18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Early remdesivir treatment in COVID‐19: Why wait another day?

      letter
      , MD, PhD 1 , , , MD 2
      Journal of Medical Virology
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          1 INTRODUCTION Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a viral respiratory infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) that varies from asymptomatic to severe illness and death. 1 , 2 Old age, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, and cancer predict a severe course, risk of hospitalization, and death. 1 , 2 The US Food and Drug Administration recently approved remdesivir for the treatment of COVID‐19 patients requiring hospitalization. 3 However, high mortality persists despite use of remdesivir. 3 , 4 Remdesivir inhibits SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA polymerase, hindering viral replication. 5 In patients with COVID‐19, peak SARS‐CoV‐2 concentrations occur on Day 5 and most active replication in the throat during the first 5 days of symptoms onset. 6 In rhesus macaques infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, best outcomes were obtained when remdesivir was started early, at 12 h of inoculation. 7 , 8 These observations suggest that inhibiting viral replication with remdesivir would be more effective if started early after symptoms development. We here report our experience using an early treatment strategy in a high‐risk patient with COVID‐19 who within 48 h of symptoms onset received remdesivir and experienced an immediate and remarkable clinical response to full recovery. 2 CASE PRESENTATION A 77‐year‐old Caucasian male presented on October 24, 2020, with antigen and polymerase chain reaction proven COVID‐19 infection, following a 2‐day course of frontal headaches, nasal congestion, myalgia, dry cough, lower lip paresthesia, and temperatures of 37.7–38.9°C treated with ibuprofen. The patient's history included atherosclerotic heart disease, exertional non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, toxin‐positive Clostridioides difficile diarrhea, prostate cancer, and radical prostatectomy. Physical exam revealed a nontoxic, lean patient, in no distress, with normal heart and lung auscultation and pulse oximetry of 96%. When compared with laboratory data obtained the day prior, repeat labs showed a decrease in total neutrophil count (from 2810 to 1190 cells/µl), persistent mild lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and an elevated C‐reactive protein, normal d‐dimer, ferritin, and procalcitonin level (Table 1). The chest x‐ray and 12‐lead electrocardiogram were reportedly normal. Table 1 Time and dose of remdesivir administration and laboratory values before, during and after hospitalization in a patient who tested positive for COVID‐19 on 10/23/2020 07/21 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 11/11 11/20 Outpatient 5 p.m. 4 p.m. 7 a.m. 6 a.m. 8 a.m. 1 p.m. 1 p.m. Labs drawn ER Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospital Outpatient Outpatient Remdesivir administration 200 mg 100 mg 100 mg 100 mg 8 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m. 4 p.m. WBC (cells/µl) 4700 4640 3290 3930 3320 3270 4500 Platelet (K/µl) 223 139 143 137 146 169 199 Lymphocytes (cells/µl) 1753 860 1290 2200 2210 2360 1976 Monocytes (cells/µl) 456 930 800 790 510 480 423 Neutrophils (cells/µl) 2383 2810 1190 910 580 400 2025 Eosinophils (cells/µl) 89 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 59 Basophils (cells/µl) 19 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 18 Hemoglobin (g/dL) 13.9 12.7 12.6 12.8 13.4 14.3 13.5 RDW (%) 13.3 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.0 12.7 Respiratory panel PCR Neg Blood Cultures Neg Neg Alkaline‐Phosphatase (U/L) 69 68 65 62 64 64 AST (U/L) 18 18 21 19 21 17 ALT (U/L) 15 13 14 15 Sr. Cr (mg/dL) 0.99 1.14 1.17 1.05 0.94 0.85 CRP (mg/dL) 0.8 0.2 0.4 d‐Dimer (ng/mL) 320 290 Ferritin (ng/ml) 186 216 335 194 Pro‐calcitonin (ng/mL) 0.07 <0.06 ESR (mm/hr) 7 6 Anion Gap (mmol/L) 12 9 8 10 9 Troponin T (ng/ml) <0.01 Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019; CRP, C‐reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RDW, red cell distribution width; WBC, white blood cell. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency. 3 CLINICAL COURSE Because of the age and clinical risk factors, the patient was admitted for further observation and management. The first dose of remdesivir 200 mg was administered at approximately 8 p.m., 48‐h after symptom onset, followed by a daily intravenous dose of 100 mg for three additional days (Table 1). In addition, he received 40 mg of enoxaparin, losartan 50 mg daily, and benzonate as needed. By the second dose of remdesivir (24‐h later), the symptoms had markedly improved, as evidenced by the absence of any further fever, chills, weakness, headaches, or muscle aches. Pulse oximetry at room air remained at 96%–99% and unchanged with brisk ambulation. Persistent neutropenia ensued with normalization of lymphocytes, platelet, monocytes, and C‐reactive protein levels. There were no changes in aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase. Because of the excellent clinical course, the fifth dose of remdesivir was withheld, and the patient was discharged home after 3 days. The patient remained in isolation at home for an additional 7 days. During this time, he was asymptomatic, afebrile, and able to walk long distances and upstairs without dyspnea, reporting only mild tiredness, minimal cough, and residual lower‐lip paresthesia that resolved entirely by Day 10. Laboratory results from 2 and 3 weeks later confirmed normalization of all blood counts. The neutropenia, which started before the first‐dose of remdesivir, most likely resulted from an idiosyncratic reaction to ibuprofen. 4 DISCUSSION Although no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from a single case, the observation that early use of remdesivir in our COVID‐19 patient with high‐risk features resulted in immediate resolution of symptoms, early discharge and prompt recovery of daily activities, is worth further consideration. Our case report is consistent with data in influenza patients where inhibition of viral replication with oseltaminir (Tamiflu®) achieves best clinical benefits when administered within 2 days of symptom onset. 9 Treatment initiation within 48 h of the onset of symptoms may be responsible for the excellent response to remdesivir. Failure to inhibit viral replication at its peak time may allow disease progression, where virus‐induced tissue damage, abnormal immunomodulation and inflammation, become determinants of the patient outcomes. We propose that delayed treatment initiation is at least partly responsible for the reported modest therapeutic response of remdesivir. 2 , 10 While blanket use of remdesivir in COVID‐19 positive subjects is neither desirable nor expectedly cost‐effective, in higher‐risk patients, early inhibition of viral replication may be clinically impactful and lifesaving. Future studies comparing the effect of time‐to‐treatment (illness onset to first dose of remdesivir) in this subset population are much needed. Until then, early remdesivir administration among high‐risk patients should be considered. 5 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS All authors materially participated in the research, data collection and article preparation. Luigi X. Cubeddu and Robert J. Cubeddu approved the final article. ETHICS STATEMENT Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying table.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019

          Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute infection of the respiratory tract that emerged in late 20191,2. Initial outbreaks in China involved 13.8% of cases with severe courses, and 6.1% of cases with critical courses3. This severe presentation may result from the virus using a virus receptor that is expressed predominantly in the lung2,4; the same receptor tropism is thought to have determined the pathogenicity-but also aided in the control-of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 20035. However, there are reports of cases of COVID-19 in which the patient shows mild upper respiratory tract symptoms, which suggests the potential for pre- or oligosymptomatic transmission6-8. There is an urgent need for information on virus replication, immunity and infectivity in specific sites of the body. Here we report a detailed virological analysis of nine cases of COVID-19 that provides proof of active virus replication in tissues of the upper respiratory tract. Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms, with a peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab on day 4. Infectious virus was readily isolated from samples derived from the throat or lung, but not from stool samples-in spite of high concentrations of virus RNA. Blood and urine samples never yielded virus. Active replication in the throat was confirmed by the presence of viral replicative RNA intermediates in the throat samples. We consistently detected sequence-distinct virus populations in throat and lung samples from one patient, proving independent replication. The shedding of viral RNA from sputum outlasted the end of symptoms. Seroconversion occurred after 7 days in 50% of patients (and by day 14 in all patients), but was not followed by a rapid decline in viral load. COVID-19 can present as a mild illness of the upper respiratory tract. The confirmation of active virus replication in the upper respiratory tract has implications for the containment of COVID-19.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

            Abstract Background Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. Results A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%). Conclusions Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

              Summary Background No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2–10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. Findings Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95–2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. Interpretation In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lcubeddu@nova.edu
                Journal
                J Med Virol
                J Med Virol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9071
                JMV
                Journal of Medical Virology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0146-6615
                1096-9071
                01 February 2021
                : 10.1002/jmv.26792
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Professions Division, COP Nova SE University Davie Florida USA
                [ 2 ] Division of Cardiology Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston Florida USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Luigi X. Cubeddu, MD, PhD, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Professions Division, Nova SE University, Davie, FL, 33328, USA.

                Email: lcubeddu@ 123456nova.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0154-6342
                Article
                JMV26792
                10.1002/jmv.26792
                8013303
                33511655
                aca1418c-9de8-4f91-8790-512b56256158
                © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 17 December 2020
                : 08 January 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 3, Words: 1367
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor
                Letter to the Editor
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.1 mode:remove_FC converted:01.04.2021

                Microbiology & Virology
                Microbiology & Virology

                Comments

                Comment on this article