Abstract
Background
The timing of administration of agents and use of combination treatments in COVID-19 remain unclear. We assessed the effectiveness of therapeutics in cohorts in Hong Kong SAR and Anhui, China.
Methods
We conducted propensity-score analysis of 4771 symptomatic patients from Hong Kong between 21st January and 6th December 2020, and 648 symptomatic patients from Anhui between 1st January and 27th February 2020. We censored all observations as at 13st December 2020. Time from hospital admission to discharge, and composite outcome of death, invasive mechanical ventilation or intensive care unit admission across 1) all therapeutic options including lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin, umifenovir, interferon-alpha-2b, interferon-beta-1b, corticosteroids, antibiotics, and Chinese medicines, and 2) four interferon-beta-1b combination treatment groups were investigated.
Findings
Interferon-beta-1b was associated with an improved composite outcome (OR=0.55, 95%CI 0.38, 0.80) and earlier discharge (−8.8 days, 95%CI −9.7, −7.9) compared to those not administered interferon-beta-1b. Oral ribavirin initiated within 7 days from onset was associated with lower risk of the composite outcome in Hong Kong (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.29, 0.90). Lopinavir-ritonavir, intravenous ribavirin, umifenovir, corticosteroids, interferon-alpha-2b, antibiotics or Chinese medicines failed to show consistent clinical benefit. Interferon-beta-1b co-administered with ribavirin was associated with improved composite outcome (OR=0.50, 95%CI 0.32, 0.78) and earlier discharge (−2.35 days, 95%CI −3.65, −1.06) compared to interferon-beta-1b monotherapy.
Interpretation
Our findings support the early administration of interferon-beta-1b alone or in combination with oral ribavirin for COVID-19 patients.
Funding
Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund; Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission; Chinese Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
Keywords: Covid-19, Antivirals, Corticosteroids, Interferons, Antibiotics, Chinese medicine;mUlti-centre, Population-based cohort
Research in Context.
Evidence before this study
The SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trials have shown the efficacy of single agents in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. Knowledge gaps remain regarding the timing of administration and combination treatment. We searched PubMed without language restriction for studies published from database inception until December 24, 2020, with the terms “SARS-CoV-2″ or ”COVID-19″ and “antiviral” and “lopinavir-ritonavir” and “ribavirin” and “umifenovir” and “interferon” and “steroids” and “antibiotics” and “Chinese medicine” and “intensive care unit” or “invasive mechanical ventilation” or “mortality” or “death” or “length of stay”. No relevant articles pertaining to different therapeutic options for COVID-19 was found.
Added value of this study
In this multi-centre, population-based, propensity-score analysis of 4771 consecutive symptomatic patients from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Anhui province of China, interferon-beta-1b use was associated with both an improved composite outcome and earlier discharge compared to non-interferon-beta-1b users, regardless of timing of administration. Oral ribavirin initiated within 7 days from onset were associated with lower risk of the composite outcome in Hong Kong. Interferon-beta-1b co-administered with ribavirin was associated with improved composite outcome and earlier discharge compared to interferon-beta-1b monotherapy.
Implications of all the available evidence
This study of symptomatic, mostly mildly to moderately ill, COVID-19 patients supported the early administration of interferon-beta-1b alone or in combination with oral ribavirin for COVID-19 patients.
Alt-text: Unlabelled box
1. Introduction
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first reported in December 2019 [1,2]. Despite the ongoing global effort to find effective therapeutics, the only drug demonstrating survival benefit so far is dexamethasone, where it has been shown to reduce mortality by one-third in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and by 20% in those requiring oxygen support without intubation [3]. SOLIDARITY trial interim results suggest that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon-beta produced little or no reduction in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospital stay in hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to usual care [4].
Knowledge gaps remain regarding the timing of administration and combination treatment. While Cao and colleagues were first to show that lopinavir-ritonavir did not improve survival or hospital length of stay, compared with standard supportive care [5]; however, when used together with interferon-beta-1b and ribavirin, this triple therapy combination for patient hospitalized within 7 days of symptom onset has been shown to shorten viral shedding and hasten recovery and discharge, when compared to monotherapy with lopinavir-ritonavir [6]. For patients hospitalized more than a week after symptom onset, patients were randomized to either lopinavir-ritonavir only or in combination with ribavirin [6], thus the effect of interferon-beta-1b initiated 7 days after symptom onset remains uncertain.
In a retrospective non-randomised study, nebulised interferon-alpha-2b, either as monotherapy or in combination with umifenovir, was found to accelerate viral clearance in moderately ill COVID-19 patients, compared to those who used umifenovir alone [7]. An open-label, randomized trial evaluated interferon-beta-1a against standard supportive care in patients with severe COVID-19, and found no significant benefit in shortening hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation [8]. A currently ongoing trial evaluating SNG001, an oral inhalation version of interferon-beta revealed a 79% reduction in developing adverse outcomes with double the odds of recovery when compared to placebo [9]. Therefore interferon-beta given as a standalone drug or in combination with other antivirals may have the potential to achieve clinical benefits.
Here we present observational evidence based on complete case series from two large, population-based Chinese settings regarding the effectiveness of different therapeutic options, their timing of administration and drug combinations for treating COVID-19 infection.
2. Methods
2.1. Data sources and study populations
We analysed anonymised individual patient data from two consecutive case cohorts. The first cohort included data on all patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 18 public hospitals in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China between 21st January and 6th December 2020. The second cohort included data on consecutive patients admitted to 10 public hospitals in Anhui province of China, comprising 70.9% of all 990 laboratory-confirmed cases in that province, between 1st January and 27th February 2020. In both cohorts, all patients with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results were admitted to hospital regardless of case severity, due to the relatively low case count in this region. Given that a relatively high number of testing per capita in both locations, these cohorts were highly representative of the respective locations, and included mild, moderate, severe, and critically ill cases as well as asymptomatic cases.
We excluded asymptomatic cases from this analysis because there are no indications to treat asymptomatic cases in both locations or indeed anywhere. The majority of asymptomatic cases were not given antivirals or interferons (72.8%) in our cohorts.
We classified patients based on the treatments they had received during the whole of their admission, as well as specified the timing of initiation of the different therapeutic options from the time of symptom onset. Given its demonstrated effectiveness as a single agent [9], we further selected patients who received interferon-beta-1b to explore the effects of combination treatment with other agents: 1) interferon-beta-1b monotherapy, 2) combination of interferon-beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir, 3) combination of interferon-beta-1b and ribavirin, and 4) triple combination of interferon-beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin. Patients were observed from the time of admission until death, home discharge, or the censor date of 13th December 2020, whichever came first.
2.2. Outcomes definition
We considered the composite outcome of death, invasive mechanical ventilation or admission to intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU); and the time from admission to discharge. The criteria for hospital discharge in both HKSAR and Anhui province were (i) two consecutive negative tests 24 h apart and (ii) clinically fit as determined by attending physician.
2.3. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics of baseline characteristics across treatment groups were presented with mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and count and proportion for categorical variables.
To address missing baseline data in the two cohorts, multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) [10] was used. Each missing value of laboratory data was imputed 20 times using other parameters such as sex, age, clinical severity defined by the WHO clinical progression scale [11], pre-existing conditions, and long-term medications.
Regression analyses were independently conducted for each therapeutic option including lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin, umifenovir, interferon-alpha-2b, interferon-beta-1b, corticosteroids (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, and prednisolone), antibiotics, and Chinese medicines. To minimize potential confounding biases due to discrepancy in baseline characteristics, inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) using propensity scoring was applied to balance covariates for patients administered each treatment or not. A logistic regression model was performed to estimate the propensity scores for each treatment group and included the covariates of age, sex, clinical severity, pre-existing conditions, and baseline reading of lymphocyte count, platelet count, creatine kinase, total bilirubin, and C-reactive protein (CRP). The set of covariates was determined by at best minimising the residual confounding factors, and inclusion of covariates with data completion rates of >70% in both cohorts (Supplementary Table 1). Propensity score weights in each group were trimmed at the lowest and highest 1% (corresponding to the 1st and 99th percentiles). After propensity-score weighting, balance of baseline covariates between the treatment groups was further assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD). SMDs of less than 0.2 implied sufficient balance between the groups [12]. Those baseline covariates with SMD≥0.2 were adjusted in the regression models. Bonferroni correction was accounted for comparisons of multiple independent treatments.
Logistic regression models adjusted with the IPTW using the propensity score were performed to estimate odds ratios of the composite outcome. To handle reverse causality, patients who presented with the composite outcome on or before the day of treatment initiation or at the time of hospital admission were excluded from the analysis of the composite outcome. among discharged patients, time from baseline to hospital discharge between treatment groups were compared by linear regression following the IPTW using propensity scoring. The regression analyses were repeated for therapeutic option initiated within 7 days and after 7 days of symptom onset. In interferon-beta-1b drug combination analysis, the regression analyses were repeated for each interferon-beta-1b drug combination group to identify the optimal timing of administration. For multiple comparison of interferon-beta-1b drug combination groups, p-values were corrected using the Bonferroni method.
All statistical analyses were performed using Stata Version 16 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
2.4. Ethical approval and informed consent
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/ Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (Reference No. UW 20–493).
Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, in both jurisdictions, individual patient informed consent was not required for this retrospective cohort study using anonymised data.
2.5. Role of the funding source
The funders did not have any role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
3. Results
3.1. Patient cohorts
There were 6803 and 702 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in HKSAR (diagnosed between 21st January and 6th December 2020) and Anhui province, China (diagnosed between 1st January and 27th February 2020), respectively. In this analysis, we included 4771 and 648 symptomatic and hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in HKSAR and Anhui, respectively. Baseline characteristics of patients in HKSAR and Anhui cohorts are shown in Table 1. Most characteristics after propensity scoring were balanced (Supplementary Table 2). Patients were treated in accordance with local guidelines in the two subsamples respectively, as shown in Table 2. However, there was no specific guidance concerning treatment initiation and types of drugs used in both locations. Duration from hospital admission to initiation of each therapeutic option, and duration from symptom onset to initiation of each therapeutic option in both cohorts are depicted in Fig. 1.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and Anhui province of China.
| Hong Kong (n = 4771) |
Anhui (n = 648) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | ||||
| N / Mean | % / SD | N / Mean | % / SD | |
| Age, years | ||||
| <30 | 1041 | (21.8%) | 146 | (22.5%) |
| 30–65 | 2891 | (60.6%) | 459 | (70.8%) |
| >65 | 839 | (17.6%) | 43 | (6.6%) |
| Male sex | 2300 | (48.2%) | 359 | (55.4%) |
| Time from symptom onset to hospital admission, days | ||||
| <7 | 3681 | (77.2%) | 406 | (62.7%) |
| ≥7 | 1090 | (22.9%) | 242 | (37.4%) |
| Pre-existing conditions | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 592 | (12.4%) | 15 | (2.3%) |
| Hypertension | 1166 | (24.4%) | 80 | (12.3%) |
| Chronic lung disease | 223 | (4.7%) | 59 | (9.1%) |
| Chronic heart disease | 212 | (4.4%) | 16 | (2.5%) |
| Chronic kidney disease | 153 | (3.2%) | 5 | (0.8%) |
| Liver disease | 259 | (5.4%) | 27 | (4.2%) |
| Malignancy | 64 | (1.3%) | 4 | (0.6%) |
| Long-term medications | ||||
| ACEI or ARB | 513 | (10.8%) | 19 | (2.9%) |
| Lipid-lowering agent | 651 | (13.6%) | 3 | (0.5%) |
| NSAID | 450 | (9.4%) | 5 | (0.8%) |
| Laboratory parameters on admission [normal range in HK; Anhui] † | ||||
| White blood cell, × 109/L [3.7–9.2 × 109/L; 3.5–9.5 × 109/L] | 5.5 | 2.0 | 5.3 | 2.3 |
| Neutrophil, × 109/L [1.7–5.8 × 109/L; 1.8–6.3 × 109/L] | 3.5 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 2.1 |
| Lymphocyte, × 109/L [1.0–3.1 × 109/L; 1.1–3.2 × 109/L] | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| Platelet, × 109/L [145–370 × 109/L; 125–350 × 109/L] | 216.8 | 72.4 | 184.1 | 72.2 |
| Lactate dehydrogenase, U/L [110–210 U/L; 120–250 U/L] | 215.7 | 85.9 | 259.7 | 123.3 |
| Creatine Kinase, U/L [26–192 U/L; 22–269 U/L] | 145.6 | 274.2 | 106.0 | 301.8 |
| Total Bilirubin, μmol/L [5–27 μmol/L; 3.4–21.0 μmol/L] | 8.4 | 5.0 | 14.1 | 8.4 |
| C-reactive Protein, mg/L [<5 mg/L; <8 mg/L] | 17.3 | 34.6 | 25.0 | 34.5 |
| Clinical outcomes | ||||
| Composite‡ | 331 | (6.9%) | 42 | (6.5%) |
| Death | 86 | (1.8%) | 2 | (0.3%) |
| Invasive mechanical ventilation | 152 | (3.2%) | 2 | (0.3%) |
| Intensive care unit or high dependency unit admission | 279 | (5.8%) | 42 | (6.5%) |
| Clinical severity§ | ||||
| Severe | 304 | (6.4%) | 32 | (4.9%) |
| Acute respiratory distress syndrome | 154 | (3.2%) | 0 | (0.0%) |
| Hospital length of stay, days | 15.0 | 11.5 | 17.2 | 6.3 |
Note: ACEI = angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = Angiotensin II receptor blockers; NSAID = Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; SD = standard deviation.
*Symptoms include fever, chills, sore throat, cough, runny nose, shortness of breath, headache, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, general weakness, irritability, confusion, muscular pain, chest pain, abdominal pain and joint pain.
Laboratory parameters and hospital length of stay are presented in mean ± SD.
Composite outcome consists of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission.
Clinical severity is classified according to WHO Clinical Progress Scale.
Table 2.
Pharmaceutical interventions initiated to COVID-19 patients in Hong Kong SAR and Anhui province.
| Hong Kong (n = 4771) |
Anhui (n = 648) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drug | Standard dosage in Hong Kong | Standard dosage in Anhui | N | (%) | N | (%) |
| Antivirals | ||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 400 mg/100 mg 2 times per day for 14 days; oral | 400 mg/100 mg 2 times per day for max. of 10 days; oral | 1600 | (33.5%) | 554 | (85.5%) |
| Ribavirin | 400 mg 2 times per day; oral | 500 mg 2 to 3 times per day for max. of 10 days; intravenous | 1366 | (28.6%) | 53 | (8.2%) |
| Umifenovir | Not used in Hong Kong | 200 mg 3 times per day for max. of 10 days; oral | 0 | (0.0%) | 217 | (33.5%) |
| Immunomodulators | ||||||
| Corticosteroids | 873 | (18.3%) | 171 | (26.4%) | ||
| Dexamethasone | 4 mg every 6 h; intravenous | 5 - 10 mg once; intravenous | 762 | (16.4%) | 5 | (1.0%) |
| Hydrocortisone | 25 - 300 mg daily*; intravenous 10 - 40 mg daily*; oral |
Not used in Anhui | 158 | (3.9%) | 0 | (0.0%) |
| Methylprednisolone | 250 mg once; intravenous | 20 - 120 mg daily*; intravenous / oral | 8 | (0.2%) | 123 | (20.5%) |
| Prednisolone | 2.5 - 30 mg daily*; oral | 10 - 160 mg daily*; intravenous / oral | 55 | (1.4%) | 50 | (9.5%) |
| Interferon-α−2b | Not used in Hong Kong | 50 mcg (5 million units) 2 times per day for 14 days; atomising inhalation | 0 | (0.0%) | 495 | (76.4%) |
| Interferon-β−1b | 250mcg (8 million units) on alternate day for max. of 3 doses; subcutaneous | Not used in Anhui | 2173 | (45.5%) | 0 | (0.0%) |
| Antibiotics‡ | NA | NA | 1802 | (37.8%) | 377 | (58.2%) |
| Chinese Medicines† | Not used in Hong Kong | Variable | 0 | (0.0%) | 565 | (87.2%) |
Note: NA = not applicable.
In divided doses if high doses are used.
Chinese medicines include Lianhua Qingwen capsule, Shuanghuanglian oral liquid, Yu Ping Feng San, Shufeng Jiedu capsule, Qingfei paidu decoction, Kanggan mixture and other Chinese medicinal decoction and herbal medicine.
Antibiotics initiated include Amikacin, Amoxicillin, Amoxicillin-Clavulanate, Ampicillin, Ampicillin-Sulbactam, Azithromycin, Benzylpenicillin, Cefazolin, Cefepime, Cefoperazone-Sulbactam, Cefotaxime, Ceftazidime-Avibactam, Ceftriaxone, Cefuroxime, Cephalexin, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Clindamycin, Cloxacillin, Daptomycin, Doxycycline, Ertapenem, Ethambutol, Gentamicin, Isoniazid, Levofloxacin, Linezolid, Meropenem, Metronidazole, Minocycline, Neomycin, Nitrofurantoin, Ofloxacin, Piperacillin-Tazobactam, Rifampicin, Ticarcillin-Clavulanate, Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole, Tobramycin, and Vancomycin.
Fig. 1.
Time from hospital admission to treatment initiation in (A) Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and (B) Anhui province of China, and time from symptom onset to treatment initiation in (C) HKSAR and (D) Anhui province of China.
3.2. Composite outcome of death or serious complications
There were 86 (1.8%) deaths, 152 (3.2%) who required invasive mechanical ventilation and 279 (5.8%) admitted for ICU/HDU care in HKSAR; and 2 (0.3%), 2 (0.3%) and 42 (6.5%) in Anhui correspondingly. Table 3 shows that lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with the composite outcome regardless of timing of administration in HKSAR cohort. Oral ribavirin initiated within 7 days from onset was associated with lower risk of the composite outcome (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36, 0.92, p = 0.009) in Hong Kong. In Anhui, intravenous ribavirin when initiated within 7 days of onset was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (OR=5.59, 95% CI 2.72, 11.50, p < 0.001). Unifenovir showed no association with the composite outcome.
Table 3.
Composite outcome of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission of COVID-19 patients in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and Anhui province of China.
| Hong Kong SAR |
Anhui |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment |
Treatment |
|||||||||||||||||
| No |
Yes |
After weighting | No |
Yes |
After weighting | |||||||||||||
| N‡ | Event | (%) | N‡ | Event | (%) | OR | 95% CI ¶ | P-value¶ | N‡ | Event | (%) | N‡ | Event | (%) | OR | 95% CI¶ | P-value¶ | |
| Interventions initiated regardless of timing of initiation | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 3087 | 32 | (1.0%) | 1436 | 51 | (3.6%) | 1.27 | (0.81, 1.98) | 1.000 | 91 | 1 | (1.1%) | 540 | 24 | (4.4%) | NA | ||
| Ribavirin | 3285 | 52 | (1.6%) | 1238 | 31 | (2.5%) | 0.58 | (0.36, 0.92) | 0.009 | 578 | 23 | (4.0%) | 53 | 2 | (3.8%) | 1.74 | (0.85, 3.56) | 0.267 |
| Umifenovir | NA | 421 | 22 | (5.2%) | 210 | 3 | (1.4%) | 0.84 | (0.42, 1.69) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 658 | 76 | (11.6%) | 1.74 | (1.17, 2.58) | <0.001 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 161 | 21 | (13.0%) | 2.64 | (0.99, 7.05) | 0.054 |
| Dexamethasone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 573 | 71 | (12.4%) | 3.49 | (2.34, 5.20) | <0.001 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 4 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | ||
| Hydrocortisone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 96 | 15 | (15.6%) | 0.27 | (0.11, 0.64) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 6 | 2 | (33.3%) | 3.79 | (0.31, 46.13) | 1.000 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 114 | 14 | (12.3%) | 3.01 | (1.06, 8.55) | 0.031 |
| Prednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 37 | 3 | (8.1%) | 0.88 | (0.15, 5.27) | 1.000 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 48 | 9 | (18.8%) | 2.60 | (0.79, 8.63) | 0.231 |
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 146 | 6 | (4.1%) | 485 | 19 | (3.9%) | 0.57 | (0.21, 1.59) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2568 | 10 | (0.4%) | 1955 | 73 | (3.7%) | 0.55 | (0.38, 0.80) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2946 | 5 | (0.2%) | 1577 | 78 | (4.9%) | 2.74 | (1.56, 4.80) | <0.001 | 266 | 2 | (0.8%) | 365 | 23 | (6.3%) | 7.16 | (1.60, 32.11) | 0.003 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 79 | 4 | (5.1%) | 552 | 21 | (3.8%) | 0.96 | (0.39, 2.40) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interventions initiated within 7 days of symptom onset | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 3087 | 32 | (1.0%) | 1109 | 40 | (3.6%) | 1.40 | (0.88, 2.25) | 0.370 | 91 | 1 | (1.1%) | 378 | 14 | (3.7%) | NA | ||
| Ribavirin | 3285 | 52 | (1.6%) | 884 | 19 | (2.1%) | 0.51 | (0.29, 0.90) | 0.010 | 578 | 23 | (4.0%) | 18 | 2 | (11.1%) | 5.59 | (2.72, 11.50) | <0.001 |
| Umifenovir | NA | 421 | 22 | (5.2%) | 76 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | ||||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 276 | 42 | (15.2%) | 1.57 | (0.97, 2.55) | 0.084 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 56 | 6 | (10.7%) | 2.37 | (0.67, 8.35) | 0.460 |
| Dexamethasone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 225 | 37 | (16.4%) | 3.46 | (2.10, 5.72) | <0.001 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 0 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | ||
| Hydrocortisone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 42 | 6 | (14.3%) | 0.31 | (0.09, 0.99) | 0.046 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 2 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 39 | 4 | (10.3%) | 2.76 | (0.69, 10.98) | 0.337 | ||
| Prednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 14 | 1 | (7.1%) | NA | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 17 | 2 | (11.8%) | 1.66 | (0.21, 13.31) | 1.000 | ||
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 146 | 6 | (4.1%) | 310 | 4 | (1.3%) | 0.30 | (0.07, 1.31) | 0.198 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2568 | 10 | (0.4%) | 1581 | 60 | (3.8%) | 0.60 | (0.41, 0.88) | 0.002 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2946 | 5 | (0.2%) | 1128 | 63 | (5.6%) | 3.10 | (1.76, 5.43) | <0.001 | 266 | 2 | (0.8%) | 219 | 17 | (7.8%) | 8.99 | (1.99, 40.58) | <0.001 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 79 | 4 | (5.1%) | 255 | 8 | (3.1%) | 1.04 | (0.35, 3.11) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interventions initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 3087 | 32 | (1.0%) | 327 | 11 | (3.4%) | 1.01 | (0.52, 1.94) | 1.000 | 91 | 1 | (1.1%) | 162 | 10 | (6.2%) | NA | ||
| Ribavirin | 3285 | 52 | (1.6%) | 354 | 12 | (3.4%) | 0.66 | (0.36, 1.22) | 0.556 | 578 | 23 | (4.0%) | 35 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | ||
| Umifenovir | NA | 421 | 22 | (5.2%) | 134 | 3 | (2.2%) | 1.29 | (0.64, 2.56) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 382 | 34 | (8.9%) | 1.85 | (1.20, 2.87) | <0.001 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 105 | 15 | (14.3%) | 2.78 | (1.00, 7.74) | 0.051 |
| Dexamethasone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 348 | 34 | (9.8%) | 3.50 | (2.26, 5.43) | <0.001 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 4 | 0 | (0.0%) | NA | ||
| Hydrocortisone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 54 | 9 | (16.7%) | 0.24 | (0.07, 0.79) | 0.008 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 4 | 2 | (0.0%) | 5.51 | (0.44, 69.38) | 0.556 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 75 | 10 | (13.3%) | 3.14 | (1.03, 9.58) | 0.040 |
| Prednisolone | 3865 | 7 | (0.2%) | 23 | 2 | (8.7%) | 0.91 | (0.08, 10.47) | 1.000 | 470 | 4 | (0.9%) | 31 | 7 | (22.6%) | 3.02 | (0.86, 10.60) | 0.124 |
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 146 | 6 | (4.1%) | 175 | 15 | (8.6%) | 1.08 | (0.34, 3.44) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2568 | 10 | (0.4%) | 374 | 13 | (3.5%) | 0.39 | (0.16, 0.91) | 0.018 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2946 | 5 | (0.2%) | 449 | 15 | (3.3%) | 1.86 | (0.82, 4.24) | 0.322 | 266 | 2 | (0.8%) | 146 | 6 | (4.1%) | 4.44 | (0.79, 24.99) | 0.142 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 79 | 4 | (5.1%) | 297 | 13 | (4.4%) | 0.89 | (0.30, 2.68) | 1.000 | ||||||||
Note: OR = Odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; NA = Not applicable.
†OR >1 (or <1) indicates the treatment was associated with higher (or lower) risk of composite outcome.
The numbers of treated and non-treated patients may not total all patients in the respective cohorts as per Table 2 because those who presented with the composite outcome on or before the day of treatment initiation, or the day of admission were excluded from the analysis.
Adjusted confidence interval and p-value of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison.
Interferon-alpha-2b, only available in Anhui, was unassociated with risk of the composite outcome. Interferon-beta-1b, only available in Hong Kong, was associated with improved composite outcome regardless of timing of initiation (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38, 0.80, p < 0.001).
Corticosteroids were generally unassociated or associated with increased risk of the composite outcome for both cohorts, with the exception of hydrocortisone (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.11, 0.64, p < 0.001) in HKSAR. Antibiotics were associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome in both HKSAR (OR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.56, 4.80, p < 0.001) and Anhui (OR = 7.16, 95% CI 1.60, 32.11, p = 0.003). Chinese medicines, only available in Anhui, were generally unassociated with risk of the composite outcome.
3.3. Length of stay
Table 4 shows that regardless of timing of administration, antivirals were either unassociated or associated with longer duration of hospitalisation in both cohorts. (−1.8 days, p < 0.001)
Table 4.
Time from admission to discharge for COVID-19 survivors receiving different pharmaceutical interventions in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and Anhui province of China.
| Hong Kong SAR |
Anhui |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment |
Treatment |
|||||||||||||||||
| No |
Yes |
After weighting | No |
Yes |
After weighting | |||||||||||||
| N§ | Mean | SD | N§ | Mean | SD | Difference† | (95%CI)¶ | P-value¶ | N§ | Mean | SD | N§ | Mean | SD | Difference† | (95%CI)¶ | P-value¶ | |
| Interventions initiated regardless of timing of initiation | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 2835 | 12.3 | 9.0 | 1510 | 21.1 | 13.3 | 8.8 | (8.1, 9.4) | <0.001 | 94 | 14.0 | 4.1 | 552 | 17.4 | 6.3 | 3.4 | (2.6, 4.2) | <0.001 |
| Ribavirin | 3140 | 13.8 | 11.1 | 1205 | 21.2 | 13.7 | 7.4 | (6.6, 8.1) | <0.001 | 593 | 16.9 | 6.2 | 53 | 18.3 | 6.2 | 1.4 | (0.4, 2.3) | <0.001 |
| Umifenovir | NA | 430 | 16.5 | 6.0 | 216 | 18.6 | 7.5 | 2.1 | (1.0, 3.1) | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 628 | 18.1 | 13.0 | 4.4 | (3.7, 5.1) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 170 | 18.8 | 6.9 | 1.7 | (0.7, 2.8) | <0.001 |
| Dexamethasone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 525 | 17.0 | 12.6 | 3.3 | (2.6, 4.1) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 5 | 17.3 | 2.8 | 0.2 | (−3.6, 4.0) | 1.000 |
| Hydrocortisone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 117 | 19.0 | 13.6 | 5.4 | (4.6, 6.1) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 6 | 27.1 | 13.8 | 13.5 | (8.2, 18.7) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 122 | 17.7 | 6.1 | 0.6 | (−0.5, 1.7) | 1.000 |
| Prednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 43 | 23.2 | 21.7 | 9.5 | (7.4, 11.6) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 49 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 3.8 | (2.4, 5.2) | <0.001 |
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 152 | 16.9 | 6.7 | 494 | 17.1 | 6.1 | 0.2 | (−0.8, 1.2) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2420 | 23.9 | 17.8 | 1925 | 15.1 | 11.1 | −8.8 | (−9.7, −7.9) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2814 | 12.5 | 7.8 | 1531 | 17.1 | 12.3 | 4.6 | (4.0, 5.2) | <0.001 | 270 | 16.3 | 5.7 | 376 | 17.8 | 6.7 | 1.5 | (0.5, 2.5) | <0.001 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 82 | 15.5 | 5.4 | 564 | 17.2 | 6.3 | 1.7 | (0.8, 2.6) | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Interventions initiated within 7 days of symptom onset | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 2835 | 12.3 | 9.0 | 1164 | 21.3 | 13.0 | 9.0 | (8.3, 9.7) | <0.001 | 94 | 14.0 | 4.1 | 383 | 17.8 | 6.3 | 3.9 | (3.1, 4.7) | <0.001 |
| Ribavirin | 3140 | 13.8 | 11.1 | 852 | 21.7 | 13.5 | 7.9 | (7.1, 8.7) | <0.001 | 593 | 16.9 | 6.2 | 18 | 18.8 | 5.3 | 1.9 | (0.6, 3.1) | <0.001 |
| Umifenovir | NA | 430 | 16.5 | 6.0 | 76 | 16.1 | 4.4 | −0.4 | (−1.7, 0.8) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 268 | 19.9 | 15.1 | 6.2 | (5.4, 7.1) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 58 | 17.9 | 6.2 | 0.9 | (−0.5, 2.2) | 0.765 |
| Dexamethasone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 216 | 17.4 | 16.1 | 3.8 | (2.6, 5.0) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 0 | NA | ||||
| Hydrocortisone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 44 | 21.7 | 14.3 | 8.1 | (7.1, 9.1) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 2 | 40.5 | 4.4 | 26.8 | (16.6, 37.1) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 40 | 17.4 | 5.4 | 0.4 | (−1.3, 2.0) | 1.000 |
| Prednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 13 | 13.5 | 8.8 | −0.1 | (−3.0, 2.8) | 1.000 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 18 | 18.8 | 7.2 | 1.7 | (−0.4, 3.9) | 0.240 |
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 152 | 16.9 | 6.7 | 313 | 17.1 | 5.8 | 0.3 | (−0.9, 1.4) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2420 | 23.9 | 17.8 | 1556 | 15.4 | 11.4 | −8.4 | (−9.4, −7.4) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2814 | 12.5 | 7.8 | 1073 | 17.8 | 12.3 | 5.3 | (4.6, 5.9) | <0.001 | 270 | 16.3 | 5.7 | 222 | 18.1 | 6.6 | 1.8 | (0.7, 2.9) | <0.001 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 82 | 15.5 | 5.4 | 257 | 17.0 | 6.1 | 1.5 | (0.3, 2.6) | 0.003 | ||||||||
| Interventions initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lopinavir-ritonavir | 2835 | 12.3 | 9.0 | 346 | 20.6 | 13.9 | 8.3 | (7.4, 9.1) | <0.001 | 94 | 14.0 | 4.1 | 169 | 16.3 | 6.3 | 2.3 | (1.3, 3.3) | <0.001 |
| Ribavirin | 3140 | 13.8 | 11.1 | 353 | 20.4 | 14.0 | 6.6 | (5.7, 7.5) | <0.001 | 593 | 16.9 | 6.2 | 35 | 18.0 | 6.6 | 1.1 | (0.0, 2.2) | 0.070 |
| Umifenovir | NA | 430 | 16.5 | 6.0 | 140 | 19.7 | 8.4 | 3.2 | (2.0, 4.4) | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Corticosteroids | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 360 | 16.7 | 11.0 | 3.1 | (2.4, 3.8) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 112 | 19.2 | 7.1 | 2.1 | (1.0, 3.3) | <0.001 |
| Dexamethasone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 309 | 16.7 | 10.0 | 3.1 | (2.2, 3.9) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 5 | 17.3 | 2.8 | 0.2 | (−3.6, 4.0) | 1.000 |
| Hydrocortisone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 73 | 17.0 | 12.7 | 3.4 | (2.5, 4.2) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Methylprednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 4 | 22.3 | 12.9 | 8.7 | (2.6, 14.8) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 82 | 17.8 | 6.4 | 0.7 | (−0.6, 2.0) | 1.000 |
| Prednisolone | 3717 | 13.6 | 9.4 | 30 | 31.2 | 25.7 | 17.5 | (14.7, 20.4) | <0.001 | 476 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 31 | 21.8 | 7.9 | 4.7 | (3.1, 6.3) | <0.001 |
| Interferon-α−2b | NA | 152 | 16.9 | 6.7 | 181 | 16.9 | 6.7 | 0.0 | (−1.4, 1.5) | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Interferon-β−1b | 2420 | 23.9 | 17.8 | 369 | 13.9 | 9.8 | −10.0 | (−11.8, −8.1) | <0.001 | NA | ||||||||
| Antibiotics | 2814 | 12.5 | 7.8 | 458 | 15.4 | 11.9 | 2.9 | (2.1, 3.7) | <0.001 | 270 | 16.3 | 5.7 | 154 | 17.3 | 6.7 | 1.1 | (−0.2, 2.3) | 0.162 |
| Chinese Medicines | NA | 82 | 15.5 | 5.4 | 307 | 17.4 | 6.4 | 1.9 | (0.8, 3.0) | <0.001 | ||||||||
Note: CI = confidence interval; NA = Not applicable.
Difference<0 (or >0) indicates the treatment was associated with shorter (or longer) time to discharge.
The numbers of patients in each drug combination group may not total all patients in the respective cohort as per Table 2 because those who died during admission or not yet discharged were excluded from the analysis.
Adjusted confidence interval and p-value of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison.
Interferon-beta-1b was associated with a shorter length of stay (−8.8 days, 95% CI −9.7, −7.9, p < 0.001; −8.4, 95% CI −9.4, −7.4, p < 0.001; −10.0, 95% CI −11.8, −8.1, p < 0.001), regardless of timing of administration. Interferon-alpha-2b, only available in Anhui, was generally unassociated with duration of hospitalisation.
Corticosteroids, antibiotics, Chinese medicines (Anhui only) were unassociated with hospitalisation duration or associated with a longer length of stay across both cohorts.
3.4. Interferon-beta-1b drug combinations
Among 2173 patients who ever received subcutaneous interferon-beta-1b, available in HKSAR only, 842, 689, and 465 were co-administered lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin, and both, respectively. Their characteristics were balanced after propensity score weighting (Supplementary Table 3).
Table 5 shows that interferon-beta-1b combined with ribavirin, compared to interferon-beta-1b alone, was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (OR = 0.50 95%CI 0.32, 0.78, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (−2.35 days, 95% CI −3.65, −1.06, p < 0.001) regardless of timing of administration.
Table 5.
Composite outcome of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission of COVID-19 patients receiving different interferon-β−1b based drug combinations, and time from admission to discharge for COVID-19 survivors in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China.
| Hong Kong SAR |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment |
After weighting |
|||||
| Composite outcome | N‡ | Event | (%) | OR† | 95% CI¶ | P-value¶ |
| Interferon-β−1b monotherapy | 161 | 9 | (5.6%) | (reference) | ||
| Interferon-β−1b + ribavirin | 634 | 16 | (2.5%) | 0.50 | (0.32, 0.78) | <0.001 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir | 752 | 35 | (4.7%) | 0.88 | (0.61, 1.28) | 1.000 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir + ribavirin | 408 | 13 | (3.2%) | 1.11 | (0.77, 1.59) | 1.000 |
| Time from admission to discharge for COVID-19 survivors | N§ | Mean | SD | Difference† | 95% CI¶ | P-value¶ |
| Interferon-β−1b monotherapy | 156 | 15.5 | 12.3 | (reference) | ||
| Interferon-β−1b + ribavirin | 550 | 13.2 | 8.4 | −2.35 | (−3.65, −1.06) | <0.001 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir | 775 | 16.6 | 12.4 | 1.10 | (−0.15, 2.35) | 0.020 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir + ribavirin | 444 | 23.6 | 16.1 | 8.10 | (6.85, 9.34) | <0.001 |
Note: OR = Odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; NA = Not applicable.
OR >1 (or <1) indicates the treatment was associated with higher (or lower) risk of composite outcome; Difference<0 (or >0) indicates the treatment was associated with shorter (or longer) time to discharge.
The numbers of patients in each drug combination group may not total all patients in the respective cohorts as per Table 2 because those who presented with the composite outcome on or before the day of treatment initiation, or the day of admission were excluded from the analysis.
The numbers of patients in each drug combination group may not total all patients in the respective cohort as per Table 2 because those who died during admission or not yet discharged were excluded from the analysis.
Adjusted confidence interval and p-value of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison.
Table 6 further shows that when initiated within 3 days of symptom onset, this combination of interferon-beta-1b and ribavirin was unassociated with risk of the composite outcome when compared to later administration. It was however also associated with a longer length of stay (5.44 days, 95%CI 4.06, 6.81, p < 0.001) relative to later use.
Table 6.
Composite outcome of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission of COVID-19 patients initiating interferon-β−1b based drug combination at different time after symptom onset, and time from admission to discharge for COVID-19 survivors initiating interferon-β−1b based drug combination at different times in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China.
| Treatment |
After weighting |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite outcome | N‡ | Event | (%) | OR† | 95% CI¶ | P-value¶ |
| Interferon-β−1b + ribavirin | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 127 | 4 | (3.1%) | 1.36 | (0.67, 2.76) | 0.667 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 362 | 8 | (2.2%) | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 145 | 4 | (2.8%) | 0.63 | (0.26, 1.53) | 0.489 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 194 | 11 | (5.7%) | 1.14 | (0.67, 1.96) | 1.000 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 424 | 18 | (4.2%) | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 134 | 6 | (4.5%) | 0.73 | (0.40, 1.33) | 0.467 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir + ribavirin | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 123 | 8 | (6.5%) | 4.47 | (1.46, 13.68) | 0.005 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 227 | 3 | (1.3%) | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 58 | 2 | (3.4%) | 0.70 | (0.15, 3.25) | 1.000 |
| Time from admission to discharge for COVID-19 survivors | N§ | Mean | SD | Difference† | 95% CI ¶ | P-value ¶ |
| Interferon-β−1b + ribavirin | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 112 | 18.2 | 14.9 | 5.44 | (4.06, 6.81) | <0.001 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 309 | 12.7 | 6.7 | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 129 | 11.9 | 7.2 | −0.83 | (−2.32, 0.65) | 0.419 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 195 | 17.7 | 12.2 | −0.02 | (−1.41, 1.37) | 1.000 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 443 | 17.7 | 15.3 | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 137 | 14.5 | 8.2 | −3.24 | (−4.64, −1.84) | <0.001 |
| Interferon-β−1b + lopinavir-ritonavir + ribavirin | ||||||
| initiated within 3 days of symptom onset | 123 | 26.7 | 20.4 | 4.15 | (1.63, 6.67) | <0.001 |
| initiated between 3 and 7 days of symptom onset | 255 | 22.6 | 13.6 | (reference) | ||
| initiated after 7 days of symptom onset | 66 | 20.4 | 14.9 | −2.23 | (−4.79, 0.32) | 0.101 |
Note: OR = Odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; NA = Not applicable.
OR >1 (or <1) indicates the treatment was associated with higher (or lower) risk of composite outcome; Difference<0 (or >0) indicates the treatment was associated with shorter (or longer) time to discharge.
The numbers of patients in each drug combination group may not total all patients in the respective cohorts as per Table 2 because those who presented with the composite outcome on or before the day of treatment initiation, or the day of admission were excluded from the analysis.
The numbers of patients in each drug combination group may not total all patients in the respective cohort as per Table 2 because those who died during admission or not yet discharged were excluded from the analysis.
Adjusted confidence interval and p-value of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison.
4. Discussion
In this multi-centre, population-based, propensity-score adjusted analysis, we have shown that interferon-beta-1b and oral ribavirin was associated with improved outcomes in terms of survival/mechanical ventilation/intensive care and length of stay, especially when given early during the course of illness. Co-administration of oral ribavirin with interferon-beta-1b further reduced risk of the composite outcome but not the duration of hospitalisation among survivors.
Interferon-alpha-2b when administered within one week of symptom onset was unassociated with a lower risk of the composite outcome. When started after 7 days since symptom onset, it may be associated with an increase in the composite outcome of serious complications including death. These results are consistent with another recent retrospective study from the Chinese province of Hubei [13]. Timing of administration is likely critical given that its effect goes from anti-viral to pro-inflammatory if used beyond 7 days after symptom onset [6]. An integrated immune analysis identified a unique phenotype of highly impaired interferon type I response (i.e. no interferon-beta and low interferon-alpha production) among cases of severe COVID-19 illness [14]. These observations may provide the biological basis explaining our present results and justification for further consideration of associated therapeutic approaches [14]. There are ongoing trials evaluating interferons, alone and in combination with lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin, clofazimine and hydroxychloroquine [15].
Lopinavir-ritonavir, intravenous ribavirin and umifenovir were not associated with improvements in either specified outcome measure. Corticosteroids as a category were similarly disappointing, except for hydrocortisone. Dexamethasone consistently showed higher risks of the composite outcome and length of stay, regardless of timing of administration or study cohort. Given the earlier findings of the RECOVERY [3] and CoDEX [16] trials that show survival benefit only among those ill enough to warrant respiratory support, our two cohorts of mostly mild to moderately ill patients likely explain the discrepancy.
Although non-randomised trial reported azithromycin might reduce viral load in patients with non-severe COVID-19 [17], results of the COALITION II trial showed that addition of azithromycin to standard of care regimens was not associated with outcome improvement [18]. Our finding showed antibiotics did not show clear and consistent benefit for either outcome between the two cohorts. However, the heterogeneity of antibiotic types and absence of further information on bacterial super-infection, other than the highest CRP value during hospitalisation render further interpretation difficult. Likewise, it is hard to conclude that Chinese medicines provided clinical benefit, except perhaps when started later in the course of illness in certain patients. The lack of standardisation in both treatment options in an observational setting preclude drawing more definite conclusions.
Several key limitations bear mention. First, inherent to the observational design, despite propensity scoring to balance baseline characteristics, our findings are subject to the usual observational biases and cannot infer causation or definitive treatment effects. However, the likelihood that unmeasured confounders could affect the relationship between ribavirin and the composite outcome, between interferon-beta-1b and the composite outcome seemed unlikely, as indicated by E-values [19]. Our aim was to summarise the whole population experience of two large Chinese locations in order to provide comparison and context in interpreting ongoing trial results. Second, we cannot completely rule out the possibility of immortal time bias. However, no composite outcome was reported prior to hospital admission and antivirals and interferons were administered shortly after admission. We also excluded those who had composite outcome events on or before the day of treatment initiation, thus minimising the bias in favour of the treatment group. Third, our patient cohorts mostly represented the mild to moderate spectrum of COVID-19 presentations, albeit comprising consecutive, non-selected symptomatic cases from the designated treatment hospitals in the two locations. A majority of confirmed COVID-19 cases in mainland China were not classified as severe or critical [20], with similar distributions of clinical severity between our two cohorts. Hence, the study findings may be generalisable to those populations with similar casemix, including the whole of China and East Asia. Fourth, our data did not allow us to adequately evaluate other combinations of antivirals, immunomodulators, or antibiotics, perhaps administered at different stages of the course of illness, which in reality could be the preferred treatment strategy when no single agent appears to provide overwhelming or sufficient efficacy. Fifth, we did not have access to data on viral load trajectories or symptom resolution that could have enriched our observations. Finally, our study did not evaluate remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine /chloroquine. Remdesivir is the only direct antiviral to have shown efficacy against COVID-19. Neither HKSAR or Anhui had routine access to data of remdesivir administration during the period of observation. While the SIMPLE trials identified its benefits in shortening recovery time [21], which was not found in an earlier study [22], there is as yet evidence to demonstrate survival advantage. SOLIDARITY [4], RECOVERY [3] and a Cochrane review [23] found no evidence that either hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine was effective against SARS-CoV-2. Two trials even suggested a higher rate of adverse outcomes in those randomised to hydroxychloroquine [24,25]. Neither drug had been used in HKSAR or Anhui as part of COVID-19 treatment regimen.
In conclusion, our findings based on two complete case cohorts of symptomatic, mostly mildly to moderately ill COVID-19 patients support further randomised trials on the early administration of interferon-beta-1b alone and in combination with oral ribavirin. Other treatment therapies combined with interferon-beta-1b should also be further explored in an experimental setting.
Declaration of Interests
BJC reports honoraria from Sanofi Pasteur and Roche. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge colleagues at the Food and Health Bureau and Department of Health, Government of the Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong Hospital Authority and Anhui provincial health commission for facilitating data access; the many health care workers who have provided exceptional care under the most trying circumstances; and above all patients and families who have endured COVID-19 illness and its consequences. Special thank to Mr Ivan Au for statistical assistance.
Contributors
C.K.H.W. and E.Y.F.W. reviewed the literature, designed statistical analysis, conducted analyses, wrote the manuscript; S.L., Y.D., P.L., X.H., X.Z. and J.W. collected and compiled data. E.H.Y.L provided critical input to the statistical analyses and design. E.C.H.L and J.W. reviewed the literature and wrote the manuscript. B.J.C. constructed the study design, provided critical input to the statistical analyses, and wrote the manuscript. G.M.L. constructed the study design, supervised the study, wrote the manuscript and act as guarantor for the study. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the analysis, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Data sharing statement
The databases are properties of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Head Office, Hong Kong Centre for Health Protection, and Anhui provincial health commission.
Transparency statement
The manuscript's guarantor affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Funding
We received financial support from the Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Grant no. COVID190118 and COVID190210), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant number. YD9110004001, YD9110002002, and YD9110002008). The funders did not have any role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Footnotes
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100743.
Contributor Information
Xueying Zheng, Email: hklxyzheng@ustc.edu.cn.
Benjamin J. Cowling, Email: bcowling@hku.hk.
Jianping Weng, Email: wengjp@ustc.edu.cn.
Gabriel M. Leung, Email: gmleung@hku.hk.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Lai C.C., Shih T.P., Ko W.C., Tang H.J., Hsueh P.R. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): the epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(3) doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Leung K., Wu J.T., Liu D., Leung G.M. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet. 2020;395(10233):1382–1393. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.The RECOVERY Collaborative Group Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 - preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.World Health Organization. “Solidarity” clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments. 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments. [Access date 13 January 2021]
- 5.Cao B., Wang Y., Wen D. A trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787–1799. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hung I.F., Lung K.C., Tso E.Y. Triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10238):1695–1704. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31042-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhou Q., Chen V., Shannon C.P. Interferon-α2b Treatment for COVID-19. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1061. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Davoudi-Monfared E., Rahmani H., Khalili H. A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of Interferon β-1a in treatment of severe COVID-19. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020;64(9):e01061. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01061-20. 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Monk P.D., Marsden R.J., Tear V.J. Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30511-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.White I.R., Royston P., Wood A.M. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–399. doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Marshall J.C., Murthy S., Diaz J. A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):e192–e1e7. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30483-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Austin P.C. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51(1):171–184. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wang N., Zhan Y., Zhu L. Retrospective multicenter cohort study shows early interferon therapy is associated with favorable clinical responses in COVID-19 patients. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;28(3):455–464. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.07.005. e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hadjadj J., Yatim N., Barnabei L. Impaired type I interferon activity and inflammatory responses in severe COVID-19 patients. Science. 2020;369(6504):718–724. doi: 10.1126/science.abc6027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wadman M. Can interferons stop COVID-19 before it takes hold? Science. 2020;369(6500):125–126. doi: 10.1126/science.2020.6500.369_125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tomazini B.M., Maia I.S., Cavalcanti A.B. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19: the CoDEX randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1307–1316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gautret P., Lagier J.-.C., Parola P. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2020;56(1) doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 18.Furtado R.H.M., Berwanger O., Fonseca H.A. Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial. The Lancet. 2020;396(10256):959–967. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31862-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Haneuse S., VanderWeele T.J., Arterburn D. Using the E-value to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding in observational studies. JAMA. 2019;321(6):602–603. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.21554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wu Z., McGoogan J.M. Characteristics of and important lessons from the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a Report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1239–1242. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Goldman J.D., Lye D.C.B., Hui D.S. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 days in patients with severe Covid-19. New Engl J Med. 2020;383(19):1827–1837. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang Y., Zhang D., Du G. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10236):1569–1578. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31022-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Singh B., Ryan H., Kredo T., Chaplin M., Fletcher T. Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(4) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013587.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Tang W., Cao Z., Han M. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.The RECOVERY Collaborative Group Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. New Engl J Med. 2020;383(21):2030–2040. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022926. [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.