COVID-19: A Review of Potential Treatments (Corticosteroids, Remdesivir, Tocilizumab, Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab, and Casirivimab/Imdevimab) and Pharmacological Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: In light of the ongoing global pandemic, this paper reviews data on a number of potential and approved agents for COVID-19 disease management, including corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and monoclonal antibody combinations. Dose considerations, potential drug–drug interactions, and access issues are discussed. Key findings: Remdesivir is the first antiviral agent approved for the treatment of COVID-19, based on results from large clinical trials showing reduction in recovery time, faster clinical improvement, and decrease in time to discharge with remdesivir. Dexamethasone and tocilizumab have demonstrated mortality benefits in large, randomized controlled trials. Consequently, the use of corticosteroids has become the standard of care for hospitalized patients with severe or critical COVID-19, while tocilizumab is recommended for use in combination with a corticosteroid in certain hospitalized patients. Recently, monoclonal antibody combinations bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab received emergency use authorizations for use in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression. Summary: As data from large clinical trials emerge, the paradigm of COVID-19 treatments has shifted significantly. The use of corticosteroids, remdesivir, and tocilizumab depend on disease severity. Emerging data on monoclonal antibody combinations are promising, but further data are required. Pharmacists can play a role in ensuring appropriate access, correct administration, and safe use of COVID-19 treatments and are encouraged to stay abreast of new developments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".