Search

Background Remdesivir is efficacious for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults, but data in pregnant women are limited. We describe outcomes in the first 86 pregnant women with severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir. Methods The reported data span 21 March to 16 June 2020 for hospitalized pregnant women with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and room air oxygen saturation ≤94% whose clinicians requested remdesivir through the compassionate use program. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg for days 2–10, given intravenously). Results Nineteen of 86 women delivered before their first dose and were reclassified as immediate “postpartum” (median postpartum day 1 [range, 0–3]). At baseline, 40% of pregnant women (median gestational age, 28 weeks) required invasive ventilation, in contrast to 95% of postpartum women (median gestational age at delivery 30 weeks). By day 28 of follow-up, the level of oxygen requirement decreased in 96% and 89% of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Among pregnant women, 93% of those on mechanical ventilation were extubated, 93% recovered, and 90% were discharged. Among postpartum women, 89% were extubated, 89% recovered, and 84% were discharged. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) (16%). Most AEs were related to pregnancy and underlying disease; most laboratory abnormalities were grade 1 or 2. There was 1 maternal death attributed to underlying disease and no neonatal deaths. Conclusions Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe COVID-19 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates were high, with a low rate of serious AEs., Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe coronavirus disease 2019 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates from serious infection were high with a low rate of serious adverse events.

In a large observational study in patients with COVID-19 and cancer, survival was not significantly influenced by receipt of COVID-19 treatments, except hydroxychloroquine plus any other treatment, which was associated with reduced survival., Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

The lack of effective antiviral treatments against SARS-CoV-2 is a significant limitation in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Single-drug regimens have so far yielded limited results, indicating that combinations of antivirals might be required, as previously seen for other RNA viruses.Combinations of direct-acting antivirals are needed to minimize drug resistance mutations and stably suppress replication of RNA viruses. Currently, there are limited therapeutic options against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and testing of a number of drug regimens has led to conflicting results. Here, we show that cobicistat, which is an FDA-approved drug booster that blocks the activity of the drug-metabolizing proteins cytochrome P450-3As (CYP3As) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication. Two independent cell-to-cell membrane fusion assays showed that the antiviral effect of cobicistat is exerted through inhibition of spike protein-mediated membrane fusion. In line with this, incubation with low-micromolar concentrations of cobicistat decreased viral replication in three different cell lines including cells of lung and gut origin. When cobicistat was used in combination with remdesivir, a synergistic effect on the inhibition of viral replication was observed in cell lines and in a primary human colon organoid. This was consistent with the effects of cobicistat on two of its known targets, CYP3A4 and P-gp, the silencing of which boosted the in vitro antiviral activity of remdesivir in a cobicistat-like manner. When administered in vivo to Syrian hamsters at a high dose, cobicistat decreased viral load and mitigated clinical progression. These data highlight cobicistat as a therapeutic candidate for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection and as a potential building block of combination therapies for COVID-19. IMPORTANCE The lack of effective antiviral treatments against SARS-CoV-2 is a significant limitation in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Single-drug regimens have so far yielded limited results, indicating that combinations of antivirals might be required, as previously seen for other RNA viruses. Our work introduces the drug booster cobicistat, which is approved by the FDA and typically used to potentiate the effect of anti-HIV protease inhibitors, as a candidate inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 replication. Beyond its direct activity as an antiviral, we show that cobicistat can enhance the effect of remdesivir, which was one of the first drugs proposed for treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Overall, the dual action of cobicistat as a direct antiviral and a drug booster can provide a new approach to design combination therapies and rescue the activity of compounds that are only partially effective in monotherapy.

Background: There are limited data on outcomes of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. We sought to compare the effectiveness of standard of care (SOC) alone versus SOC plus remdesivir and dexamethasone. Methods: Two population-based nationwide cohorts of individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 during February through December 2020 were studied. Death within 30 days and need of mechanical ventilation (MV) were compared by inverse probability of treatment weighted (ITPW) logistic regression analysis and shown as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The 30-days mortality rate of 1694 individuals treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone in addition to SOC was 12.6% compared to 19.7% for 1053 individuals receiving SOC alone. This corresponded to a weighted OR of 30-day mortality of 0.47 (95% CI:. 38-.57) for patients treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone compared to patients receiving SOC alone. Similarly, progression to MV was reduced (OR 0.36; 95% CI:. 29-.46). Conclusions: Treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 during June through December that included remdesivir and dexamethasone was associated with reduced 30-day mortality and need of MV compared to treatment in February through May.

Background There are limited data on outcomes of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. We sought to compare the effectiveness of standard of care (SOC) alone versus SOC plus remdesivir and dexamethasone. Methods Two population-based nationwide cohorts of individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 during February through December 2020 were studied. Death within 30 days and need of mechanical ventilation (MV) were compared by inverse probability of treatment weighted (ITPW) logistic regression analysis and shown as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The 30-days mortality rate of 1694 individuals treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone in addition to SOC was 12.6% compared to 19.7% for 1053 individuals receiving SOC alone. This corresponded to a weighted OR of 30-day mortality of 0.47 (95% CI: .38–.57) for patients treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone compared to patients receiving SOC alone. Similarly, progression to MV was reduced (OR 0.36; 95% CI: .29–.46). Conclusions Treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 during June through December that included remdesivir and dexamethasone was associated with reduced 30-day mortality and need of MV compared to treatment in February through May., Treatment of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with remdesivir and dexamethasone was associated with a lower risk of mechanical ventilation and a significant better overall 30-day survival as compared to standard care alone.

BackgroundCOVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.Methods and findingsWe planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance top= 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00;p= 0.05; I2= 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99;p= 0.04; I2= 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33;p= 0.49; I2= 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07;p= 0.31; I2= 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00;p= 0.05; I2= 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87;p= 0.02; I2= 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14;p= 0.12; I2= 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96;p= 0.02; I2= 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69;p< 0.00; I2= 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.ConclusionsNo evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.Systematic review registrationPROSPEROCRD42020178787.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5.RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47).CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

The main pharmacovigilance updates in 2020 are reviewed. Remdesivir in COVID-19: relatively safe but turns out to be less effective than expected. Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 : lack of efficacy and risk of arrhythmias. Cytokines storm in COVID-19: may impact pharmacokinetics. VEGF inhibitors: risk of aneurysm and artery dissection. Tofacitinib: dose-dependant risk of venous thromboembolic events. Ondansetron in the first trimester of pregnancy : a highly debated risk of orofacial cleft defects. Fingolimod : contraindicated during pregnancy due to suspected risk of congenital malformations. Ranitidine: global market withdrawal due to contamination with nitrosamines. Ulipristal for uterine fibroids : market withdrawal due to risk of severe liver injury. Ingenol mebutate : market withdrawal due to paradoxical risk of skin cancers.

Background Effective drug treatments for Covid-19 are needed to decrease morbidity and mortality for the individual and to alleviate pressure on health care systems. Remdesivir showed promising results in early randomised trials but subsequently a large publicly funded trial has shown less favourable results and the evidence is interpreted differently in clinical guidelines. Systematic reviews of remdesivir have been published, but none have systematically searched for unpublished data, including regulatory documents, and assessed the risk of bias due to missing evidence. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of randomised trials comparing remdesivir to placebo or standard of care in any setting. We will include trials regardless of the severity of disease and we will include trials examining remdesivir for indications other than Covid-19 for harms analyses. We will search websites of regulatory agencies, trial registries, bibliographic databases, preprint servers and contact trial sponsors to obtain all available data, including unpublished clinical data, for all eligible trials. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes will be length of hospital stay, time to death, severe disease, and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias using the Cochranes Risk of Bias 2 tool and the risk of bias due to missing evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting bias) using the ROB-ME tool. Where appropriate we will synthesise study results by conducting random-effects meta-analysis. We will present our findings in a Summary of Findings table and rate the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Discussion By conducting a comprehensive systematic review including unpublished data (where available), we expect to be able to provide valuable information for patients and clinicians about the benefits and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. This will help to ensure optimal treatment for individual patients and optimal utilisation of health care resources. Systematic review registration CRD42021255915.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is declared as an international emergency in 2020. Its prevalence and fatality rate are rapidly increasing but the medication options are still limited for this perilous disease. The emergent outbreak of COVID-19 triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) keeps propagating globally. The present scenario has emphasized the requirement for therapeutic opportunities to relive and overcome this latest pandemic. Despite the fact, the deteriorating developments of COVID-19, there is no drug certified to have considerable effects in the medical treatment for COVID-19 patients. The COVID-19 pandemic requests for the rapid testing of new treatment approaches. Based on the evidence, hydroxychloroquine is the first medicine opted for the treatment of disease. Umifenovir, remdesivir, and fevipiravir are deemed the most hopeful antiviral agent by improving the health of infected patients. The dexamethasone is a first known steroid medicine that can save the lives of seriously ill patients, and it is shown in a randomized clinical trial by the United Kingdom that it reduced the death rate in COVID-19 patients. The current review recapitulates the existing evidence of possible therapeutic drugs, peptides, humanized antibodies, convulsant plasma, and vaccination that has revealed potential in fighting COVID-19 infections. Many randomized and controlled clinical trials are taking place to further validate these agent's safety and effectiveness in curing COVID-19.

The crystal structure of Leishmania donovani tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase (LdTyrRS) in complex with a nanobody and the tyrosyl adenylate analog TyrSA was determined at 2.75 Å resolution. Nanobodies are the variable domains of camelid heavy chain-only antibodies. The nanobody makes numerous crystal contacts and in addition reduces the flexibility of a loop of LdTyrRS. TyrSA is engaged in many interactions with active site residues occupying the tyrosine and adenine binding pockets. The LdTyrRS polypeptide chain consists of two pseudo-monomers, each consisting of two domains. Comparing the two independent chains in the asymmetric unit reveals that the two pseudo-monomers of LdTyrRS can bend with respect to each other essentially as rigid bodies. This flexibility might be useful in the positioning of tRNA for catalysis since both pseudo-monomers in the LdTyrRS chain are needed for charging tRNA(Tyr). An "extra pocket" (EP) appears to be present near the adenine binding region of LdTyrRS. Since this pocket is absent in the two human homologous enzymes, the EP provides interesting opportunities for obtaining selective drugs for treating infections caused by L. donovani, a unicellular parasite causing visceral leishmaniasis, or kala azar, which claims 20,000 to 30,000 deaths per year. Sequence and structural comparisons indicate that the EP is a characteristic which also occurs in the active site of several other important pathogenic protozoa. Therefore, the structure of LdTyrRS could inspire the design of compounds useful for treating several different parasitic diseases.