Amin, Alpesh

Abstract Background With progressive accumulation of knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 infection clinical management, treatment guidelines recommended several options including remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral. Given the evolving nature of coronavirus disease 2019, capturing the totality of scientific evidence from clinical trials and observational studies is critical to inform clinical decision making. We conducted a systematic literature review with meta-analysis to summarize the effectiveness of remdesivir among hospitalized adults. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for interventional and observational studies examining remdesivir efficacy. A rigorous double-reviewer approach was used for source identification, screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. A hierarchical random-effects model meta-analysis was used, with subgroup analyses for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) studies. Results From January 2019 to December 2023 >18 000 sources were screened, and 122 unique studies were identified, reporting on 25 174 participants in RCTs and 1 279 859 in RW studies. Remdesivir significantly increased survival in the overall population (odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval, .55–.86]; P = .001] across SARS-CoV-2 variants and disease severity levels: no supplemental oxygen (0.81 [.75–.88]), low-flow oxygen (0.71 [.64–.79]), high-flow oxygen (0.87 [.83–.91]), and invasive mechanical ventilation (0.78 [.68–.90]). Rehospitalization risk was significantly reduced in patients receiving remdesivir (odds ratio, 0.72 [95% confidence interval, .64–.81]). Conclusions Our comprehensive systematic literature review, capturing the totality of evidence, showed a significant survival benefit among patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection and receiving remdesivir, across all disease severity levels. To assure that healthcare providers are aware of and deploy evidence-based optimal care, recommendations should rely on both RCT and RW data.

Abstract Background With progressive understanding of the natural history of COVID-19 and accumulation of knowledge on clinical management, treatment guidelines recommended several options including remdesivir (RDV), a broad-spectrum antiviral. Given the evolving nature of COVID-19, it is critical to capture the totality of scientific evidence to inform clinical decision making. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to summarize the mortality endpoint for RDV among hospitalized adults throughout COVID-19 eras and contrasted with evidence informing treatment recommendations in clinical guidelines. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for interventional and observational studies examining RDV efficacy. Clinical trial registries, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and conference abstracts were hand-searched (Fig1). Case reports and case studies were excluded. A review of most recent RDV recommendations across guidelines was conducted. Results From Dec ’19 to Dec ’22, 123 relevant publications were identified. In ’23, the evidence grew significantly, with 70 new publications. In total, 193 publications were evaluated, and 122 unique studies were included. While early randomized clinical trials (RCT) and small sample size observational studies did not universally demonstrate a significant difference in mortality in all severity groups of RDV-treated patients, real-world studies with larger sample sizes showed a significant impact across disease severity levels, regardless of COVID-19 era (Table1). Guideline recommendations for COVID-19 treatment with RDV are based on early RCTs (Table2) and most have not been updated (Fig2). Conclusion Our comprehensive evaluation of scientific literature indicates that evidence of RDV impact on mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients continued to grow and cover full range of disease severity. Guideline recommendations have not evolved in parallel which may explain differing recommendations in certain subgroups (e.g. IMV/ECMO). To assure that providers in the hospital setting are aware of and deploy evidence-based optimal care for patients with COVID-19, recommendations should rely on current evidence, including real-world data. Disclosures Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employee|Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Michele Bartoletti, MD, PhD, Advan pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Advan pharma: Honoraria|Biomereux: Honoraria|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Honoraria|Infectopharma: Advisor/Consultant|Msd: Advisor/Consultant|Msd: Grant/Research Support|Msd: Honoraria|Pfizer: Honoraria Alpesh N. Amin, MD, MBA, Alexion: Advisor/Consultant|Aseptiscope: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Bayer: Advisor/Consultant|Dexcom: Advisor/Consultant|Eli Lilly: Advisor/Consultant|Ferring: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|Heartrite: Advisor/Consultant|Nova Nordisk: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Renibus: Advisor/Consultant|Reprieve: Advisor/Consultant|Salix: Advisor/Consultant|Seres: Advisor/Consultant|Spero: Advisor/Consultant Yohei Doi, MD, PhD, bioMerieux: Lecture fees|Entasis: Grant/Research Support|Fujifilm: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|KANTO CHEMICAL CO.,INC.: Grant/Research Support|KANTO CHEMICAL CO.,INC.: Patent for genotyping kit|MeijiSeika Pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Lecture fees|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Shionogi & Co., Ltd.: Grant/Research Support|Shionogi & Co., Ltd.: Lecture fees Paul LOUBET, MD, PhD, Astrazeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Board Member Michael Roshon, MD/PhD, MD/PhD, Gilead: Honoraria Thomas F. Oppelt, PharmD, BCPS, Gilead Sciences, Inc: I am an employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc|Gilead Sciences, Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Mel Chiang, Ph.D., Gilead Sciences: I am an employee of Gilead Sciences|Gilead Sciences: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)

ImportanceEvidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 therapies across a diverse population with varied risk factors is needed to inform clinical practice.ObjectiveTo assess the safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nMAbs) for the treatment of COVID-19 and their association with adverse outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included 167 183 patients from a consortium of 4 health care systems based in California, Minnesota, Texas, and Utah. The study included nonhospitalized patients 12 years and older with a positive COVID-19 laboratory test collected between November 9, 2020, and January 31, 2022, who met at least 1 emergency use authorization criterion for risk of a poor outcome.ExposureFour nMAb products (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab) administered in the outpatient setting.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClinical and SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence data and propensity-adjusted marginal structural models were used to assess the association between treatment with nMAbs and 4 outcomes: all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, death, and a composite of hospitalization or death within 14 days and 30 days of the index date (defined as the date of the first positive COVID-19 test or the date of referral). Patient index dates were categorized into 4 variant epochs: pre-Delta (November 9, 2020, to June 30, 2021), Delta (July 1 to November 30, 2021), Delta and Omicron BA.1 (December 1 to 31, 2021), and Omicron BA.1 (January 1 to 31, 2022).ResultsAmong 167 183 patients, the mean (SD) age was 47.0 (18.5) years; 95 669 patients (57.2%) were female at birth, 139 379 (83.4%) were White, and 138 900 (83.1%) were non-Hispanic. A total of 25 241 patients received treatment with nMAbs. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with lower odds of ED visits within 14 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85), hospitalization within 14 days (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59), and death within 30 days (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20). The association between nMAbs and reduced risk of hospitalization was stronger in unvaccinated patients (14-day hospitalization: OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.59), and the associations with hospitalization and death were stronger in immunocompromised patients (hospitalization within 14 days: OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.24-0.41]; death within 30 days: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06-0.27]). The strength of associations of nMAbs increased incrementally among patients with a greater probability of poor outcomes; for example, the ORs for hospitalization within 14 days were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.72) among those in the third (moderate) risk stratum and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.53) among those in the fifth (highest) risk stratum. The association of nMAb treatment with reduced risk of hospitalizations within 14 days was strongest during the Delta variant epoch (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.43) but not during the Omicron BA.1 epoch (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.68-2.47). These findings were corroborated in the subset of patients with viral genomic data. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with a significant mortality benefit in all variant epochs (pre-Delta: OR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.33]; Delta: OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.09-0.22]; Delta and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.35]; and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.02-0.93]). Potential adverse drug events were identified in 38 treated patients (0.2%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, nMAb treatment for COVID-19 was safe and associated with reductions in ED visits, hospitalization, and death, although it was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization during the Omicron BA.1 epoch. These findings suggest that targeted risk stratification strategies may help optimize future nMAb treatment decisions.