Search

In 2022, three antiviral drugs-molnupiravir, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-were introduced for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in high-risk patients. The aim of this study is the evaluation of their effectiveness and tolerability in a real-life setting. A single-center observational study was set up, with the involvement of 1118 patients, with complete follow-up data, treated between the 5th of January and the 3rd of October 2022 at Santa Maria Goretti's hospital in Latina, Central Italy. A univariable and a multivariable analysis were performed on clinical and demographic data and composite outcome, the persistence of symptoms at 30 days and time to negativization, respectively. The three antivirals showed a similar effectiveness in containing the progression of the infection to severe COVID-19 and a good tolerability in the absence of serious adverse effects. Persistence of symptoms after 30 days was more common in females than males and less common in patients treated with molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/r. The availability of different antiviral molecules is a strong tool and, if correctly prescribed, they can have a significant role in changing the natural history of infection for frail persons, in which vaccination could be not sufficient for the prevention of severe COVID-19.

In this retrospective comparative study, we evaluated the effectiveness of remdesivir (RDSV) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Individuals hospitalized between March 2020 and August 2022 at S.M. Goretti Hospital, Latina, with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and, concomitantly, pneumonia, were included. The overall survival was the primary endpoint. The composite secondary endpoint included death or progression in severe ARDS at 40 days. The study population was stratified according to treatment into two groups: the RDSV group (patients treated with RDSV-based regimens) and the no-RDSV group (patients treated with any other, not RDSV-based, regimens). Factors associated with death and progression to severe ARDS or death were assessed by multivariable analysis. A total of 1153 patients (632 belonging to the RDSV group and 521 to the no-RDSV group) were studied. The groups were comparable in terms of sex, PaO2/FiO2 at admission, and duration of symptoms before hospitalization. Further, 54 patients (8.5%) in the RDSV group and 113 (21.7%) in the no-RDSV group ( p < 0.001) died. RDSV was associated with a significantly reduced hazard ratio (HR) of death (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.97]; p = 0.03), compared to the no-RDSV group, as well as a significantly reduced OR of progression in severe ARDS or death (OR, 0.70 [95% CI 0.49-0.98]; p = 0.04). An overall significantly higher survival rate was observed in the RDSV group ( p < 0.001, by log-rank test). These findings reinforce the survival benefit of RDSV and support its routine clinical use for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Objective: To conduct a multireader validation study to evaluate the interobserver variability and the diagnostic accuracy for the lung involvement by COVID-19 of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) score., Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive symptomatic patients who underwent chest CT and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from March 2020 to May 2020 for suspected COVID-19. Twelve readers with different levels of expertise independently scored each CT using the CO-RADS scheme for detecting pulmonary involvement by COVID-19. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to investigate diagnostic yield. Fleiss' kappa statistics was used to evaluate interreader agreement., Results: A total of 572 patients (mean age, 63 ± 20 [standard deviation]; 329 men; 142 patients with COVID-19 and 430 patients without COVID-19) were evaluated. There was a moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating among all readers (Fleiss' K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42-0.44]) with a substantial agreement for CO-RADS 1 category (Fleiss' K = 0.61 [95% CI 0.60-0.62]) and moderate agreement for CO-RADS 5 category (Fleiss' K = 0.60 [95% CI 0.58-0.61]). ROC analysis showed the CO-RADS score ≥ 4 as the optimal threshold, with a cumulative area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 66-78%), sensitivity 61% (95% CI 52-69%), and specificity 81% (95% CI 77-84%)., Conclusion: CO-RADS showed high diagnostic accuracy and moderate interrater agreement across readers with different levels of expertise. Specificity is higher than previously thought and that could lead to reconsider the role of CT in this clinical setting., Key Points: • COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy for lung involvement by COVID-19 with an average AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 67-75%). • When a threshold of ≥ 4 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI 52-69%) and 81% (95% CI 76-84%), respectively. • There was an overall moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating across readers with different levels of expertise (Fleiss' K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42-0.44]).