Association of remdesivir with poor clinical outcomes in Covid-19

R. Ranka
{"title":"Association of remdesivir with poor clinical outcomes in Covid-19","authors":"R. Ranka","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-894056/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Introduction: Need of an antiviral against Covid-19 prompted clinical trials all over the world and based on initial promising trends, remdesivir was widely used all over the world, including India (compassionate use). Subsequent trials have been conflicting in their results and the utility of the drug has been widely debated. Methods: This is a record-based retrospective cohort study carried out in a 1000-bedded government teaching hospital in North India. The medical e-records of the Covid-19 positive patients who were admitted between June and November 2020 were reviewed for eligibility. After making the necessary exclusions, 112 patients were included in the remdesivir cohort and 85 in the standard care cohort. All the baseline characteristics of relevance and details of hospital admission were collected. The following outcomes in relation to remdesivir administration were assessed: all-cause mortality until discharge – stratified as per baseline oxygen support, age, gender and comorbidities; proportion of severe and non-severe patients progressing to mechanical ventilation later on; and time to clinical recovery in survivors. Results: There was a statistically significant association of higher mortality with the administration of remdesivir (odds ratio, OR 2.3, p-value 0.008) with a Cox regression hazard ratio of 1.590 (CI 0.944–2.679). The trend towards poorer outcomes in the remdesivir cohort persisted even after sub-stratification for age, gender, baseline severity (oxygen need) and comorbidities but failed to reach statistical significance in most of the strata. Similarly, remdesivir administration was associated with higher rates of progression to mechanical ventilation amongst those severe and non-severe patients who were not on mechanical ventilation at admission (49 % versus 15 %, p-value < 0.001, OR 5.2). This association was significant overall as well as for severe category patients when assessed separately (56% versus 26 %, p-value 0.04, OR 3.1). There was, however, no difference in the days taken for clinical recovery between the two groups (13.23 days versus 12.8 days, p-value 0.77). Conclusion: Remdesivir administration was associated with overall worse clinical outcomes. This study contradicts the benefits shown with remdesivir in previous clinical trials done in controlled settings and highlights the challenges that newer therapies face in real life hospital settings. There is a need to include diverse ethnic groups in the future clinical trials of the drug if to be used.","PeriodicalId":7769,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-894056/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Need of an antiviral against Covid-19 prompted clinical trials all over the world and based on initial promising trends, remdesivir was widely used all over the world, including India (compassionate use). Subsequent trials have been conflicting in their results and the utility of the drug has been widely debated. Methods: This is a record-based retrospective cohort study carried out in a 1000-bedded government teaching hospital in North India. The medical e-records of the Covid-19 positive patients who were admitted between June and November 2020 were reviewed for eligibility. After making the necessary exclusions, 112 patients were included in the remdesivir cohort and 85 in the standard care cohort. All the baseline characteristics of relevance and details of hospital admission were collected. The following outcomes in relation to remdesivir administration were assessed: all-cause mortality until discharge – stratified as per baseline oxygen support, age, gender and comorbidities; proportion of severe and non-severe patients progressing to mechanical ventilation later on; and time to clinical recovery in survivors. Results: There was a statistically significant association of higher mortality with the administration of remdesivir (odds ratio, OR 2.3, p-value 0.008) with a Cox regression hazard ratio of 1.590 (CI 0.944–2.679). The trend towards poorer outcomes in the remdesivir cohort persisted even after sub-stratification for age, gender, baseline severity (oxygen need) and comorbidities but failed to reach statistical significance in most of the strata. Similarly, remdesivir administration was associated with higher rates of progression to mechanical ventilation amongst those severe and non-severe patients who were not on mechanical ventilation at admission (49 % versus 15 %, p-value < 0.001, OR 5.2). This association was significant overall as well as for severe category patients when assessed separately (56% versus 26 %, p-value 0.04, OR 3.1). There was, however, no difference in the days taken for clinical recovery between the two groups (13.23 days versus 12.8 days, p-value 0.77). Conclusion: Remdesivir administration was associated with overall worse clinical outcomes. This study contradicts the benefits shown with remdesivir in previous clinical trials done in controlled settings and highlights the challenges that newer therapies face in real life hospital settings. There is a need to include diverse ethnic groups in the future clinical trials of the drug if to be used.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
瑞德西韦与Covid-19不良临床结果的关联
导语:针对Covid-19抗病毒药物的需求促使世界各地进行临床试验,基于最初有希望的趋势,瑞德西韦在包括印度在内的世界各地广泛使用(同情使用)。随后的试验结果相互矛盾,该药的效用也受到广泛争议。方法:这是一项基于记录的回顾性队列研究,在印度北部一所拥有1000个床位的政府教学医院进行。对2020年6月至11月期间入院的Covid-19阳性患者的医疗电子记录进行了资格审查。在进行必要的排除后,112名患者被纳入瑞德西韦组,85名患者被纳入标准治疗组。收集所有相关基线特征和住院细节。评估了与瑞德西韦给药相关的以下结果:出院前的全因死亡率-按基线氧支持、年龄、性别和合并症分层;重型和非重型患者术后进展为机械通气的比例;还有幸存者临床康复的时间。结果:使用瑞德西韦的患者死亡率升高有统计学意义(优势比,OR 2.3, p值0.008),Cox回归风险比为1.590 (CI 0.944-2.679)。即使在年龄、性别、基线严重程度(需氧量)和合并症进行亚分层后,瑞德西韦队列中较差结果的趋势仍然存在,但在大多数分层中未能达到统计学意义。同样,在入院时未使用机械通气的重症和非重症患者中,给予瑞德西韦与更高的机械通气进展率相关(49%对15%,p值< 0.001,OR 5.2)。当单独评估时,这种相关性在总体上和重症患者中都是显著的(56%对26%,p值0.04,OR 3.1)。然而,两组临床恢复所需的时间没有差异(13.23天对12.8天,p值0.77)。结论:给予瑞德西韦与总体较差的临床结果相关。这项研究与之前在对照环境中进行的临床试验中显示的瑞德西韦的益处相矛盾,并突出了新疗法在现实生活医院环境中面临的挑战。在未来的临床试验中,有必要包括不同的种族群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ribavirin Plus Therapy in Covid-19-A Single-Center Experience Drug Repositioning in Response to COVID-19 and other Challenging Diseases Drug Interactions Pharmacology: A Narrative Review Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation Effect on Systemic Diseases Association of remdesivir with poor clinical outcomes in Covid-19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1