Cargando…

Impact of Remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 Clearance in a Real-Life Setting: A Matched-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV. METHODS: This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumoni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spagnuolo, Vincenzo, Voarino, Marta, Tonelli, Marco, Galli, Laura, Poli, Andrea, Bruzzesi, Elena, Racca, Sara, Clementi, Nicola, Oltolini, Chiara, Tresoldi, Moreno, Rovere Querini, Patrizia, Dagna, Lorenzo, Zangrillo, Alberto, Ciceri, Fabio, Clementi, Massimo, Castagna, Antonella
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9578770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36268521
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S369473
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV. METHODS: This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) at admission, and at least one NPS during follow-up. Patients who received RDV (cases) and those who did not (controls) were matched in a 1:2 ratio by age, sex, and PaO(2)/FiO(2) (P/F) values at admission. NPSs were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Time to VC (within 30 days after hospital discharge) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier curve. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to determine factors associated with VC. RESULTS: There were 648 patients enrolled in the study (216 cases and 432 controls). VC was observed in 490 patients (75.6%), with a median time of 25 (IQR 16–34) days. Overall, time to VC was similar between cases and controls (p = 0.519). However, time to VC was different when considering both RDV treatment status and age (p = 0.007). A significant finding was also observed when considering both RDV treatment status and P/F values at admission (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed that VC was associated with a younger age (aHR = 0.990, 95% CI 0.983–0.998 per every 10-year increase in age; p = 0.009) and a higher baseline P/F ratio (aHR=1.275, 95% CI 1.029–1.579; p=0.026), but not with RDV treatment status. CONCLUSION: Time to VC was similar in cases and controls. However, there was a benefit associated with using RDV in regard to time to VC in younger patients and in those with a P/F ratio ≤200 mmHg at hospital admission.