Efficacy of remdesivir-containing therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a prospective clinical experience

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness, evolving in a pandemic. The virus causes respiratory illness and can rapidly spread from person to person; then, in a large number of patients this virus causes coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) characterized by pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and a significant rate of mortality [1-2-3].

To date, treatment of critically ill infected patients is primarily supportive with a robust evidence reported in literature about the use of steroids, especially dexamethasone, in lowering mortality especially in critically ill patients [4]; some important evidence suggests also the role of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to reduce in-hospital mortality [5].

As a matter of fact, only remdesivir was currently approved for the treatment of COVID-19. The recommendation for using remdesivir as treatment of COVID-19 is based on the in vitro and in vivo activity of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 [6]. Moreover, remdesivir showed an acceptable safety profile and exhibits in vivo prophylactic and therapeutic efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection [7].

According to randomized clinical trials, its administration might shorten the time to recovery and reduce severity of infection in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 [8]. However, there are still many ongoing clinical trials and more evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy of remdesivir in treating patients with COVID-19 at different stages of severity.

Aim of our study was to evaluate in a real-life, prospective, experience the impact of remdesivir on 30-day mortality and the need of non-invasive or invasive ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

RESULTS

During the study period 407 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively enrolled. Out of these, 294 (72.2%) and 113 (27.8%) were respectively treated or not with remdesivir. Overall, 61 (14.9%) patients were treated during hospitalization with non-invasive or mechanical ventilation, while a 30-day mortality was observed in 21 (5.2%) patients, with a global in-hospital mortality of 11%.

In Table 1 is reported univariate analysis about demographics and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients treated or not with remdesivir. Statistically significant differences were observed in remdesivir group about male sex (80% Vs 62%, p<0.001), fever (79% Vs 50%, p<0.001), cough (50% Vs 29%, p<0.001), dyspnea (57% Vs 37%, p<0.001), compared to patients not treated with remdesivir. No statistically significant differences were observed in the remdesivir group about age (63.2 Vs 62.5 years, p=0.717), length of hospital stay (15.02 Vs 16.06 days, p=0.487), and days to nasopharyngeal swab negativization (22.07 vs 24.77 days, p=0.378). Finally, no differences were observed about bacterial co-infection (20% Vs 21%, p=0.928) and 30-day mortality (4% Vs 6%, p=0.411).

Other treatments used in COVID-19 patients were reported in Table 2. Comparison between patients treated or not with remdesivir showed that steroids (93% Vs 81%, p<0.001), LMWH (93% Vs 52%, p<0.001) were more frequently prescribed in remdesivir group. Antibiotic therapy (58% Vs 27%, p<0.001) was more frequently prescribed for patients not treated with remdesivir, while no differences were reported about the use of HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation in the 2 study groups.

In supplementary Table 1 is reported univariate analysis after propensity score matching to evaluate the impact of remdesivir-containing regimen on study population (for reviewers’ information only). Figure 1 showed Kaplan Meier curves about 30-day survival in patients treated or not with remdesivir before (p=0.24) and after (p=0.07) propensity score matching, reporting no differences between the 2 study groups. Standardized differences before and after propensity score matching were reported in supplementary Figure 1 (for reviewers’ information only).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Kaplan Meier curves about 30-day survival in patients treated or not with remdesivir before (p=0.24) and after (p=0.07) propensity score matching

Multivariate Cox regression analysis about 30-day mortality after propensity score matching was reported in Table 3. Comorbidities and therapies, including remdesivir-containing therapy, were not statistically associated with 30-day survival or mortality. Instead, HFNC/NIV (HR 17.921, CI95% 0.954-336.73, p=0.044) and mechanical ventilation (HR 3.9, CI95% 5.36-16.2, p=0.003) resulted independently associated with 30-day mortality

Finally, multivariate Cox regression analysis about need of non-invasive or invasive ventilation was analyzed after propensity score matching (see Table 4). Data showed that comorbidities and therapies, including remdesivir-containing regimen, were not independently associated with a lower or higher risk of HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation.

DISCUSSION

This prospective clinical study reported a real-life experience about the use of remdesivir in a large population of consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our data, also after propensity score matching, showed that remdesivir-containing regimen was not associated with 30-day survival compared to patients treated with other therapies not including remdesivir. Moreover, remdesivir-containing regimen was not independently related to progression or not to HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation.

In Italy, remdesivir was specifically licensed for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with pneumonia, requiring oxygen therapy but not treated with HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation at time of remdesivir prescription [9].

Different data were worldwide reported about the efficacy of remdesivir, taking in account different outcomes. Remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly higher recovery rates and lower mortality, compared to standard-of-care treatment without remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 [10]. In this study, significantly lower mortality was observed in those treated with remdesivir (7.6%) compared with the non-remdesivir-cohort patients (12.5%). Conversely, data from Solidarity trial, conducted in 30 countries [11], showed no decrease of in-hospital mortality in patients treated with remdesivir, with the important limitation that other outcomes, clinical improvement and adverse events, were non carefully evaluated.

Some important meta-analysis showed that COVID-19 patients receiving remdesivir had significantly higher rates of recovery and hospital discharge with lower rates of developing serious adverse events compared to patients receiving standard of care/placebo [12-13]. However, these analyses confirmed that no significant differences were observed about clinical improvement and rate of mortality during hospitalization. Specifically, mortality was the main outcome reported in all included studies, and none of the studies showed significant decrease of mortality also if they were not adequately powered for mortality outcome [12].

Wang et al. [14] reported the first double blinded, randomized, clinical trial in which were evaluated patients with an interval from symptoms onset to enrollment of 12 days or less. No differences in mortality were recorded in the 2 arms, also if authors highlighted a possible trend towards clinical benefit in remdesivir group. Of importance, a large number of patients in this study were treated also with steroids (65% of patients who received remdesivir and 68% of patients in placebo arm) which may have confounded the results and the conclusions. A strength of our study, with the limit of the non-randomized cohort, was to weight all the possible therapeutic confounders, comprising the use of steroids and LMWH.

Beigel et al. [8] randomized 1062 patients, hospitalized with COVID-19 and evidence of pneumonia, to remdesivir or placebo. The study demonstrated that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a trend towards survival benefit at day 29 without statistically significant differences. Of interest, authors reported a beneficial effect of remdesivir in severe COVID-19 patients but not requiring mechanical ventilation at enrollment; they suggested to start remdesivir early in the disease course.

Finally, in another randomized, clinical trial [15] in patients with moderate COVID-19 (no oxygen requirements, also if about 15% of patients required oxygen at time of enrollment) authors randomized 596 patients in 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 5-day course of remdesivir, a 10-day course of remdesivir, or standard of care therapy. In this study patients randomized to 5-day, but not 10-day treatment duration, showed a statistically significant difference in clinical status. A subgroup analysis excluding patients who required oxygen at baseline showed a significant difference favouring remdesivir over standard care.

Our study has some limitations. First, considering the monocentric design these results might be affected by local practice in the management of COVID-19; second, although criteria for HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation were based on the degree of respiratory impairment, elderly critically ill patients with ultimately fatal diseases were probably excluded from non-invasive/invasive ventilation, modifying the interpretation of some interventions. Second, in this analysis were evaluated all consecutively, hospitalized patients independently from COVID-19 severity, as demonstrated also by the low mortality (6% of remdesivir group Vs 4% of patients not treated with remdesivir). Finally, the analysis on the beneficial effects of treatments should be interpreted cautiously, because it was not conducted on randomized groups and might therefore be affected by several measured and unmeasured confounding factors. However, the comparison of remdesivir-treated patients with non-remdesivir-treated patients was based on a robust statistical methodology, appropriate for non-randomized cohort studies about therapy.

In conclusion, in our real-life experience about the remdesivir use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not associated with significant increase in rates of survival or reduced use of HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation, compared to patients treated with other therapies not including remdesivir. These results suggest the need of more RCTs to evaluate the role of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients at different stages of disease or in combination with other drugs [16]. However, considering its safety profile and the lack of alternative drugs, remdesivir should be continued to be administered for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Endpoints and Statistical analysis

The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of remdesivir-containing therapy on 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia. Secondary endpoint was the impact of remdesivir-containing therapy on the need of NIV or mechanical ventilation.

To reduce the impact of treatment-selection bias in the estimation of treatment effects, propensity score matching was conducted. Variables were selected for inclusion in the propensity score based on potential impact on receipt of remdesivir and association with mortality [18]. The variables included were steroids, antibiotics (excluding macrolides), age, gender, and the use of LMWH during hospital admission. A propensity score density plot and Love plot were generated to examine the balance of propensity score and covariate distribution between the two groups (see supplementary Figure 1).

To evaluate demographic factors, Welch’s t tests assuming unequal variances were used for continuous independent variables, while Pearson Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact Test when appropriate were used for categorical variables. Welch’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess group differences for continuous outcome. Welch’s t-tests assuming unequal variances were used for post-hoc comparisons.

All tests will be two-tailed, and a p-value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results were expressed as the mean with standard deviation (±SD) for continuous normally distributed variables and as a count (n) and percentage (%) for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality and need of NIV or mechanical ventilation. Matched bivariate analyses were conducted using a conditional logistic regression model, incorporating all variables found to be significant in the Univariate analysis (p < 0.05) with a stepwise method. Matched multivariate models was constructed using Cox proportional hazards (HRs) regression if appropriate, accounting for clustering on matched pairs. The final selected model was tested for confounding. In addition, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for HR. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves. All data were analyzed using a commercially available statistical software package (SPSS Statistics for Mac, 22.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Conflict of interest

none to declare.

Funding

none.

Transparency declarations

none to declare.