Abstract
Background
Evidence about remdesivir-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was controversial.
Aim
To investigate the signal of disproportionate reporting of remdesivir-related AKI in COVID-19 patients over time with data from US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.
Method
Adverse events in COVID-19 patients reported between April 2020 and September 2022 were included. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) of AKI and renal disorders (a more sensitive definition for AKI) were estimated to compare remdesivir with other medications prescribed in comparable situations of COVID-19.
Results
During the entire study period, significant signals were identified for remdesivir-related AKI (ROR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.83–2.18) and renal disorder (ROR 2.35, 95% CI: 2.17–2.54) when compared to all comparable drugs. However, in the third quarter of 2022 (the most recent quarter) signals disappeared as the ROR of AKI was 1.50 (95% CI 0.91–2.45) and ROR of renal disorder was 1.69 (95% CI 1.06–2.70). Number of signals in sensitivity analyses and the proportion of AKI in remdesivir-associated events decreased over time.
Conclusion
In COVID-19 patients, we observed diminishing signals of remdesivir-associated AKI over time and no significant signal in the most recent quarter, suggesting remdesivir might not be nephrotoxic.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-023-01554-4.
Keywords: Acute kidney injury, COVID-19, Disproportionality analysis, Remdesivir
Impact statements
Our results reinforce the evidence that there is no association between remdesivir and AKI, suggesting remdesivir needs not to be avoided based on the concerns about AKI.
This study shows that pharmacovigilance signals of a new drug can diminish and even disappear as time lapses, suggesting we should be more cautious in interpreting disproportionality signals of new medications and the importance of time-trend analysis for disproportionality analysis.
Introduction
As of December 14, 2022, there have been more than 646 million confirmed cases of COVID-19, including more than 6 million COVID-related deaths. In clinical trials, remdesivir substantially reduced the risk of hospitalization or death among non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were at high risk for progression [1], and significantly reduced the risk of death or progression to ventilation in hospitalized but not ventilated patients [2]. Therefore, remdesivir is recommended by guidelines of Infectious Disease Society of America [3] and the World Health Organization [4] for these patients. In addition to high baseline risk (about 40%) of acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients [5, 6], there are concerns that remdesivir may further increase risk of AKI [7]. Previous trials were underpowered to address this potential safety concern for remdesivir in COVID-19 patients since renal adverse events were not predefined outcomes in some trials [1, 2, 8, 9]. AKI might be a relatively rare adverse event, and vulnerable patients (e.g., those with liver disease or serious heart disease[1, 2, 8, 9]) were often excluded.
Previous disproportionality analysis [10–14] have reported significant signals for nephrotoxicity associated with remdesivir. However, these signals might be influenced by the Weber effect (a peak in adverse event reporting right after regulatory approval following by a continuous decline thereafter) as the emergence use authorization for remdesivir was issued in May 2020. Such analyses might also be affected by “notoriety bias”—a selection bias in which cases are more likely to be reported if the patient is exposed to a medication that is suspected to cause a specific adverse event [15]. This is relevant because remdesivir was suspected to be nephrotoxic in in vitro and animal experiments [16, 17] and was thus not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment [3].
To our knowledge, three observational studies have assessed the association of remdesivir use and AKI in hospitalized COVID patients and all have suggested remdesivir was not associated with increased risk of AKI [18, 19], or reported the decreased risk of AKI in remdesivir users [20]. These results might not reflect the truth because of selection bias (patients with better kidney function might have higher probability of receiving remdesivir) and limited sample size (245 [18], 932 [19] and 1999 [20] patients were included, respectively), which can make studies more prone to false negative findings. The association between remdesivir and AKI remains controversial.
Aim
To investigate the pharmacovigilance signal of remdesivir-related AKI in COVID-19 patients over time using data from US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).
Ethics approval
This study used de-identified open-source data and involved no human participants, hence no ethics approval was required.
Method
We queried FAERS for COVID-19 cases reported from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2022, with COVID-19 related terms provided by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA, version 23.1) (Table S1). The primary outcome AKI was defined with a narrow Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) of acute renal failure (ARF), the specific list of terms for identifying AKI [21]. The secondary outcome, renal disorders, was defined by a broader SMQ of ARF, which includes the primary outcome and is more sensitive in searching AKI [21].
All other drugs thought comparable to remdesivir in managing COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, azithromycin, tocilizumab, sarilumab and tofacitinib, were combined as the comparator in the primary analysis. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir were not included in comparator since they are only recommended for non-hospitalized patients [3, 4] while remdesivir, which is only for injection, was mainly used in hospitalized patients. Brand and generic names (Table S2) were used to identify these drugs for COVID-19.
In sensitivity analyses, remdesivir was compared with each individual comparator. To assess whether signals had changed over time, signals were assessed by quarters, and remdesivir-related reports reported in each quarter before the third quarter (Q3) of 2022 were compared with remdesivir-associated cases reported in 2022 Q3.
We conducted a disproportionality analysis to estimate the reporting odds ratio (ROR) using two-by-two contingency tables (Table S3) to detect signals. We defined a signal of increased risk using an ROR ≥ 2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of ROR > 1 and three or more cases. We analyzed data using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
During the study period from April 2020 through September 2022, a total of 86,277 reports associated with COVID-19 were reported to FAERS. Among 8,581 cases related to remdesivir, there were 957 reports with AKI (11.2%), in which the median age was 66 years and 34.7% were female (Table 1). Regarding AKI cases, remdesivir users had a smaller proportion of hospitalization (10.2% vs 21.6%) but a larger proportion of deaths (12.5% vs 5.1%) compared to non-users of remdesivir (Table 1).
Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of COVID-19 cases with AKI* reported to FAERS from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2022
| Characteristics | Remdesivir N = 957 |
Without Remdesivir n = 1638 |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | ||
| Median (IQR) | 66 (56, 76) | 64 (49, 73) |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 319 (34.7)a | 544 (38.0)b |
| Male | 601 (65.3)a | 889 (62.0)b |
| Weight, kg | ||
| Median (IQR) | 90.0 (78.0, 109.0) | 82.8 (66.0, 98.3) |
| Concurrent medications may induce AKIc | ||
| Acetaminophen | 126 (13.2) | 97 (5.9) |
| Aminoglycosides | 14 (1.5) | 27 (1.6) |
| Amphotericin B | 15 (1.6) | 16 (1.0) |
| ACEI | 45 (4.7) | 94 (5.7) |
| ARB | 117 (12.2) | 153 (9.3) |
| Clopidogrel | 29 (3.0) | 22 (1.3) |
| Furosemide | 169 (17.7) | 129 (7.9) |
| Interferon-Alfa | 0 | 0 |
| Lansoprazole | 16 (1.7) | 19 (1.2) |
| Omeprazole | 75 (7.8) | 79 (4.8) |
| Quinolones | 4 (0.4) | 20 (1.2) |
| Statins | 129 (13.5) | 153 (9.3) |
| Vancomycin | 0 | 0 |
| Lopinavir/Ritonavir | 2 (0.2) | 119 (7.3) |
| Serious outcomes | ||
| Hospitalization | 98 (10.2) | 353 (21.6) |
| Life-threatening | 66 (6.9) | 83 (5.1) |
| Disability | 6 (0.6) | 0 |
| Death | 120 (12.5) | 84 (5.1) |
Data are n (%) unless otherwise indicated
AKI acute kidney injury, IQR interquartile range, ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker
aIn remdesivir users there were 37 (3.9%) AKI reports with missing age
bIn remdesivir non-users there were 205 (12.5%) AKI reports with missing age
cAKI in this table is the primary outcome in this study, which was defined with a narrow Standardized MedDRA Query of acute renal failure
In this entire period, COVID-19 treatment with remdesivir was associated with increased odds of being reported with AKI (ROR 2.00, 95% CI 1.83–2.18) and renal disorder (ROR 2.35, 95% CI 2.17–2.54), compared to all other medications used in similar strategies. We observed signals of both remdesivir-associated AKI and renal disorder when HCQ/CQ, tocilizumab and tofacitinib were used as individual comparators, and signal of renal disorder when azithromycin was the comparator. We did not observe a signal of AKI when remdesivir was compared to individual azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir or sarilumab, nor signal of renal disorders when compared with lopinavir-ritonavir and sarilumab, respectively (Table 2).
Table 2.
Reporting odds ratio for the remdesivir compared to other drugs in COVID-19 patients
| Comparison | No. of event of interest/no. of other ADEs | Reporting odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remdesivir | Comparator | ||
| Acute kidney injury | |||
| Remdesivir vs. all comparatorsa | 931/7892 | 1328/22496 | 2.00 (1.83, 2.18) |
| Remdesivir vs HCQ/CQ | 931/7892 | 450/8495 | 2.23 (1.98, 2.50) |
| Remdesivir vs Azithromycin | 931/7892 | 428/6446 | 1.78 (1.58, 2.00) |
| Remdesivir vs Tocilizumab | 931/7892 | 299/5721 | 2.26 (1.97, 2.58) |
| Remdesivir vs Lopinavir-Ritonavir | 931/7892 | 116/969 | 0.99 (0.80, 1.21) |
| Remdesivir vs Sarilumab | 931/7892 | 22/332 | 1.78 (1.15, 2.76) |
| Remdesivir vs Tofacitinib | 931/7892 | 13/533 | 4.84 (2.78, 8.42) |
| Renal disorders | |||
| Remdesivir vs all comparatorsa | 1238/7585 | 1549/22275 | 2.35 (2.17, 2.54) |
| Remdesivir vs HCQ/CQ | 1238/7585 | 530/8415 | 2.59 (2.33, 2.88) |
| Remdesivir vs Azithromycin | 1238/7585 | 497/6377 | 2.09 (1.88, 2.34) |
| Remdesivir vs Tocilizumab | 1238/7585 | 357/5663 | 2.59 (2.29, 2.93) |
| Remdesivir vs Lopinavir-Ritonavir | 1238/7585 | 122/963 | 1.29 (1.06, 1.57) |
| Remdesivir vs Sarilumab | 1238/7585 | 28/326 | 1.90 (1.29, 2.81) |
| Remdesivir vs Tofacitinib | 1238/7585 | 15/531 | 5.78 (3.45, 9.69) |
The primary outcome was acute kidney injury defined by a narrow Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) of acute renal failure (ARF). The secondary outcome, renal disorders, was defined with a broad SMQ of ARF, including the primary outcome. The way to calculate reporting odds ratio was showed in Table S3
ADEs, adverse drug events; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; CQ, chloroquine
aAll comparators means all other six medications listed in the table
Table 3 shows that RORs generally declined as time lapsed. In 2022 Q3 (the most recent quarter) there was no signal when comparing remdesivir to all other medications for AKI (ROR 1.50, 95% CI 0.91–2.45) or renal disorders (ROR 1.69, 95% CI 1.06–2.70). In 2022 Q3 there was no significant signal in sensitivity analyses for both outcomes except for the comparison between remdesivir and HCQ/CQ, while in the second quarter of 2020 all sensitivity analyses for renal disorders showed significant signals and three comparisons showed signals for AKI. Comparing remdesivir-associated reports in every other quarter to remdesivir-associated reports in 2022 Q3, all four trimesters between 2020 Q2 and 2021 Q1 showed significant signals (Table 3). Comparing 2020 Q2 to 2022 Q3, the odds of reporting AKI in remdesivir-associated events was 5.56 times higher (95% CI 3.57–8.33) and the odds of reporting renal disorders was 7.14 times higher (95% CI 5.00–11.11).
Table 3.
Reporting odds ratio for the remdesivir compared to other drugs in COVID-19 patients by quarter
| Comparison | Reporting odds ratio (95% CI) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Q2 | 2020 Q3 | 2020 Q4 | 2021 Q1 | 2021 Q2 | 2021 Q3 | 2021 Q4 | 2022 Q1 | 2022 Q2 | 2022 Q3 | |
| Acute kidney injury | ||||||||||
| Remdesivir vs all comparatorsa | 1.94 (1.60, 2.36) | 1.63 (1.36, 1.95) | 1.70 (1.38, 2.10) | 1.89 (1.45, 2.46) | 2.63 (1.89, 3.66) | 1.35 (0.88, 2.07) | 1.55 (1.09, 2.20) | 1.25 (0.82, 1.93) | 2.66 (1.62, 4.39) | 1.50 (0.91, 2.45) |
| Remdesivir vs HCQ/CQ | 1.80 (1.37, 2.37) | 2.22 (1.74, 2.85) | 1.88 (1.46, 2.44) | 2.20 (1.60, 3.03) | 3.30 (2.15, 5.06) | 1.27 (0.77, 2.11) | 1.49 (0.93, 2.40) | 1.28 (0.70, 2.35) | 2.37 (1.15, 4.88) | 2.69 (1.16, 6.21) |
| Remdesivir vs Azithromycin | 1.59 (1.21, 2.10) | 1.30 (1.04, 1.63) | 1.55 (1.18, 2.05) | 2.03 (1.43, 2.87) | 2.49 (1.59, 3.90) | 2.17 (1.16, 4.07) | 2.38 (1.36, 4.19) | 1.10 (0.62, 1.95) | 2.75 (1.25, 6.03) | 0.90 (0.47, 1.74) |
| Remdesivir vs Tocilizumab | 2.94 (2.07, 4.17) | 1.70 (1.24, 2.35) | 1.85 (1.30, 2.63) | 1.27 (0.87, 1.85) | 2.92 (1.85, 4.62) | 1.22 (0.70, 2.11) | 1.60 (1.02, 2.52) | 1.20 (0.72, 2.01) | 2.87 (1.40, 5.90) | 1.84 (0.88, 3.83) |
| Remdesivir vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir | 2.00 (1.27, 3.13) | 0.72 (0.47, 1.11) | 1.46 (0.77, 2.76) | 1.75 (0.41, 7.48) | 0.35 (0.16, 0.73) | 0.21 (0.10, 0.45) | 0.52 (0.30, 0.89) | 2.06 (0.62, 6.84) | 1.94 (0.58, 6.44) | 0.47 (0.21, 1.06) |
| Remdesivir vs Sarilumab | 1.63 (0.91, 2.93) | 2.44 (1.06, 5.63) | 0.90 (0.49, 1.64) | 2.25 (0.30, 17.08) | 1.60 (0.21, 12.21) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Remdesivir vs Tofacitinib | NA | NA | 3.04 (0.41, 22.59) | 0.63 (0.18, 2.20) | 1.60 (0.56, 4.54) | NA | 6.73 (0.92, 49.31) | 1.60 (0.48, 5.36) | 4.56 (0.61, 33.80) | NA |
| Previous remdesivir vs 2022 Q3 remdesivirb | 5.56 (3.57, 8.33) | 3.23 (2.17, 4.76) | 2.5 (1.64, 3.7) | 2.56 (1.64, 4) | 1.82 (1.14, 2.86) | 0.98 (0.58, 1.67) | 1.49 (0.93, 2.38) | 1.15 (0.68, 1.96) | 1.16 (0.69, 1.96) | NA |
| Renal disorders | ||||||||||
| Remdesivir vs all comparatorsa | 2.61 (2.18, 3.12) | 1.94 (1.66, 2.27) | 1.87 (1.54, 2.27) | 2.29 (1.79, 2.94) | 2.76 (2.03, 3.74) | 1.46 (0.99, 2.16) | 1.57 (1.12, 2.19) | 1.25 (0.83, 1.87) | 2.52 (1.57, 4.05) | 1.69 (1.06, 2.70) |
| Remdesivir vs HCQ/CQ | 2.62 (2.02, 3.39) | 2.57 (2.07, 3.20) | 2.14 (1.68, 2.72) | 2.67 (1.98, 3.61) | 2.78 (1.92, 4.04) | 1.37 (0.86, 2.18) | 1.42 (0.91, 2.22) | 1.23 (0.70, 2.16) | 2.17 (1.11, 4.22) | 2.79 (1.27, 6.10) |
| Remdesivir vs Azithromycin | 2.07 (1.61, 2.68) | 1.56 (1.28, 1.91) | 1.69 (1.31, 2.19) | 2.45 (1.76, 3.42) | 2.97 (1.93, 4.58) | 2.25 (1.27, 3.99) | 2.70 (1.55, 4.70) | 1.14 (0.66, 1.96) | 2.68 (1.27, 5.64) | 1.07 (0.56, 2.03) |
| Remdesivir vs Tocilizumab | 3.25 (2.40, 4.39) | 1.83 (1.39, 2.40) | 1.84 (1.33, 2.52) | 1.62 (1.13, 2.34) | 3.37 (2.18, 5.20) | 1.40 (0.84, 2.34) | 1.65 (1.07, 2.55) | 1.28 (0.78, 2.09) | 2.86 (1.44, 5.70) | 1.98 (0.99, 3.97) |
| Remdesivir vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir | 3.24 (2.08, 5.05) | 1.13 (0.74, 1.71) | 1.86 (0.99, 3.50) | 2.24 (0.53, 9.55) | 0.43 (0.20, 0.89) | 0.26 (0.12, 0.56) | 0.50 (0.30, 0.84) | 1.38 (0.53, 3.59) | 1.58 (0.55, 4.54) | 0.56 (0.25, 1.25) |
| Remdesivir vs Sarilumab | 2.45 (1.39, 4.30) | 3.22 (1.48, 7.01) | 0.97 (0.55, 1.71) | 0.85 (0.25, 2.98) | 1.97 (0.26, 15.02) | 1.81 (0.24, 13.63) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Remdesivir vs Tofacitinib | NA | NA | 3.87 (0.52, 28.74) | 0.80 (0.23, 2.81) | 1.97 (0.70, 5.57) | 4.16 (0.56, 30.78) | 7.62 (1.04, 55.73) | 1.35 (0.47, 3.90) | 5.01 (0.68, 37.07) | NA |
| Previous remdesivir vs 2022 Q3 remdesivirb | 7.14 (5.00, 11.11) | 4.17 (2.94, 6.25) | 2.63 (1.82, 3.85) | 2.70 (1.82, 4.17) | 1.89 (1.22, 2.86) | 1.03 (0.64, 1.67) | 1.41 (0.91, 2.22) | 1.1 (0.68, 1.79) | 1.08 (0.65, 1.75) | NA |
The primary outcome was acute kidney injury defined by a narrow Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) of acute renal failure (ARF). The secondary outcome, renal disorders, was defined with a broad SMQ of ARF, including the primary outcome. The way to calculate reporting odds ratio (ROR) was showed in Table S3. In this table, RORs were estimated with events reported in each quarter separately
HCQ hydroxychloroquine, CQ chloroquine
aAll comparators means all other six medications listed in the table
bIn this comparison, number of remdesivir-associated AKI events in each quarter before 2022 Q3 is a, while this number in 2022 Q3 was b. The number of all other remdesivir-related events in in each quarter before 2022 Q3 is c while this number in 2022 Q3 was d.
Discussion
Our analysis indicates that from 2020 Q2 to 2022 Q3 there was a diminishing trend on pharmacovigilance signals of remdesivir-associated AKI and renal disorders when compared with other medications prescribed in comparable situations of COVID-19. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of AKI and renal disorders in remdesivir-related events. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first disproportionality analysis revealing this trend overtime.
The incidence of AKI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was reported to be about 49% between March and July 2020, and about 40% from July 2020 through Jan 2022, suggesting about a 20% reduction [5]. This can partly explain the higher proportions of AKI and renal disorders in remdesivir-related reports in 2020 compared to those in 2022. These proportions were more than 5 times higher in 2020 Q2 compared with 2022 Q3, suggesting a more than 80% reduction from 2020 Q2 to 2022 Q3 (Table 3). Therefore, it is likely that as knowledge about COVID-19 and medications for COVID-19 increased, people became more confident that AKI was induced by COVID-19 rather than medications in many cases. This is also probably the cause for diminishing signals of remdesivir-associated nephrotoxicity.
Five previously published disproportionality analyses all used spontaneously reported data received before June 2021 [10–14]. Pharmacovigilance signals were observed in all primary analyses and most sensitivity analyses in these studies. Our overall analyses using data reported in the entire study period, and most of our sensitivity analyses using data reported by 2021 Q2 also indicated signals, but these signals diminished over time. Hence, it is likely that these published studies were affected by Weber effect [22] and notoriety bias [15], considering remdesivir was a new treatment for COVID-19 with much uncertainty about its safety, especially within the first year of its approval, and preclinical studies suggested potential risk of AKI [23]. This study indicates that time-trend analysis has the potential in address the Weber effect and notoriety bias.
Thus, our findings support no association between remdesivir and AKI, being consistent with published cohort studies [18–20] and the case-series study [24] that suggested no increased risk of AKI in remdesivir users.
Limitations of this study arise mainly from the inherent weakness of FAERS database: (1) the unavailability of important potential confounders that makes it impossible to control for them; (2) reporting bias that can underestimate or overestimate the signal; (3) inconsistent measurement of the adverse events; (4) delayed reporting. However, in this study we mitigated Weber effect [22] and notoriety bias [15] by time-trend analysis. To ameliorate indication bias, we compared remdesivir with a combination of drugs that have comparable uses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we observed diminishing signals of remdesivir-associated AKI over time in COVID-19 patients and no signal in the most recent quarters, indicating remdesivir might not be nephrotoxic.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Funding
No specific funding was received.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Xiaotong Li and Liyuan Zhou have equally contributed to this work.
References
- 1.Gottlieb RL, Vaca CE, Paredes R, et al. Early remdesivir to prevent progression to severe Covid-19 in outpatients. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(4):305–315. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses. Lancet. 2022 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00519-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Infectious Disease Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. Updated 21.11.2022. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/. Accessed 15 Dec 2022.
- 4.Agarwal A, Rochwerg B, Lamontagne F, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m3379. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Masthead, Yoo YJ, Wilkins KJ, et al. COVID-19-associated AKI in hospitalized US patients: incidence, temporal trends, geographical distribution, risk factors and mortality. medRxiv. 2022; 10.1101/2022.09.02.22279398.
- 6.Nadim MK, Forni LG, Mehta RL, et al. COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury: consensus report of the 25th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) Workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16(12):747–764. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-00356-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.European Medicines Agency. Meeting highlights from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) 28 September - 1 October 2020. Updated 02.10.2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-28-september-1-october-2020. Accessed 20 May 2022.
- 8.WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, et al. Repurposed antiviral drugs for Covid-19-Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(6):497–511. 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 9.Ali K, Azher T, Baqi M, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2022;194(7):E242–E251. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.211698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gerard AO, Laurain A, Fresse A, et al. Remdesivir and acute renal failure: a potential safety signal from disproportionality analysis of the WHO Safety Database. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(4):1021–1024. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Silva NAO, Zara A, Figueras A, et al. Potential kidney damage associated with the use of remdesivir for COVID-19: analysis of a pharmacovigilance database. Cad Saude Publica. 2021;37(10):e00077721. 10.1590/0102-311X00077721. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 12.Singh A, Kamath A. Assessment of adverse events associated with remdesivir use for coronavirus disease 2019 using real-world data. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2021;20(12):1559–1564. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2021.1962846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zhou Y, Li J, Wang L, et al. Acute kidney injury and drugs prescribed for COVID-19 in diabetes patients: a real-world disproportionality analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:833679. 10.3389/fphar.2022.833679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Wu B, Luo M, Wu F, et al. Acute kidney injury associated with remdesivir: a comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of COVID-19 reports in FAERS. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:692828. 10.3389/fphar.2022.692828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 15.Begaud B. Dictionary of pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley Chichester; 2000. ISBN:0471803618.
- 16.Agency EM. Summary on compassionate use - Remdesivir. Updated 04.03.2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/summary-compassionate-use-remdesivir-gilead_en.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2022.
- 17.Merches K, Breunig L, Fender J, et al. The potential of remdesivir to affect function, metabolism and proliferation of cardiac and kidney cells in vitro. Arch Toxicol. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s00204-022-03306-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kalligeros M, Tashima KT, Mylona EK, et al. Remdesivir use compared with supportive care in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: a single-center experience. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(10):ofaa319. 10.1093/ofid/ofaa319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Sullivan MK, Lees JS, Drake TM, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK Study: a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2022;37(2):271–284. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfab303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kuno T, Miyamoto Y, Iwagami M, et al. The association of remdesivir and in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated with steroids. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76(10):2690–2696. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkab256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.MedDRA MSSO. Introductory Guide for Standardised MedDRA Queries (SMQs) Version 23.0. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations …. Updated 03.2020. https://admin.meddra.org/sites/default/files/guidance/file/SMQ_intguide_23_0_English.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2022.
- 22.Weber J. Epidemiology of adverse reactions to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Adv Inflammation Res 1984;1984;(6):1–7.
- 23.European Medicines Agency. Summary on compassionate use-Remdesivir. Updated 03.04.2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/summary-compassionate-use-remdesivir-gilead_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2022.
- 24.Wong CKH, Au ICH, Cheng WY, et al. Remdesivir use and risks of acute kidney injury and acute liver injury among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a self-controlled case series study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;56(1):121–130. doi: 10.1111/apt.16894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.