed side effects might be affected by gender and age of patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Periprocedural Bridging With Cangrelor Versus Eptifibatide.

ABSTRACT: Patients with percutaneous coronary interventions undergoing procedures often require interruptions in their dual antiplatelet therapy. Periprocedural bridging is considered for patients at high thrombotic risk using intravenous cangrelor, a reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with a short half-life, or eptifibatide, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, with a slightly longer half-life but less costly alternative. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of cangrelor compared with eptifibatide when used in a periprocedural setting. The primary outcome of this retrospective cohort study was the incidence of bleeding events defined by the global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries criteria, and the secondary outcomes include the transfusion requirements, inpatient major cardiac adverse events, and cost savings per patient. A total of 75 patients were included who were bridged to procedures (cangrelor, n = 50; eptifibatide, n = 25). There were no significant differences in overall bleeding events defined by global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries criteria: mild bleeding [8% (n= 4) vs. 8% (n= 2); P = 0.68], moderate bleeding [28% (n = 14) vs. 48% (n = 12); P = 0.07), and severe bleeding [8% (n = 4) vs. 8% (n = 2); P = 0.25] between cangrelor and eptifibatide. The composite inpatient major cardiac adverse events were also similar between cangrelor and eptifibatide [10% (n = 10) vs. 8% (n = 8); P = 0.78]. The average cost savings per each cangrelor patient on the equivalent duration of eptifibatide was calculated out to be $5824 per patient. Cangrelor and eptifibatide were similar in terms of safety and efficacy when used as a bridge in patients with recent coronary stents, but considerable cost savings could be made if cangrelor was substituted for by eptifibatide in select patients. Further studies are needed to determine its applicability specifically in patients at high thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk.