This open-label feasibility study evaluated whether a five-day course of intravenous remdesivir can be delivered to adults with a confirmed diagnosis of Long COVID (LC). The rationale stems from evidence that antiviral and immunomodulatory treatment during acute COVID-19 can reduce long-term complications; however, remdesivir had not previously been evaluated specifically in people living with LC. The trial sought to establish operational feasibility, short-term safety, and acceptability ahead of larger efficacy trials.
The trial was conducted across two sites in the United Kingdom. Adults aged 18 years or older with a confirmed LC diagnosis were screened and recruited. Of 106 individuals screened, 73 participants met inclusion criteria and were enrolled into the open-label study. The intervention consisted of a five-day intravenous course of remdesivir administered according to the protocol described in the trial registration and linked clinical protocol.
Primary feasibility endpoints focused on pragmatic delivery metrics rather than formal hypothesis testing: the ability to recruit eligible participants, rates of treatment completion, participant acceptability of IV administration, and short-term safety. In addition, several exploratory clinical and patient-reported outcomes were collected to inform design and endpoint selection for future randomized trials. Examples of exploratory measures noted in the report include the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
The study met its feasibility aims with high operational completion rates. Of the 73 enrolled participants, 71 (97%) completed the five-day intravenous remdesivir regimen. Follow-up assessments were completed by 70 participants (96%), and completion rates were high across clinical assessments, patient-reported outcome instruments, and symptom tracking tools.
Acceptability was inferred from these high completion and follow-up rates. The investigators reported that delivering IV remdesivir to people with LC via the trial procedures was achievable at the participating sites.
Regarding safety, no severe adverse reactions were reported in the cohort described. The abstract reports an acceptable short-term safety profile within the scope of this feasibility study, though details on adverse event types, frequencies, and severity grading beyond the absence of severe reactions are not provided in the abstract.
The trial collected exploratory outcomes to characterize potential signals of clinical benefit and to guide design of definitive trials. Patient-reported measures included instruments such as the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS), and clinical performance measures included the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The abstract states that improvements were observed in several exploratory patient-reported and clinical outcomes.
The report does not provide effect sizes, confidence intervals, comparative statistics, or detailed outcome trajectories in the abstract. As such, while the observed improvements are described as promising, the magnitude and clinical significance of those changes are not reported in the available summary and require confirmation in larger randomized controlled studies.
The study obtained ethical and regulatory approvals prior to conduct. Specifically, ethics approval was granted by the UK Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (24/SC/0118). Additional oversight and approvals included the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee (AA-8765) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (24/SC/0118). The trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05911906.
The authors declare no competing interests. Funding for the study was provided by Gilead Sciences. The manuscript is posted as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; the authors and the posting platform note that the findings should not be used to change clinical practice until validated by further research.
This open-label feasibility study demonstrates that a five-day IV course of remdesivir can be administered to people with Long COVID with high rates of treatment completion and follow-up, and without reported severe adverse reactions in this cohort. The feasibility and acceptability data support the conduct of larger-scale randomized controlled trials to evaluate efficacy and safety more rigorously.
The authors emphasise that while exploratory improvements in patient-reported and clinical outcomes were observed, these results are preliminary. Definitive assessment of therapeutic benefit and longer-term safety will require well-powered randomized trials with pre-specified clinical endpoints. Data from this feasibility work are available from the authors on reasonable request and may inform endpoint selection, sample size calculations, and operational plans for future studies.
Note: This report is a preprint and has not undergone peer review. The summary presented here reflects the information provided in the preprint abstract and associated declarations; additional methodological detail and full outcome data may be available in the full manuscript or supplementary materials referenced by the authors.