Risk of hospitalization and sequelae in patients with COVID-19 treated with 3-day early remdesivir vs. controls in the vaccine and Omicron era: A real-life cohort study.

Recently, a benefit from administration of a 3-day course of early remdesivir (ER) in the outpatients' setting was reported. However, real-life data on its use is scarce. Therefore, we explored the ER clinical outcome in our outpatients' s cohort, compared to untreated controls. We included all patients who were prescribed ER from February to May 2022 and followed them up for 3 months and compared patients who received treatment with untreated controls. In the two groups the following outcomes were investigated: hospitalization and mortality rate, time of negativization and symptom's resolution, and postacute coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) syndrome prevalence. Overall, 681 patients were analyzed, mostly females (53.6%), and with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range: 54-77), 316 (46.4%) patients received ER, and 365 (53.6%) did not receive antiviral treatment (control group). Overall, 8.5% patients eventually required oxygen support, 8.7% were hospitalized for COVID-19, and 1.5% died. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization and ER (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.049 [0.015; 0.16], p < 0.001) independently reduced hospitalization risk. ER was significantly associated with a shorter duration of SARS-CoV-2 positivity at nasopharyngeal swabs (aß -8.15 [-9.21; -7.09], p < 0.001) and of symptoms (aß -5.11 [-5.82; -4.39], p < 0.001), and with lower rate of COVID-19 sequelae compared to control group (aOR: 0.18 [0.10; 0.31], p < 0.001). Even in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and Omicron era, in patients at high risk of developing severe disease, ER demonstrated to have a good safety profile and to significantly reduce the risk of disease progression and COVID-19 sequelae compared to untreated controls.

Assessing the performance of LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in detecting Omicron lineages: 2022-2023 study.

Background: The introduction of rapid antigen tests revolutionized the approach to SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, offering prompt and accurate results with high sensitivity and specificity. Although it is more cost- and time-saving than the gold standard, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the efficacy in general population screening in both hospital- and community-based settings remains unknown. Moreover, rapid antigen testing is limited by qualitative results. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic reliability of the LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test during the Omicron era and to investigate its quantitative (analogue-to-digital converter (ADC)) results in comparison with RT-PCR Ct values. Methods: This prospective study included all adult patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms who were not hospitalised and did not require oxygen supplementation, consented to participate, and attended the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital from July 14th, 2022 to January 3rd, 2023. The patients underwent two different tests simultaneously: a nasal LumiraDx™ swab and a real-time RT-PCR assay performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. Sampling was repeated several times for a subset of subjects. Results: We enrolled 266 consecutive participants and collected 601 pairs of LumiraDx™ and RT-PCR samples. The most prevalent variant was BA.4/BA.5 Omicron (60.2 %). The sensitivity and specificity of LumiraDx™ test when compared to real-time RT-PCR results as the reference standard were 93.1 % and 79.75 %, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic reliability were found based on the available characteristics, age, sex, symptom status, or COVID-19 variant, except for the days from symptom onset. According to the multilevel logistic regression analysis, the only independent variable significantly associated with test concordance was the Ct value (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, p < 0.001). Significant differences in quantitative ADC values were found between false negative (FN) versus true negative (TN), and false positive (FP) and true positive (TP) tests. Conclusions: This study showed that LumiraDx™ test is reliable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. This finding confirms the efficacy of rapid antigen tests in monitoring vulnerable individuals during the current post-vaccination era. When compared with the RT-PCR, LumiraDx™ test effectively quantitatively distinguishes between FN and TN cases, as well as FP and true TP tests, despite inaccuracies in qualitative results.

Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir: Tolerability, Safety, and Adherence in a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir (MOL) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NIR) were recently approved for the early treatment of COVID-19, but real-life data on tolerability, safety, and adverse events (AEs) are still scarce. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients who were prescribed MOL and NIR at the Infectious Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital, between January and May 2022. Demographic, clinical, and safety variables were recorded. RESULTS: We included 909 patients, 48.3% males and 95.2% vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The median age was 73 (IQR: 62-82) years. MOL and NIR were prescribed in 407 (44.8%) and 502 (55.2%) patients, respectively. Overall, 124/909 (13.6%) patients experienced any AEs following antivirals intake: 98/124 (79%) patients reporting adverse events presented grade 1 AEs, 23/124 (18.5%) grade 2 AEs and 3 (2.5%) grade 3 AEs. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 4.8% of patients. AEs were significantly higher in women, in patients treated with NIR compared to MOL and in people who were not vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: In our real-life setting, AEs were higher than those reported by clinical trials, and were particularly associated with NIR use and with not being vaccinated. Further analyses are needed to better assess safety of oral antivirals and to define which patient's profile may benefit most from MOL and NIR.