Abstract

METHODS

RESULTS

Study Design and Participants

We tested a substudy cohort of 642 ACTT-1 participants who provided specimens at baseline and at least 1 subsequent time point within the first 6 days following randomization (Supplementary Figure 1). Demographic and clinical characteristics were generally well balanced between the participants in the placebo arm (n = 319) and remdesivir arm (n = 323), as well as between the overall cohort and original ACTT-1 study population (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1). The median age was 59 years; the median time from symptom onset was 9 days; and mortality was 9% vs 11% in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively. Biomarker analyses were stratified by disease severity, comparing patients with moderate/severe disease (ie, patients considered noncritically ill who required no or minimal oxygen supplementation) with those who presented with critical disease (ie, patients considered critically ill who required high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membranous oxygenation).

Table 1.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study Population at Baseline

	Placebo		Remdesivir
	Included (n = 319)	Total (n = 516)	Included (n = 323)	Total (n = 532)
Age, y, median (IQR)	59 (47-68)	60 (49-70)	59 (48-69)	59 (49-69)
Male sex	205 (64.26)	328 (63.57)	210 (65.02)	347 (65.23)
Race and ethnicity
Asian	30 (9.40)	56 (10.85)	42 (13.00)	79 (14.85)
Black or African American	84 (26.33)	114 (22.09)	73 (22.60)	105 (19.74)
White	167 (52.35)	286 (55.43)	168 (52.01)	273 (51.32)
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino	69 (21.63)	114 (22.09)	89 (27.55)	132 (24.81)
Clinical characteristics
Any comorbidities	255 (79.94)	417 (80.81)	271 (83.90)	435 (81.77)
Days of symptoms, median (IQR)	9 (7-13)	9 (7-13)	9 (6-12)	9 (6-12)
Baseline ordinal scale a
4	38 (11.91)	63 (12.21)	39 (12.07)	75 (14.10)
5	114 (35.74)	202 (39.15)	148 (45.82)	231 (43.42)
6	56 (17.55)	98 (18.99)	42 (13.00)	94 (17.67)
7	111 (34.80)	153 (29.65)	94 (29.10)	132 (24.81)
Disease severity subgroups b
Moderate/severe	152 (47.65)	265 (51.36)	187 (57.89)	306 (57.52)
Critical	167 (52.35)	251 (48.64)	136 (42.11)	226 (42.48)

Open in a separate window

Patients in our primary biomarker analysis cohort (Included) vs all patients from the original Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 (Total). Data are presented as No. (%) unless noted otherwise.

^aNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases categorization of COVID-19 disease severity.

^bModerate/severe disease is a combined subgroup of ordinal scales 4 and 5. Critical disease is a combined subgroup of ordinal scales 6 and 7.

Comparison of Baseline Measures of Viral Load and Inflammatory Biomarkers

The majority of participants had quantifiable viral loads at study entry irrespective of assay used: 87.9% (564/642) for serum viral nucleocapsid, 85.2% (547/642) for upper respiratory tract viral RNA, and 56.9% (365/642) for plasma viral RNA. Patients with critical disease had higher baseline plasma and upper respiratory tract viral RNA levels as compared with patients with moderate/severe disease: plasma viral RNA median, 2.40 vs 1.49 log₁₀ copies/mL, P < .001; upper respiratory tract viral RNA median, 3.64 vs 3.26 log₁₀ copies/mL, P = .002 (Figure 1​AA, Supplementary Tables 2 and 3). Patients with critical disease also presented later in illness with modestly protracted symptoms (mean days, 10.5 vs 9.3; P = .002). Viral loads were lower among patients reporting longer durations of symptoms prior to enrollment and, on average, decreased over the early period of observation among placebo recipients (Supplementary Figure 2).

Open in a separate window

Figure 1.

Distribution of baseline viral loads by disease severity and correlation with other biomarkers. A, Distribution of baseline viral loads by assay categorized by disease severity. Box plots indicate the median (line) and IQR (box). Wilcoxon P values assess differences in medians between disease severity groups, and proportions of samples are shown below each assay's limit of quantification (LOQ; illustrated by size of bottom circle). RNA values below the assay LOQ of 1.79 log₁₀ copies/mL were set as half the LOQ (1.49 log₁₀ copies/mL) when measurements were above the lower limit of detection and one-quarter the LOQ (1.19 log₁₀ copies/mL) when RNA was not detected; nucleocapsid antigen values below the assay LOQ of 3 pg/mL were set as half the LOQ (1.5 pg/mL). B, Matrix heat map of Pearson correlations between baseline biomarker levels among all patients in the primary cohort. *P < .05. **P < .01. ***P < .001. Coefficient estimates are provided in Supplementary Table 4. CRP, C-reactive protein; IL-6, interleukin 6.

Plasma viral RNA and serum nucleocapsid levels correlated with inflammatory biomarkers (Figure 1​BB, Supplementary Table 4); modest but stronger correlations were seen between these blood viral biomarkers and CRP (Pearson correlation, r = 0.237 for plasma RNA and r = 0.189 for nucleocapsid; both P < .001) and IL-6 (r = 0.361 for plasma RNA and r = 0.122 for nucleocapsid; P < .001 and P = .002, respectively), in contrast to upper respiratory tract viral RNA. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies were detected in 57.3% patients, and antibody levels negatively correlated with all 3 measures of viral load.

Higher Baseline Viral Loads Were Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes

Patients with higher baseline viral loads were less likely to recover or survive (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 5). Cox proportional hazard models showed that higher baseline viral loads were associated with an increased risk of mortality (plasma viral RNA: hazard ratio (HR), 4.44 [95% CI, 1.41–13.96]; upper respiratory tract viral RNA: HR, 7.80 [95% CI, 1.70–35.82]; serum viral nucleocapsid: HR, 3.92 [95% CI, 1.11–13.86]) and lower likelihood of recovery (plasma viral RNA: recovery rate ratio [RRR], 0.42 [95% CI, .33–.53]; upper respiratory tract viral RNA: RRR, 0.51 [95% CI, .40–.64]; serum viral nucleocapsid: RRR, 0.53 [95% CI, .42–.66]) among patients with moderate/severe disease (Table 2). Higher baseline plasma viral RNA levels also correlated with a lower likelihood of recovery among patients who were critically ill (RRR, 0.582 [95% CI, .44–.78]), a finding not observed with other measures of viral load. Elevated IL-6 levels were similarly associated with a lower likelihood of survival and recovery across all categories of disease severity.

Open in a separate window

Figure 2.

Distribution of baseline viral loads by assay according to the clinical outcome: A, recovery; B, mortality. Box plots indicate the median (line) and IQR (box). Wilcoxon P values assess differences in medians between disease severity groups, and proportions of samples are shown below each assay's limit of quantification (LOQ; illustrated by size of bottom circle). RNA values below the assay LOQ of 1.79 log₁₀ copies/mL were set as half the LOQ (1.49 log₁₀ copies/mL) when measurements were above the lower limit of detection and one-quarter the LOQ (1.19 log₁₀ copies/mL) when RNA was not detected; nucleocapsid antigen values below the assay LOQ of 3 pg/mL were set as half the LOQ (1.5 pg/mL).

Table 2.

Likelihood of Recovery or Death Based on Baseline Viral Load or Inflammatory Biomarker

	Recovery			Mortality
Disease Severity: Biomarker	RRR	95% CI	P Value	HR	95% CI	P Value
Moderate/severe
Nucleocapsid, log10 pg/mL	0.53	.42–.66	<.001	3.92	1.11–13.86	.034
RNA, log10 copies/mL
Plasma	0.41	.33–.53	<.001	4.44	1.41–13.96	.011
Upper respiratory	0.50	.40–.64	<.001	7.80	1.70–35.82	.008
Inflammatory Biomarkers, log10 pg/mL
CRP	0.83	.67–1.04	.106	1.79	.65–4.95	.259
IL-6	0.53	.42–.67	<.001	3.68	1.32–10.29	.013
Critical
Nucleocapsid, log10 pg/mL	0.77	.58–1.03	.078	1.07	.61–1.87	.805
RNA, log10 copies/mL
Plasma	0.58	.44–.78	<.001	1.53	.83–2.85	.175
Upper respiratory	0.84	.63–1.12	.239	1.12	.64–1.98	.687
Inflammatory Biomarkers, log10 pg/mL
CRP	0.74	.55–1.00	.050	1.75	.93–3.29	.085
IL-6	0.39	.28–.53	<.001	3.55	1.41–8.96	.007

Open in a separate window

Cox model estimates of HR for mortality and RRR based on baseline elevation of viral load or inflammatory biomarker (dichotomized at baseline median) when adjusted for treatment arm.

Abbreviations: CRP, C-reactive protein; HR, hazard ratio; IL-6, interleukin 6; RRR, recovery rate ratio

Patients With Elevated Blood Viral Loads at Baseline Recovered Faster With Remdesivir

Among participants with moderate/severe disease, those with higher baseline serum viral nucleocapsid levels recovered faster when treated with remdesivir vs those who received placebo (RRR, 1.95 vs 1.04 for levels above and below the cohort median of 2.39 log₁₀ pg/mL; for interaction, P = .01; Figure 3​AA). A similar trend was seen for patients with higher baseline plasma viral RNA levels (RRR, 1.95 vs 1.24 for levels above and below the cohort median of 2.09 log₁₀ copies/mL; for interaction, P = .06). Remdesivir also shortened the time to recovery when given earlier in illness. Among patients with moderate/severe disease who were treated within 5 days of initial symptoms, 93% vs 54% recovered by day 28 in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (RRR, 3.0; 95% CI 1.70–5.28), as opposed to 94% vs 88% among those treated 5 days after symptom onset (RRR, 1.27; 95% CI, .99–1.63; for interaction, P = .006; Supplementary Table 6). Similar findings were observed if symptom duration was analyzed as a continuous variable (Supplementary Table 7). There was no differential treatment effect for remdesivir on mortality across subgroups of viral load (Figure 3​BB) or symptom duration. Additionally, although patients with antispike antibodies had improved clinical outcomes when compared with individuals who were seronegative, clinical benefit from remdesivir did not vary by baseline antibody status.

Open in a separate window

Figure 3.

Impact of remdesivir on clinical outcomes according to viral load subgroups. Forest plots illustrate subgroup analyses of Cox models to evaluate for a differential effect of remdesivir on (A) recovery and (B) mortality based on baseline viral load or presence of antispike antibodies. Viral load measurements were dichotomized at median values per assay: 2.39 log₁₀ pg/mL (245 pg/mL) for serum nucleocapsid, 2.09 log₁₀ copies/mL (123 copies/mL) for plasma RNA, and 3.41 log₁₀ copies/mL (2570 copies/mL) for upper respiratory RNA. P values for treatment interaction are shown. HR, hazard ratio; PLC, placebo; RDV, remdesivir; RRR, recovery rate ratio.

Remdesivir Accelerated the Reduction of Viral Load in Blood

Relative to placebo, participants with moderate/severe disease who received remdesivir had larger averaged daily declines in levels of serum viral nucleocapsid (difference, −0.062 log₁₀ pg/mL/d; P = .003) and plasma viral RNA (difference, −0.040 log₁₀ copies/mL/d; P = .004; Figure 4​AA, Supplementary Table 8); sensitivity analyses based on linear mixed effects models demonstrated comparable results (Supplementary Table 9). Reductions in blood viral RNA and antigen were greater among patients treated within 5 days of initial symptoms (Supplementary Table 10). Remdesivir similarly reduced the likelihood of an increasing viral load trajectory in blood during the first 5 days of treatment among patients with moderate/severe disease: the relative risk of an increasing viral load comparing remdesivir against placebo was 0.068 for serum viral nucleocapsid (P < .001) and 0.366 for plasma viral RNA (P = .006; Figure 4​BB). In contrast, no effect of remdesivir was observed on the upper respiratory tract viral RNA levels among patients with moderate/severe disease. No significant changes in viral loads were observed in patients who were critically ill.

Open in a separate window

Figure 4.

Virologic efficacy of remdesivir vs placebo. A, Differences in mean daily rate of change of viral load among patients with moderate/severe disease by treatment arm. P values are shown for differences in adjusted daily rate of change when normalized to baseline level. For calculations, RNA values below the assay limit of quantification (LOQ) of 1.79 log₁₀ copies/mL were set as half the LOQ (1.49 log₁₀ copies/mL) when measurements were above the lower limit of detection (LLOD) and one-quarter the LOQ (1.19 log₁₀ copies/mL) when RNA was not detected. B, Bar plot of patients with increasing or persistently elevated viral loads measured through 5 days of treatment. Relative risk (RR) of an increasing viral load comparing remdesivir and placebo recipients are shown with corresponding P values.

Reductions in Viral Load Were Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes

Patients with declines in plasma viral RNA or serum viral nucleocapsid over the first 5 days had improved times to clinical recovery as compared with individuals without declines (Figure 5, Supplementary Table 11). This association was seen in patients with moderate/severe disease (P = .001 for plasma viral RNA, P = .018 for serum viral nucleocapsid) and those with critical disease (P = .004 for plasma viral RNA, P = .013 for serum viral nucleocapsid). Notably, no patient who was critically ill and exhibited increasing serum levels of viral nucleocapsid recovered. Decreasing trajectories of plasma viral RNA and serum viral nucleocapsid were similarly associated with reduced mortality across both disease severity subgroups (Supplementary Figure 3, Supplementary Table 12). In contrast, the trajectories of upper respiratory viral RNA had weaker associations with clinical outcomes in patients with moderate/severe disease and failed to show any association with outcomes among patients with critical illness.

Open in a separate window

Figure 5.

Time to recovery comparing patients with increasing vs decreasing viral loads. Kaplan-Meier curve analyses compare patients with decreasing viral loads (blue) and those with increasing or persistently elevated viral loads (red) through the first 5 days of treatment. P values represent test of the log-rank statistic.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis of a large-scale, phase 3, randomized clinical trial, we hypothesized that accelerated reductions in peripheral SARS-CoV-2 viral load would correlate with improved patient outcomes. By assessing 3 methods to quantify viral load, we demonstrated that the 2 blood measurements (viral RNA and nucleocapsid antigen) more consistently associated with the clinical risk of severe disease outcomes and the benefits of antiviral therapy when compared with upper respiratory RNA.

ACTT-1 was the first randomized placebo-controlled trial to demonstrate the efficacy of remdesivir in improving recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Since its completion, several other trials have corroborated the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in similar and disparate populations [13, 14]. However, because identifying the specific patients within this broader population who are likely to benefit from treatment has continued to prove challenging, we hypothesized that augmenting commonly used categorizations of disease severity with laboratory assessments might offer new insights. We previously showed that simple hematologic parameters in combination with baseline disease severity better predicted risk of disease progression [15]. Here, we report that SARS-CoV-2 biomarkers in the peripheral blood may also offer new insights. In particular, the associated benefits of remdesivir were most pronounced among patients who were not critically ill with elevated serum nucleocapsid antigen levels (>2.39 log₁₀ pg/mL) or shorter durations of symptoms, with a similar favorable trend seen in patients with higher levels of plasma viral RNA (>2.09 log₁₀ copies/mL). Moreover, early trajectories of both these viral analytes correlated with clinical outcomes. These findings support the hypothesis that antivirals are more effective when used earlier in illness and that unmitigated viral replication (or an inability to decrease peripheral viral loads) is associated with worse prognoses.

Although upper respiratory specimens are commonly used to measure viral loads in clinical and research settings, measurements in peripheral blood may offer several advantages. In our study, plasma viral RNA and serum nucleocapsid assays more consistently associated with mortality and recovery across a wider range of disease severity when compared with upper respiratory RNA measurements. Plasma RNAemia as a correlate of worse disease has been reported with other respiratory viral infections [16, 17], and several studies have similarly found it to be predictive of critical illness and poorer outcomes in COVID-19 [18–22]. Here, we demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia may serve as a useful prognostic biomarker among patients without critical illness, although sensitivity may decline in mild or early illness where plasma RNA levels may be low or absent [23]. In contrast, nucleocapsid antigen may be a more sensitive marker earlier in infection [3, 24–29], and in our study it was present in a considerably higher proportion of patients when compared with plasma viral RNA (87.9% vs 56.9%), potentially pointing to the added value of measuring circulating antigen levels concurrently with plasma viral RNA. In a similar cohort of patients, plasma antigenemia in ranges comparable to those that we observed correlated with poorer outcomes, including worse pulmonary disease and prolonged hospitalizations [5]. Peripheral blood biomarkers may provide new insights into COVID-19 pathogenesis: IL-6 and CRP correlated better with viral RNA and antigen measurements in blood than with viral RNA levels in the upper respiratory tract, suggesting that the presence and magnitude of viremia better reflect the immune dysregulation associated with worse patient outcomes [30–32].

To the best of our knowledge, ours is one of the first studies to demonstrate the systemic antiviral efficacy of remdesivir as compared with placebo in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. We observed that 5 days of remdesivir accelerated declines and improved trajectories of viral biomarkers in blood but not in the upper respiratory tract. With rare exception [33], multiple prospective clinical trials of remdesivir similarly did not find any antiviral impact of remdesivir on upper respiratory tract viral RNA levels [34–37], supporting the assertion that this specimen type may be less sensitive for in vivo monitoring of antiviral therapies and/or that the antiviral effect of remdesivir may be relatively modest in hospitalized patients, particularly those treated later in illness. Nonetheless, the concordant reductions in peripheral viral RNA and antigen levels that we observed suggest possible detection of an in vivo inhibition of viral replication [27, 38, 39]. These findings may hint at an underlying rationale, such as reduced concentrations of remdesivir in lung tissue [40] and/or spillover from primary sites of replication, wherein the peripheral blood offers a better compartment in which to measure treatment responses in real-world settings. Note that ACTT-1 was conducted prior to recommendations for the use of immunomodulating therapies to temper hyperinflammatory responses in severe COVID-19 disease. As such, it remains to be seen if the antiviral effects of remdesivir may even be greater among patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies (eg, corticosteroids), which may prolong the duration of viral replication and shedding [41].

Our study has some limitations. First, our analyses were predefined but exploratory and not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Second, some patients did not contribute samples, which may have been missing at random due in part to the overwhelming burden placed on the medical system at the time when ACTT-1 was conducted. However, the proportion of recoveries and ventilator-free survivals captured in our study were comparable to those observed in the original cohort (Supplementary Table 1), suggesting that any missingness was not largely driven by outcomes. Additionally, sensitivity analyses that included all patients with a baseline viral load (Supplementary Tables 3 and 5) or assessed for cohort selection bias (Supplementary Tables 13 and 14) supported our primary findings. Third, restricting enrollment to hospitalized patients may have selected for overall lower baseline viral loads, potentially underestimating the strength of associations with clinical outcomes, particularly among patients who presented later in illness (Supplementary Figure 2A). Fourth, quantitative polymerase chain reaction and Simoa assays may not be available in all settings and would benefit from further study to validate diagnostic cutoffs and better determine their routine clinical applicability. Last, as ACTT-1 enrolled unvaccinated patients during the first wave of the pandemic, our findings may vary by factors such as immune status and SARS-CoV-2 variant. Yet, growing evidence suggests that plasma viral RNA and nucleocapsid antigen correlate with clinical parameters across more recent viral variants [5, 42].

In summary, in this analysis of a randomized clinical trial, we report that SARS-CoV-2 plasma RNA and nucleocapsid antigen have potential as surrogate biomarkers for evaluating the benefit of antiviral therapy and warrant further study. As remdesivir is one of the few available treatments that retains activity against circulating variants of concern [43–45], an understanding of its real-world antiviral effects and their ability to inform clinical outcomes remains important. Our study may also offer insights into strategies that could be applied to the evaluation of other antiviral drug candidates.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at The Journal of Infectious Diseases online (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/). Supplementary materials consist of data provided by the author that are published to benefit the reader. The posted materials are not copyedited. The contents of all supplementary data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or messages regarding errors should be addressed to the author.

Supplementary Material

Contributor Information

Kanal Singh, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

Kevin Rubenstein, Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research,

Viviane Callier, Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research,

Katy Shaw-Saliba, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

Adam Rupert, National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland.

Robin Dewar, National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland.

Sylvain Laverdure, National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland.

Helene Highbarger, National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland.

Perrine Lallemand, National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland.

Meei-Li Huang, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Washington,

Keith R Jerome, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington.

Reigran Sampoleo, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Washington,

Margaret G Mills, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Washington,

Alexander L Greninger, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Washington,

Kavita Juneja, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Foster City, California.

Danielle Porter, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Foster City, California.

Constance A Benson, University of California San Diego,

Walla Dempsey, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

Hana M El Sahly, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Chris Focht, The Emmes Company, Rockville, Maryland.

Nikolaus Jilg, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Catharine I Paules, Division of Infectious Diseases, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Rekha R Rapaka, Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Timothy M Uyeki, Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

H Clifford Lane, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

John Beigel, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

Lori E Dodd, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda.

the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) Study Group Members :

References