PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - BN Arch AU - D Kovacs AU - JT Scott AU - AP Jones AU - EM Harrison AU - A Rosala-Hallas AU - CG Gamble AU - PJM Openshaw AU - JK Baillie AU - MG Semple AU - on behalf of ISARIC4C Investigators TI - Evaluation of the effectiveness of remdesivir in treating severe COVID-19 using data from the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, national cohort study AID - 10.1101/2021.06.18.21259072 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.06.18.21259072 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/21/2021.06.18.21259072.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/21/2021.06.18.21259072.full AB - Background Remdesivir was given UK early-access approval for use in COVID-19 in people aged 12 years and older on 26th May 2020 on the basis of unmet clinical need. Evidence on the side effects, complications of therapy and effectiveness of this therapy is lacking or conflicting.Methods Adults with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir were compared with propensity-score matched controls, identified from the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol study of UK hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Remdesivir patients were matched to controls according to baseline underlying 14-day mortality risk. The effect of remdesivir on short-term outcomes was investigated (primary outcome: 14-day mortality). Effect sizes were estimated and adjusted for potential confounders using multivariable modelling.Results 1,549 patients given remdesivir and 4,964 matched controls were identified satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria. The balance diagnostic threshold was achieved. Patients had symptoms for a median of 6 days prior to baseline; 62% were male, with mean (SD) age 63.1 (15.6) years, and 80% categorised as ‘White’ ethnicity. Fourteen-day mortality was not statistically significantly associated with treatment (9.3 % remdesivir vs. 11.9% controls, odds-ratio 0.80, [95% CI 0.60-1.07], p=0.116, adjusted for age, sex, number of key comorbidities, dexamethasone use, and diagnosis of viral pneumonia.Findings Treatment with remdesivir was not associated with a reduction in mortality in our primary endpoint at 14 days.Interpretation Remdesivir did not significantly improve mortality in this study. The findings are subject to the limitations of an observational study. Balance was achieved for measured baseline factors, but unmeasured confounders may account for observed treatment effect sizes.Funding Medical Research Council UK & National Institute of Health ResearchEvidence before this study At the time of designing this study, two clinical trials measuring the efficacy of remdesivir as a therapeutic in treating SARS COV-2 had published results: ACTT-1 and SOLIDARITY. ACTT-1 suggested that for those who required supplemental oxygen but not ventilation at baseline, remdesivir reduced time-to-recovery (rate ratio 1.45, [95% CI: 1.19-1.79]), improved clinical status at 15 days (proportional odds ratio 1.6 [1.2-2.3]), and improved mortality by both 15 days (hazard ratio 0.28 [0.12-0.66]) and 29 days (0.30 [0.14-0.64]) compared with a placebo. SOLIDARITY did not find any evidence of benefit for remdesivir in these same types of patients – it reported on time-to-recovery, and 28-day mortality, compared with the local standard of care.Added value of this study This study presents real-world data on the effectiveness of remdesivir use during a non-surge phase of the pandemic in the UK, specifically looking at patients for whom the ACTT-1 trial suggested would be most likely to benefit from remdesivir.Implications of all the available evidence We show that during the pandemic, remdesivir was given to a wide demographic of patients in the UK (on average older than those in clinical trials). At 14-days post baseline no reduction in absolute mortality was observed. Propensity score matching achieved balance for measured baseline variables. However as with all observational studies, differences between the groups in unmeasured variables that may influence clinicians but were not recorded in our study, are plausible.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: BNA, ARH, APJ and CGG report: the manufacturer of remdesivir, Gilead, is involved in funding trials that the Liverpool Clinical Trials unit is co-ordinating: a randomised controlled trial (HART-CT) that is fully funded by Gilead and sponsored by the University of Liverpool; and a trial (REALTO) that is part funded by Gilead. APJ is the lead statistician on the HART-CT trial. PJMO reports personal fees from consultancies and from the European Respiratory Society; grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, EU, NIHR BRC, MRC/GSK, Wellcome Trust, NIHR (Health Protection Research Unit [HPRU] in Respiratory Infection); and is an NIHR senior investigator outside of the submitted work; his role as President of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the Society. MGS reports grants from NIHR UK, MRC UK, and HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study. Clinical Protocols https://isaric4c.net/protocols Funding StatementISARIC4C is funded by two major awards from the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and The National Institute For Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01). PJMO is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator Award [award 201385]. The Liverpool clinical trials unit did not receive any direct funding for this work. DK is funded by UK MRC Precision Medicine Training Grant (MR/N013166/1-LGH/MS/MED2525). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHIR, or MRC.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for data collection was given by the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and by the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/SS/0028).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support #DataSavesLives. ISARIC4C welcomes applications for data and material access through our Independent Data and Material Access Committee (https://isaric4c.net).