scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

04 Mar 2021-The New England Journal of Medicine (Massachusetts Medical Society)-Vol. 384, Iss: 9, pp 795-807
TL;DR: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdes Vivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation.
Abstract: Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. Results A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). Conclusions Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
20 Mar 2020
TL;DR: The effects of the epidemic caused by the new CoV has yet to emerge as the situation is quickly evolving, and world governments are at work to establish countermeasures to stem possible devastating effects.
Abstract: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), viral diseases continue to emerge and represent a serious issue to public health In the last twenty years, several viral epidemics such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002 to 2003, and H1N1 influenza in 2009, have been recorded Most recently, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 In a timeline that reaches the present day, an epidemic of cases with unexplained low respiratory infections detected in Wuhan, the largest metropolitan area in China's Hubei province, was first reported to the WHO Country Office in China, on December 31, 2019 Published literature can trace the beginning of symptomatic individuals back to the beginning of December 2019 As they were unable to identify the causative agent, these first cases were classified as "pneumonia of unknown etiology " The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local CDCs organized an intensive outbreak investigation program The etiology of this illness is now attributed to a novel virus belonging to the coronavirus (CoV) family, COVID-19 On February 11, 2020, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced that the disease caused by this new CoV was a "COVID-19," which is the acronym of "coronavirus disease 2019" In the past twenty years, two additional coronavirus epidemics have occurred SARS-CoV provoked a large-scale epidemic beginning in China and involving two dozen countries with approximately 8000 cases and 800 deaths, and the MERS-CoV that began in Saudi Arabia and has approximately 2,500 cases and 800 deaths and still causes as sporadic cases This new virus seems to be very contagious and has quickly spread globally In a meeting on January 30, 2020, per the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), the outbreak was declared by the WHO a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as it had spread to 18 countries with four countries reporting human-to-human transmission An additional landmark occurred on February 26, 2020, as the first case of the disease, not imported from China, was recorded in the United States Initially, the new virus was called 2019-nCoV Subsequently, the task of experts of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) termed it the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it is very similar to the one that caused the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoVs) The CoVs have become the major pathogens of emerging respiratory disease outbreaks They are a large family of single-stranded RNA viruses (+ssRNA) that can be isolated in different animal species For reasons yet to be explained, these viruses can cross species barriers and can cause, in humans, illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as MERS and SARS Interestingly, these latter viruses have probably originated from bats and then moving into other mammalian hosts — the Himalayan palm civet for SARS-CoV, and the dromedary camel for MERS-CoV — before jumping to humans The dynamics of SARS-Cov-2 are currently unknown, but there is speculation that it also has an animal origin The potential for these viruses to grow to become a pandemic worldwide seems to be a serious public health risk Concerning COVID-19, the WHO raised the threat to the CoV epidemic to the "very high" level, on February 28, 2020 Probably, the effects of the epidemic caused by the new CoV has yet to emerge as the situation is quickly evolving World governments are at work to establish countermeasures to stem possible devastating effects Health organizations coordinate information flows and issues directives and guidelines to best mitigate the impact of the threat At the same time, scientists around the world work tirelessly, and information about the transmission mechanisms, the clinical spectrum of disease, new diagnostics, and prevention and therapeutic strategies are rapidly developing Many uncertainties remain with regard to both the virus-host interac ion and the evolution of the epidemic, with specific reference to the times when the epidemic will reach its peak At the moment, the therapeutic strategies to deal with the infection are only supportive, and prevention aimed at reducing transmission in the community is our best weapon Aggressive isolation measures in China have led to a progressive reduction of cases in the last few days In Italy, in geographic regions of the north of the peninsula, political and health authorities are making incredible efforts to contain a shock wave that is severely testing the health system In the midst of the crisis, the authors have chosen to use the "Statpearls" platform because, within the PubMed scenario, it represents a unique tool that may allow them to make updates in real-time The aim, therefore, is to collect information and scientific evidence and to provide an overview of the topic that will be continuously updated

2,161 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
30 Jul 2020-BMJ
TL;DR: Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care and the effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.
Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

602 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and are now under evaluation in clinical trials.
Abstract: Several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and are now under evaluation in clinical trials. With the US Food and Drug Administration recently granting emergency use authorizations for neutralizing mAbs in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, there is an urgent need to discuss the broader potential of these novel therapies and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice, given limited initial availability. Here, we review the precedent for passive immunization and lessons learned from using antibody therapies for viral infections such as respiratory syncytial virus, Ebola virus and SARS-CoV infections. We then focus on the deployment of convalescent plasma and neutralizing mAbs for treatment of SARS-CoV-2. We review specific clinical questions, including the rationale for stratification of patients, potential biomarkers, known risk factors and temporal considerations for optimal clinical use. To answer these questions, there is a need to understand factors such as the kinetics of viral load and its correlation with clinical outcomes, endogenous antibody responses, pharmacokinetic properties of neutralizing mAbs and the potential benefit of combining antibodies to defend against emerging viral variants.

459 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo, and the proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacinib, as compared with placebo.
Abstract: Background The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. Methods We ran...

318 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Re-analysis of data from a phase 3 randomised controlled trial of IL-1 blockade (anakinra) in sepsis, showed significant survival benefit in patients with hyperinflammation, without increased adverse events.

7,493 citations


"Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hos..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The trial site in South Korea received funding from the Seoul National University Hospital....

    [...]

  • ...The authors’ affiliations are as follows: the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (A.C.K., L.L.); University of Texas Health San Antonio, University Health, and the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio (T.F.P., P.O.P., B.S.T.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Health and Hospital System (M.K.J.) and Baylor Scott and White Health (U.S.), Dallas, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (H.M.E.S.) — all in Texas; Emory University (A.K.M., N.G.R., Y.S., V.C.M.) and Grady Memorial Hospital (V.D.C.), Atlanta, and Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur (V.C.M.) — both in Georgia; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (K.M.T., V.G., R.T.D., M.P., G.A.D., W.D., S.U.N., L.E.D., J.H.B.), and the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (T.H.B.), Bethesda, and Emmes (J.F., M.G., M.M.) and Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory (T.B.), Rockville — both in Maryland; Duke University, Durham, NC (C.R.W., E.R.K., J.J.E.); Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, (G.M.R.-P.) and Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (J.R.P.), Mexico City; University of California Irvine, Irvine (L.H., A.N.A., M.W.), Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles (V.T.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (D.A.S.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (A.F.L.), University of California, Davis, Davis (S.H.C.), and Stanford University, Stanford (N.A.) — all in California; University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis (S.K., J.B.); University of Florida, Gainesville (N.M.I., M.-C.E.); University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (A.R.B.); National Center for Infectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (D.C.L.), and Changi General Hospital (S.Y.T.), Singapore; University n engl j med nejm.org 13 Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Adults with Covid-19 of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (R.W.F.); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (P.E.H.J.); Northwestern University, Chicago (B.T.); Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (C.I.P.); Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center, Spokane, WA (H.A.); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (P.G.); Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver (M.F.); Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul (M.O.), and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam (E.S.K.) — both in South Korea; Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR (R.A.M.); Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark (H.N.); and Eli Lilly, Indianapolis (A.C., S.B.)....

    [...]

  • ...There were 67 trial sites in 8 countries: the United States (55 sites), Singapore (4), South Korea (2), Mexico (2), Japan (1), Spain (1), the United Kingdom (1), and Denmark (1)....

    [...]

  • ...The trial has also been funded in part by the governments of Japan, Mexico, Denmark, and Singapore....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.
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 conducte...

5,532 citations


"Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hos..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The authors’ affiliations are as follows: the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (A.C.K., L.L.); University of Texas Health San Antonio, University Health, and the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio (T.F.P., P.O.P., B.S.T.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Health and Hospital System (M.K.J.) and Baylor Scott and White Health (U.S.), Dallas, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (H.M.E.S.) — all in Texas; Emory University (A.K.M., N.G.R., Y.S., V.C.M.) and Grady Memorial Hospital (V.D.C.), Atlanta, and Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur (V.C.M.) — both in Georgia; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (K.M.T., V.G., R.T.D., M.P., G.A.D., W.D., S.U.N., L.E.D., J.H.B.), and the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (T.H.B.), Bethesda, and Emmes (J.F., M.G., M.M.) and Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory (T.B.), Rockville — both in Maryland; Duke University, Durham, NC (C.R.W., E.R.K., J.J.E.); Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, (G.M.R.-P.) and Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (J.R.P.), Mexico City; University of California Irvine, Irvine (L.H., A.N.A., M.W.), Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles (V.T.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (D.A.S.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (A.F.L.), University of California, Davis, Davis (S.H.C.), and Stanford University, Stanford (N.A.) — all in California; University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis (S.K., J.B.); University of Florida, Gainesville (N.M.I., M.-C.E.); University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (A.R.B.); National Center for Infectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (D.C.L.), and Changi General Hospital (S.Y.T.), Singapore; University n engl j med nejm.org 13 Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Adults with Covid-19 of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (R.W.F.); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (P.E.H.J.); Northwestern University, Chicago (B.T.); Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (C.I.P.); Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center, Spokane, WA (H.A.); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (P.G.); Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver (M.F.); Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul (M.O.), and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam (E.S.K.) — both in South Korea; Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR (R.A.M.); Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark (H.N.); and Eli Lilly, Indianapolis (A.C., S.B.)....

    [...]

  • ...Support for the London International Coordinating Centre was also provided by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC_UU_12023/23)....

    [...]

  • ...There were 67 trial sites in 8 countries: the United States (55 sites), Singapore (4), South Korea (2), Mexico (2), Japan (1), Spain (1), the United Kingdom (1), and Denmark (1)....

    [...]

  • ...The trial has also been funded in part by the governments of Japan, Mexico, Denmark, and Singapore....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support.
Abstract: BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.MethodsIn this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.ResultsA total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936. opens in new tab; ISRCTN number, 50189673. opens in new tab.)

4,501 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that baricitinib could be trialled, using an appropriate patient population with 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, to reduce both the viral entry and the inflammation in patients, using endpoints such as the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia.

1,170 citations


"Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hos..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The authors’ affiliations are as follows: the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (A.C.K., L.L.); University of Texas Health San Antonio, University Health, and the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio (T.F.P., P.O.P., B.S.T.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Health and Hospital System (M.K.J.) and Baylor Scott and White Health (U.S.), Dallas, and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (H.M.E.S.) — all in Texas; Emory University (A.K.M., N.G.R., Y.S., V.C.M.) and Grady Memorial Hospital (V.D.C.), Atlanta, and Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur (V.C.M.) — both in Georgia; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (K.M.T., V.G., R.T.D., M.P., G.A.D., W.D., S.U.N., L.E.D., J.H.B.), and the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (T.H.B.), Bethesda, and Emmes (J.F., M.G., M.M.) and Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory (T.B.), Rockville — both in Maryland; Duke University, Durham, NC (C.R.W., E.R.K., J.J.E.); Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, (G.M.R.-P.) and Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (J.R.P.), Mexico City; University of California Irvine, Irvine (L.H., A.N.A., M.W.), Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles (V.T.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (D.A.S.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (A.F.L.), University of California, Davis, Davis (S.H.C.), and Stanford University, Stanford (N.A.) — all in California; University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis (S.K., J.B.); University of Florida, Gainesville (N.M.I., M.-C.E.); University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (A.R.B.); National Center for Infectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (D.C.L.), and Changi General Hospital (S.Y.T.), Singapore; University n engl j med nejm.org 13 Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Adults with Covid-19 of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (R.W.F.); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (P.E.H.J.); Northwestern University, Chicago (B.T.); Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA (C.I.P.); Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center, Spokane, WA (H.A.); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (P.G.); Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver (M.F.); Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul (M.O.), and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam (E.S.K.) — both in South Korea; Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR (R.A.M.); Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark (H.N.); and Eli Lilly, Indianapolis (A.C., S.B.)....

    [...]

  • ...There were 67 trial sites in 8 countries: the United States (55 sites), Singapore (4), South Korea (2), Mexico (2), Japan (1), Spain (1), the United Kingdom (1), and Denmark (1)....

    [...]

  • ...The trial has also been funded in part by the governments of Japan, Mexico, Denmark, and Singapore....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Clinical evidence does not support corticosteroid treatment for 2019-nCoV lung injury, and convalescent plasma treatment reduced mortality in patients with severe pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus infection.
Abstract: 400 www.thelancet.com/infection Vol 20 April 2020 5 WHO. Use of convalescent whole blood or plasma collected from patients recovered from Ebola virus disease for transfusion, as an empirical treatment during outbreaks. 2014. http://apps.who.int/iris/rest/ bitstreams/604045/retrieve (accessed Feb 20, 2020). 6 Arabi Y, Balkhy H, Hajeer AH. Feasibility, safety, clinical, and laboratory effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection: a study protocol. Springerplus 2015; 4: 709. 7 Hung IF, To KK, Lee CK, et al. Convalescent plasma treatment reduced mortality in patients with severe pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 447–56. 8 Hung IFN, To KKW, Lee CK, et al. Hyperimmune IV immunoglobulin treatment: a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial for patients with severe 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection. Chest 2013; 144: 464–73. 9 Mair-Jenkins J, Saavedra-Campos M, Baillie JK, et al. The effectiveness of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis. J Infect Dis 2015; 211: 80–90. 10 Luke TC, Kilbane EM, Jackson JL, Hoffman SL. Meta-analysis: convalescent blood products for Spanish influenza pneumonia: a future H5N1 treatment? Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 599–609. 15 Schoofs T, Klein F, Braunschweig M, et al. HIV-1 therapy with monoclonal antibody 3BNC117 elicits host immune responses against HIV-1. Science 2016; 352: 997–1001. 12 Lu CL, Murakowski DK, Bournazos S, et al. Enhanced clearance of HIV-1-infected cells by broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1 in vivo. Science 2016; 352: 1001–04. 13 WHO. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected. 2020. https://www.who. int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/clinical-management-of-novel-cov. pdf (accessed Feb 20, 2020). 14 Clark DR, Jonathan EM, JKB. Clinical evidence does not support corticosteroid treatment for 2019-nCoV lung injury. Lancet 2020; published online Feb 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30317-2.

923 citations

Related Papers (5)