Dataset Information

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic stimulates research works to find a solution to this crisis from starting 2020 year up to now. With ending of the 2021-year, various advances in pharmacotherapy against COVID-19 have emerged. Regarding antiviral therapy, casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination is a type of new immunotherapy against COVID-19. Standard antiviral therapy against COVID-19 includes Remdesivir and Favipiravir.

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab) compared to standard antiviral therapy in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

Methods

265 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction confirmed patients with indication for antiviral therapy were included in this study and were divided into 3 groups (1: 2: 2): Group A: REGN3048-3051 antibodies cocktail (casirivimab and imdevimab), group B: Remdesivir, group C: Favipiravir. The study design is a single-blind non-randomized controlled trial Mansoura University Hospital owns the study's drugs. The duration of the study was about 6 mo after ethical approval.

Results

Casirivimab and imdevimab achieve less need for O₂ therapy and IMV, with less duration of this need than remdesivir and favipiravir.

Conclusion

Group A (casirivimab and imdevimab) achieve better clinical outcomes than groups B (remdesivir) and C (favipiravir) intervention groups.

SUBMITTER: Hegazy SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10507553 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Hegazy Sahar Kmal SK Tharwat Samar S Hassan Ahmed Hosny AH

World journal of clinical cases 20230901 26

<h4>Background</h4>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic stimulates research works to find a solution to this crisis from starting 2020 year up to now. With ending of the 2021-year, various advances in pharmacotherapy against COVID-19 have emerged. Regarding antiviral therapy, casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination is a type of new immunotherapy against COVID-19. Standard antiviral therapy against COVID-19 includes Remdesivir and Favipiravir.<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate the efficacy of ...[more]

PMID: 37731581

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationaleAcute respiratory failure is a life-threatening clinical outcome in critically ill pediatric patients. In severe cases, patients can require mechanical ventilation (MV) for survival. Early recognition of these patients can potentially help clinicians alter the clinical course and lead to improved outcomes.ObjectivesTo build a data-driven model for early prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients.MethodsThe study consists of a single-center retrospective observational study on a cohort of 13,651 PICU patients admitted between 1/01/2010 and 5/15/2018 with a prevalence of 8.06% for MV due to respiratory failure. XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) using medication history were used to develop a prediction model that could yield a time-varying "risk-score"-a continuous probability of whether a patient will receive MV-and an ideal global threshold was calculated from the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. The early prediction point (EPP) was the first time the risk-score surpassed the optimal threshold, and the interval between the EPP and the start of the MV was the early warning period (EWT). Spectral clustering identified patient groups based on risk-score trajectories after EPP.ResultsA clinical and medication history-based model achieved a 0.89 area under the ROC curve (AUROC), 0.6 sensitivity, 0.95 specificity, 0.55 positive predictive value (PPV), and 0.95 negative predictive value (NPV). Early warning time (EWT) median [inter-quartile range] of this model was 9.9[4.2-69.2] hours. Clustering risk-score trajectories within a six-hour window after the early prediction point (EPP) established three patient groups, with the highest risk group's PPV being 0.92.ConclusionsThis study uses a unique method to extract and apply medication history information, such as time-varying variables, to identify patients who may need mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure and provide an early warning period to avert it.

Project description:BackgroundThis comparative effectiveness study investigated the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen including low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation (HFO/NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) across variant of concern (VOC) periods.MethodsPatients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 and administered remdesivir upon admission were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients not administered remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by supplemental oxygen requirement upon admission and VOC period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 14- and 28-day mortality.ResultsPatients treated with remdesivir (67 582 LFO, 34 857 HFO/NIV, and 4164 IMV/ECMO) were matched to non-remdesivir patients. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower for remdesivir-treated patients at 14 days (LFO: 6.4% vs. 8.8%; HFO/NIV: 16.8% vs. 19.4%; IMV/ECMO: 27.8% vs. 35.3%) and 28 days (LFO: 9.8% vs. 12.3%; HFO/NIV: 25.8% vs. 28.3%; IMV/ECMO: 41.4% vs. 50.6%). After adjustment, remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality at 14 days (LFO: aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and 28 days (LFO: aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82) compared with non-remdesivir treatment. Lower risk of mortality among remdesivir-treated patients was observed across VOC periods.ConclusionsRemdesivir treatment is associated with significantly reduced mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen upon admission, including those requiring HFO/NIV or IMV/ECMO with severe or critical disease, across VOC periods.

Project description:BackgroundIn COVID-19 patients, older age (sixty or older), comorbidities, and frailty are associated with a higher risk for mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) failure. It therefore seems appropriate to suggest limitations of care to older and vulnerable patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and a poor expected outcome, who would not benefit from invasive treatment. HFNO (high flow nasal oxygen) is a non-invasive respiratory support device already used in de novo acute respiratory failure. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients treated with HFNO outside the ICU (intensive care unit) for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise presenting limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV. Secondary objectives were the description of our cohort and the identification of prognostic factors for HFNO failure.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients with limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV and treated with HFNO for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit of the pulmonology department of Lyon Sud University Hospital, France, from March 2020 to March 2021. Primary outcome was the description of the vital status at day-30 after HFNO initiation, using the WHO (World Health Organization) 7-points ordinal scale.ResultsFifty-six patients were included. Median age was 83 years [76.3-87.0], mean duration for HFNO was 7.5 days, 53% had a CFS score (Clinical Frailty Scale) >4. At day-30, 73% of patients were deceased, one patient (2%) was undergoing HFNO, 9% of patients were discharged from hospital. HFNO failure occurred in 66% of patients. Clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation (respiratory rate >30/min, retractions, and abdominal paradoxical breathing pattern) were associated with mortality (p = 0.001).ConclusionsWe suggest that HFNO is an option in non-ICU skilled units for older and frail patients with a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise non-suitable for intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Observation of clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation was associated with mortality.

Project description:PurposeA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?'MethodsWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) - 1.34, 95% HDI - 1.92 to - 0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD - 0.70, 95% HDI - 0.94 to - 0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life.ConclusionsThe use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.

Dataset Information

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparing the efficacy of regen-cov, remdesivir, and favipiravir in reducing invasive mechanical ventilation need in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets