Abstract
Background Remdesivir (RDV) is the only antiviral drug registered currently for treatment of COVID-19 after a few clinical trials with controversial results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RDV in patients with COVID-19 in real world settings.
Methods Patients were selected from 1496 individuals included in the SARSTer national database; 122 of them received therapy with RDV and 211 were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based therapy. The primary end-point of effectiveness was clinical improvement in the ordinal 8-point scale, which was defined as a 2-point decrease from baseline to 7, 14, 21 and 28 days of hospitalization. The secondary end-points of effectiveness included: death rate, rate of no clinical improvement within 28 days of hospitalization in the ordinal scale, rate of the need for constant oxygen therapy, duration of oxygen therapy, rate of the need for mechanical ventilation, total hospitalization time, and rate of positive RT PCR for SARS-CoV-2 after 30 days.
Findings Significantly higher rates of clinical improvement, by 15% and 10% respectively, were observed after RDV treatment compared to LPV/r at days 21 and 28. The difference between regimens increased with worsening of oxygen saturation (SpO2) and depending on the baseline score from the ordinal scale. Statistically significant differences supporting RDV were also noted regarding the rate of no clinical improvement within 28 days of hospitalization and hospitalization duration in patients with baseline SpO2 ≤90%. In the logistic regression model only the administration of remdesivir was independently associated with at least a 2-point improvement in the ordinal scale between baseline and day 21.
Interpretation In conclusion, data collected in this retrospective, observational, real world study supported use of remdesivir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection particularly in patients with oxygen saturation ≤95%.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
SARSTer study is supported by Polskie Towarzystwo Epidemiologow i Lekarzy Chorob Zakaznych
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study is approved by the Ethical Committee of Medical University of Bialystok, Poland
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred can be provided by authors
