Background We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe COVID-19 using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard-of-care. Methods GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation 94% or lower on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.03: 95% confidence interval 1.34–3.08, p<0.001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.22–0.68, p=0.001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19.
Background Remdesivir is FDA approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. Methods This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed SARSCoV-2, oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). Results Altogether, 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (non-remdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the non-remdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16–1.90; P = .002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the non-remdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.95; P = .03). Conclusions Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Collectively, these data support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
BackgroundPatients retained in HIV care but not on antiretroviral therapy (ART) represent an important part of the HIV care cascade in the United States. Even in an era of more tolerable and efficacious ART, decision making in regards to ART offer and uptake remains complex and calls for exploration of both patient and provider perspectives. We sought to understand reasons for lack of ART usage in patients meeting the Health Resources Services Administration definition of retention as well as what motivated HIV primary care appointment attendance in the absence of ART.Methods and FindingsWe conducted a qualitative study consisting of 70 in-depth interviews with ART-naïve and ART-experienced patients off ART and their primary care providers in two urban safety-net HIV clinics in San Francisco and New York. Twenty patients and their providers were interviewed separately at baseline, and 15 dyads were interviewed again after at least 3 mo and another clinic visit in order to understand any ART use in the interim. We applied dyadic analysis to our data. Nearly all patients were willing to consider ART, and 40% of the sample went on ART, citing education on newer antiretroviral drugs, acceptance of HIV diagnosis, social support, and increased confidence in their ability to adhere as facilitators. However, the strength of the provider recommendation of ART played an important role. Many patients had internalized messages from providers that their health was too good to warrant ART. In addition, providers, while demonstrating patient-centered care through sensitivity to patients experiencing psychosocial instability, frequently muted the offer of ART, at times unintentionally. In the absence of ART, lab monitoring, provider relationships, access to social services, opiate pain medications, and acute symptoms motivated care. The main limitations of this study were that treatment as prevention was not explored in depth and that participants were recruited from academic HIV clinics in the US, making the findings most generalizable to this setting.ConclusionsProvider communication with regard to ART is a key focus for further exploration and intervention in order to increase ART uptake for those retained in HIV care.
In the United States, HIV has evolved from an acute disease to a chronic illness making health-related quality of life a pre-eminent goal for many persons living with HIV (PLWH). There have been a number of HIV-specific quality-of-life instruments developed, but little attention has been paid to the validation of standardized nondisease-specific quality-of-life instruments tailored to PLWH. The goal of this research was to validate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29, a questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life in PLWH. A sample of 1306 PLWH completed an online anonymous survey assessing their symptom experience and health-related quality of life. A subsample of 209 participants completed another questionnaire 30 days later. The subscales of the PROMIS-29 showed high internal consistency reliability (range = 0.87–0.97). The PROMIS-29 detected differences in health-related quality of life in those persons who reported an AIDS diagnosis compared to those who did not report an AIDS diagnosis. The PROMIS-29 has demonstrated reliability, validity, and reproducibility for use in measuring health-related quality of life in PLWH.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.