Effect of remdesivir post hospitalization for COVID-19 infection from the randomized SOLIDARITY Finland trial

We report the first long-term follow-up of a randomized trial (NCT04978259) addressing the effects of remdesivir on recovery (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes one year after hospitalization resulting from COVID-19. Of the 208 patients recruited from 11 Finnish hospitals, 198 survived, of whom 181 (92%) completed follow-up. At one year, self-reported recovery occurred in 85% in remdesivir and 86% in standard of care (SoC) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47-1.90). We infer no convincing difference between remdesivir and SoC in quality of life or symptom outcomes (p > 0.05). Of the 21 potential long-COVID symptoms, patients reported moderate/major bother from fatigue (26%), joint pain (22%), and problems with memory (19%) and attention/concentration (18%). In conclusion, after a one-year follow-up of hospitalized patients, one in six reported they had not recovered well from COVID-19. Our results provide no convincing evidence of remdesivir benefit, but wide confidence intervals included possible benefit and harm.Peer reviewe

Densities of individually marked migrants away from the marking site to estimate population sizes: a test with three wader populations

Capsule: Population estimates based on the mark–resighting method can be a useful alternative to population-wide counts. Aims: To investigate whether the mark–resighting method can be used as an alternative to counts to estimate the size of wader populations. Methods: Individual colour-marking and subsequent resightings allowed accurate estimates of annual survival for three populations of waders, on which basis we could estimate the actual number of marked birds alive. Densities of marked birds were determined on sites away (2000–4300 km) from the ringing locations expecting marked birds to be randomly distributed among non-marked conspecifics. Population sizes are estimated by combining these densities with the number of marked birds alive. Results: We found indications that the distribution of marked birds was indeed random in the locations away from the site of marking. The estimated population size of Red Knot Calidris canutus canutus was in accordance with the most recent estimates based on counts. Our estimate of the Calidris c. islandica population was somewhat lower, and that of the Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica taymyrensis population was considerably lower than the latest estimates based on counts. Conclusion: Population estimates based on the mark–resighting method can be a useful alternative for, or addition to, population-wide counts, as long as the assumption of random distribution of marked birds at the reading sites is taken into account. We conclude that the Afro-Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit population has recently decreased in size or has been substantially overestimated during the counts.