Dataset Information

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Remdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients' respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir.

Methods

This was a multicentre observational cohort study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and were treated with dexamethasone. Rapid clinical improvement in response to treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 1 L of supplemental oxygen per minute or discharge from the hospital within 72 h after admission. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between remdesivir and rapid clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rate and hospitalisation duration.

Results

Of 871 patients included, 445 were treated with remdesivir. There was no influence of remdesivir on the occurrence of rapid clinical improvement (62% vs 61% OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.40; p = 0.76). The in-hospital mortality was lower (14.7% vs 19.8% OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48-1.02; p = 0.06) for the remdesivir-treated patients. Rapid clinical improvement occurred more often in patients with low C-reactive protein (≤ 75 mg/L) and short duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation (< 7 days) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.56).

Conclusion

Remdesivir generally does not increase the incidence of rapid clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but it might have an effect in patients with short duration of symptoms and limited signs of systemic inflammation.

SUBMITTER: Leegwater E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10600071 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study.

Leegwater Emiel E Dol Lisa L Benard Menno R MR Roelofsen Eveline E EE Delfos Nathalie M NM van der Feltz Machteld M Mollema Femke P N FPN Bosma Liesbeth B E LBE Visser Loes E LE Ottens Thomas H TH van Burgel Nathalie D ND Arbous Sesmu M SM El Bouazzaoui Lahssan H LH Knevel Rachel R Groenwold Rolf H H RHH de Boer Mark G J MGJ Visser Leo G LG Rosendaal Frits R FR Wilms Erik B EB van Nieuwkoop Cees C

Infectious diseases and therapy 20231006 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Remdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients' respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a multicentre observatio ...[more]

PMID: 37801280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear.MethodsIn this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed.ResultsOf the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068).ConclusionsAlthough we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registration DRKS00025794 , German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de . Registered 6 July 2021.

Project description:ObjectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.SettingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).Results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.ConclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of co-administering sitagliptin to patients with inadequate glycemic control following treatment with metformin (MET), sulfonylurea (SU), or MET + SU. METHODS:A cohort of 25,386 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1C] >53 mmol/mol or 7%), newly treated with sitagliptin between 2007 and 2013, was sourced from UK general practices via The Health Improvement Network database. Among these, eligible patients were segregated into three groups: MET (n = 3364), SU (n = 509), or MET + SU therapy (n = 5929). The relative efficacy of sitagliptin added to SU or MET + SU compared with sitagliptin added to MET monotherapy was assessed with regards to HbA1c and body weight changes from baseline up to 52 weeks. The glycemic efficacy was a measure of average treatment effects obtained from multivariable linear regression models and propensity score-matching analysis. RESULTS:A total of 9802 patients were included in the study. Overall, addition of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily resulted in 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) HbA1c reduction (P < 0.001) and 0.8 kg weight reduction at 1 year (P < 0.001). Efficacy was similar across the treatment groups, but in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9% adding sitagliptin to MET + SU produced a significantly smaller reduction in HbA1c when compared to the reference group MET (MET + SU vs. MET only: -0.5% vs. -0.7%, P < 0.001). The mean HbA1c reduction from baseline within this subgroup of patients was not significantly different between SU and MET monotherapies (-0.8% vs. -0.7%, respectively, P = 0.4). Across treatment groups, HbA1c reductions with add-on sitagliptin occurred after 24 weeks of treatment with a peak reduction occurring between 36 and 48 weeks, and receded after week 48. CONCLUSION:In a real-world general practice setting, sitagliptin was effective in patients with suboptimal glycemic control with MET, SU or dual therapy, maximum between 36 and 48 weeks, but in patients with HbA1c of >9% receiving MET + SU therapy, adding sitagliptin, as a third agent, conferred minimal benefit.

Dataset Information

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets