Impacts of remdesivir on dynamics and efficacy stratified by the severity of COVID- 19: a simulated two-arm controlled study

  1. Ting-Yu Lin
  2. Wei-Jung Chang
  3. Chen-Yang Hsu
  4. Chao-Chih Lai
  5. Amy Ming-Fang Yen
  6. Sam Li-Sheng Chen
  7. Hsiu-Hsi Chen

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: The impact of remdesivir on length of stay of hospitalization, high-risk state, and death stratified by the severity of COVID-19 at enrollment is controversial. Methods: We applied a simulated two-arm controlled study design to the data on compassionate use of remdesivir as a secondary analysis. Dynamics of risk states and death from COVID-19 patients defined by the six-point disease severity recommended by the WHO R&D and the time to discharge from hospital were used to evaluate the efficacy of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care. Results: Stratified by the risk state at enrollment, low-risk patients exhibited the highest efficacy of remdesivir in reducing subsequent progression to high-risk state by 67% (relative risk (RR)=0.33,95% CI: 0.30-0.35) and further to death by 55% (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.39-0.50). For the medium-risk patients, less but still statistically significant efficacy results were noted in reducing progression to high-risk state by 52% (RR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.45-0.51) and further to death by 40% (RR=0.60, 95% CI:0.54-0.66). High-risk state patients treated with remdesivir led to a 25% statistically significant reduction in death (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.82). Regarding the outcome of discharge, remdesivir treatment was most effective for medium-risk patients at enrollment (RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.35-1.47) followed by high- (RR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.27-1.42) and low-risk patients (RR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.31). Conclusion: Our results with a simulated two-arm controlled study have provided a new insight into the precision treatment of remdesivir for COVID-19 patients based on risk-stratified efficacy.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.17.20104711: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationThe efficacy of remdesivir treatment in accelerating discharge and decelerating subsequent deaths was then assessed by using the two-arm controlled study for a randomized controlled trial equivalent.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.17.20104711v1 on medRxiv