. 2021 Jan 6;62:43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.12.051

Table 1.

Study characteristics at baseline and primary conclusion.

Author	Arm	Age	NIV/HF n/N (%)	MV/ECMO n/N (%)	Conclusion
Beigel et al. [14]	Control	59.2 ± 15.4	98/521 (18.8%)	154/521 (29.6%)	RDV reduced the time to recovery in COVID-19 patients.
Beigel et al. [14]	RDV	58.6 ± 14.6	95/541 (17.6%)	131/541 (24.2%)	RDV reduced the time to recovery in COVID-19 patients.
Spinner et al. [13]	Control	57 (45–66)	2/200 (1%)	0/200 (0%)	RDV (5D) improved clinical status in COVID-19 patients as compared to control at day 11.
	RDV (5D)	58 (48–66)	2/191 (1%)	0/191 (0%)
	RDV (10D)	56 (45–66)	1/193 (1)	0/193 (0%)
Wang et al. [7]	Control	64 (53–70)	9/78 (12%)	1/78 (1%)	RDV did not improve clinical status of COVID-19 patients
Wang et al. [7]	RDV	66 (57–73)	28/158 (18%)	0/158 (0%)	RDV did not improve clinical status of COVID-19 patients

Age is expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). RDV = remdesivir; NIV = noninvasive ventilation; HF = high flow oxygen; MV = mechanical ventilation; ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; 5D = 5 day; 10D = 10 day.