ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2022
Impact of Remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 Clearance in a Real-Life Setting: A Matched-Cohort Study.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world experience with therapies for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons from the Italian COVID-19 studies.Le infezioni in medicina · 2025Review
- Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19.Drugs · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV. Methods: This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) at admission, and at least one NPS during follow-up. Patients who received RDV (cases) and those who did not (controls) were matched in a 1:2 ratio by age, sex, and PaO Results: There were 648 patients enrolled in the study (216 cases and 432 controls). VC was observed in 490 patients (75.6%), with a median time of 25 (IQR 16-34) days. Overall, time to VC was similar between cases and controls (p = 0.519). However, time to VC was different when considering both RDV treatment status and age (p = 0.007). A significant finding was also observed when considering both RDV treatment status and P/F values at admission (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed that VC was associated with a younger age (aHR = 0.990, 95% CI 0.983-0.998 per every 10-year increase in age; p = 0.009) and a higher baseline P/F ratio (aHR=1.275, 95% CI 1.029-1.579; p=0.026), but not with RDV treatment status. Conclusion: Time to VC was similar in cases and controls. However, there was a benefit associated with using RDV in regard to time to VC in younger patients and in those with a P/F ratio ≤200 mmHg at hospital admission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.