Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir against mortality, hospitalisation, and in-hospital outcomes among community-dwelling, ambulatory patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the omicron wave in Hong Kong: an observational study

Selected Acute Safety Events Following the Use of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir or Molnupiravir for COVID-19: A Nationwide Cohort Study in South Korea

There had been concerns about the acute complications during or shortly after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL). This study aimed to compare the risks of selected acute safety events in patients treated with or without NMVr or MOL using the COVID-19 oral treatment safety assessment data, constructed through the linkage of nationwide databases: National COVID-19 registry, Real-time Prescription Surveillance, and National Health Insurance data. We identified all adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2022, and then constructed two cohorts by matching up to four patients without antiviral treatment records to NMVr or MOL users using propensity score matching. Outcomes of interest were incident-selected cardiac (i.e., atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmia, bradycardia), neurological (i.e., seizure, neuropathy, encephalomyelitis), and miscellaneous (i.e., acute pancreatitis, acute liver injury, dysgeusia) events. A total of 739,935 NMVr users were matched with 2,951,690 comparators and 150,431 MOL users with 759,521 comparators. NMVr users were at lower risk for developing selected cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.74 [95% CI 0.65-0.87] for atrial fibrillation, 0.81 [0.65-0.99] for other arrhythmia, and 0.82 [0.70-0.96] for bradycardia) and dysgeusia (0.58 [0.45-0.74]). For MOL users, the risk was lower for atrial fibrillation (0.72 [0.53-0.96]) and dysgeusia (0.34 [0.18-0.65]). Overall, there were no increased risks of acute complications during and shortly after treatment with oral COVID-19 antivirals. Rather, the findings underscore their effectiveness in attenuating the risk of potential acute sequelae of COVID-19.

Large scale analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease reveals marginal presence of nirmatrelvir-resistant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron mutants in Ontario, Canada, December 2021-September 2023

Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a new oral antiviral called nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (PaxlovidTM) was authorized for use in Canada in January 2022. In vitro studies have reported mutations in Mpro protein that may be associated with the development of nirmatrelvir resistance.

Objectives

To survey the prevalence, relevance and temporal patterns of Mpro mutations among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

A total of 93,082 Mpro gene sequences from December 2021 to September 2023 were analyzed. Reported in vitro Mpro mutations were screened against our database using in-house data science pipelines to determine the nirmatrelvir resistance. Negative binomial regression was conducted to analyze the temporal trends in Mpro mutation counts over the study time period.

Results

A declining trend was observed in non-synonymous mutations of Mpro sequences, showing a 7.9% reduction (95% CI: 6.5%-‬9.4%; p<0.001) every 30 days. The P132H was the most prevalent mutation (higher than 95%) in all Omicron lineages. In vitro nirmatrelvir-resistant mutations were found in 3.12% (n=29/929) Omicron lineages with very low counts, ranging from one to 19. Only two mutations, A7T (n=19) and M82I (n=9), showed temporal presence among the BA.1.1 in 2022 and the BQ.1.2.3 in 2022, respectively.

Conclusion

The observations suggest that, as of September 2023, no significant or widespread resistance to nirmatrelvir has developed among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants in Ontario. This study highlights the importance of creating automated monitoring systems to track the emergence of nirmatrelvir-resistant mutations within the SARS-CoV-2 virus, utilizing genomic data generated in real-time.

Effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir in the intended-use population: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Previous research reported inconsistent results on the efficacy of molnupiravir in treating COVID-19. Moreover, efficacy was not assessed in the intended-use population (IUP), as defined by the FDA. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 in the IUP.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study on all IUP in Israel's Clalit Health Services from January 16, 2022, to February 16, 2023. The effectiveness outcome was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19, and the safety outcome was the incidence of all-cause mortality within 35 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to analyse the data after 1:5 propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 49 515 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of them, 3957 molnupiravir-treated patients were matched to 19 785 untreated patients. In molnupiravir-treated patients, 70 out of 3957 (5.1 per 10 000 person per day) experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death, compared with 699 out of 19 785 untreated patients (10.4 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.64). All-cause mortality was also lower in the treated group, with 41 out of 3957 (3.0 per 10 000 person per day) experiencing mortality compared with 414 out of 19 785 untreated patients (6.1 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (0.36-0.68).

DISCUSSION

In a real-world cohort of IUP, molnupiravir therapy was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalizations or deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

Effect of amubarvimab-romlusevimab for treatment of severe COVID-19 in intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study

Amubarvimab-romlusevimab is a commonly recommended antiviral treatment in China for adult patients with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially for patients with a high risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19. However, its exact efficacy in patients with severe Covid-19 is not yet known.This is a single-center retrospective cohort study, in which we collected the general data, laboratory tests, radiological characteristics, viral conversion status, and prognosis of the disease from patients with COVID-19 hospitalized, from December 2022 to March 2023 in the Department of Critical Care Medicine. The amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy can reduce the 28-day mortality (29.79 % vs 51.35 %, p = 0.02), and ICU mortality (29.79 % vs 55.41 %, p = 0.006) of severe COVID-19.A 1:1 PSM (Propensity Score Matching) was performed to reduce bias, in order to ensure the two groups were balanced and comparable. In the matched population (n = 47), there were no statistically significant differences between the mAbs (monoclonal antibody)group and the Non-antiviral group in 28-day, and thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients. The 40-day survival analysis shows that mAbs therapy can improve patient prognosis (HR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.26-0.76, p = 0.008). However, no significant intergroup difference in the 40-day cumulative viral conversion rate. In a univariate Cox regression analysis, The Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.464; CI:[0.252-0.853]; p:0.013) is a protective factor and CRP, PCT, PLT, Lactate, PT, PT-INR, and pt% level at admission were risk factors for clinical prognosis. After including the above covariates, Multifactorial COX regression shows that the Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.392; CI:[0.211-0.729]; p:0.003), CRP, Lactate and PT-INR at admission are independent factors for mortality of severe COVID-19. Based on the current data, we conclude that amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy is beneficial for patients with severe COVID-19.

Modeling suggests SARS-CoV-2 rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment is driven by target cell preservation coupled with incomplete viral clearance

In a subset of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals treated with the oral antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the virus rebounds following treatment. The mechanisms driving this rebound are not well understood. We used a mathematical model to describe the longitudinal viral load dynamics of 51 individuals treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, 20 of whom rebounded. Target cell preservation, either by a robust innate immune response or initiation of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir near the time of symptom onset, coupled with incomplete viral clearance, appear to be the main factors leading to viral rebound. Moreover, the occurrence of viral rebound is likely influenced by time of treatment initiation relative to the progression of the infection, with earlier treatments leading to a higher chance of rebound. Finally, our model demonstrates that extending the course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, in particular to a 10-day regimen, may greatly diminish the risk for rebound in people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. Altogether, our results suggest that in some individuals, a standard 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir starting around the time of symptom onset may not completely eliminate the virus. Thus, after treatment ends, the virus can rebound if an effective adaptive immune response has not fully developed. These findings on the role of target cell preservation and incomplete viral clearance also offer a possible explanation for viral rebounds following other antiviral treatments for SARS-CoV-2.

Cardiovascular adverse effects of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: Evidence and plausible mechanisms

Antiviral therapeutics have made a critical contribution in mitigating the symptoms and clinical outcomes of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), in which a single-stranded RNA viral pathogen, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), causes multi-organ injuries. Several antivirals were widely prescribed to treat COVID-19, either through the emergency use authorization (EUA) by the governmental regulatory agencies (i.e., remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, and the SARS-CoV-2-targeted monoclonal antibodies - tixagevimab and cilgavimab), as well as the repurposed use of the existing antiviral or antimalarial drugs (e.g., hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin). Despite their efficacy in ameliorating COVID-19 symptoms, some adverse side-effects of the antivirals were also reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our current review has aimed to gather and extrapolate the recently published information concerning cardiovascular adverse effects caused by each of the antivirals. We also provide further discussion on the potential cellular mechanisms underlying the cardiovascular adverse effects of the selected antiviral drugs, which should be carefully considered when evaluating risk factors in managing patients with COVID-19 or similar infectious diseases. It is foreseeable that future antiviral drug development assisted with the newest artificial intelligence platform may improve the accuracy to predict the structures of biomolecules of antivirals and therefore to mitigate their associated cardiovascular adversities.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir among vaccinated and unvaccinated non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

Observational studies of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir compared to no antiviral drug treatment for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults with data on vaccination status were included. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Research Database and medRxiv for reports published between 1 January 2022 and 8 November 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization or mortality up to 35 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and risk differences (RD) were separately estimated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 30 cohort studies on adults treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 462 279) and molnupiravir (n = 48 008). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduced the composite outcome (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.55-0.70; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) with no evidence of effect modification by vaccination status (RR Psubgroup = 0.47). In five studies, RD estimates against the composite outcome for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were 1.21% (95%CI 0.57% to 1.84%) in vaccinated and 1.72% (95%CI 0.59% to 2.85%) in unvaccinated subgroups.Molnupiravir may slightly reduce the composite outcome (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.67-0.85; I2 = 32%; low certainty). Evidence of effect modification by vaccination status was inconsistent among studies reporting different effect measures (RR Psubgroup = 0.78; HR Psubgroup = 0.08). In two studies, RD against the composite outcome for molnupiravir were -0.01% (95%CI -1.13% to 1.10%) in vaccinated and 1.73% (95%CI -2.08% to 5.53%) in unvaccinated subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among cohort studies of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is effective against the composite outcome of severe COVID-19 independent of vaccination status. Further research and a reassessment of molnupiravir use among vaccinated adults are warranted.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023429232.

Proportion of Patients in the United States Who Fill Their Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescriptions

INTRODUCTION

Although real-world studies demonstrate that those prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (and particularly within 5 days of symptom onset) are less likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes, prior studies show that only a small fraction of patients with COVID-19 who are eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receive a prescription. Studies calculating the proportion of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions filled and identifying individual- and pharmacy-level correlates of filling nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included individuals aged ≥ 12 years with a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered at a large national retail pharmacy (December 22, 2021-August 12, 2023). Those taking contraindicated medications were excluded. For those with only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled (yes/no). In a subanalysis of these individuals, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled within 5 days of symptom onset (yes/no). For those with multiple prescriptions ordered, the outcome was whether > 1 (vs. 0 or 1) prescriptions were filled. A log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations was used to identify individual (clinical and demographic) and pharmacy-level (percentage of trade area that is non-Hispanic white, urbanicity, US Census region, and tract-level area deprivation index) correlates.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103,570 unique nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions were ordered for 1,985,990 individuals. Among the 95% of individuals prescribed only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir course, 88% filled their prescription. Among those with > 1 prescription ordered, 77% (82,993/108,411) filled one and 13% (13,662/108,411) filled > 1. Patients ≥ 50 years of age and those with documented high-risk conditions were slightly more likely to fill prescriptions, regardless of whether one or multiple courses were ordered. Individuals with cancer, asthma, or taking corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications were more likely to fill multiple prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients filled their nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. Interventions to improve uptake should focus on increasing patient and provider awareness, reducing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing disparities, and ensuring treatment initiation within 5 days.

An overview of the development of pharmacotherapeutics targeting SARS-CoV-2

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic in March 2020, which precipitated urgent public health responses. The causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, spreads primarily via respiratory droplets, necessitating precautions to mitigate transmission risks. Biopharmaceutical industries and academic institutions worldwide swiftly redirected their research endeavors towards developing therapeutic interventions, focusing on monoclonal antibodies, antiviral agents, and immunomodulatory therapies. The evolving body of evidence surrounding these treatments has prompted successive updates and revisions from the FDA, delineating the evolving landscape of COVID-19 therapeutics. This review comprehensively examines each treatment modality within the context of their developmental trajectories and regulatory approvals throughout the pandemic. Furthermore, it elucidates their mechanisms of action and presents clinical data underpinning their utility in combating the COVID-19 crisis.

A comprehensive study of SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor-resistant mutants selected in a VSV-based system

Nirmatrelvir was the first protease inhibitor specifically developed against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (3CLpro/Mpro) and licensed for clinical use. As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread, variants resistant to nirmatrelvir and other currently available treatments are likely to arise. This study aimed to identify and characterize mutations that confer resistance to nirmatrelvir. To safely generate Mpro resistance mutations, we passaged a previously developed, chimeric vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-Mpro) with increasing, yet suboptimal concentrations of nirmatrelvir. Using Wuhan-1 and Omicron Mpro variants, we selected a large set of mutants. Some mutations are frequently present in GISAID, suggesting their relevance in SARS-CoV-2. The resistance phenotype of a subset of mutations was characterized against clinically available protease inhibitors (nirmatrelvir and ensitrelvir) with cell-based, biochemical and SARS-CoV-2 replicon assays. Moreover, we showed the putative molecular mechanism of resistance based on in silico molecular modelling. These findings have implications on the development of future generation Mpro inhibitors, will help to understand SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitor resistance mechanisms and show the relevance of specific mutations, thereby informing treatment decisions.

Worldwide SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection: Emerging sub-variants and future vaccination perspectives

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has sparked widespread concern globally, particularly with the Omicron variant and its sub-lineages emerging as the predominant cause of infection for nearly two years. Taiwan's successful containment of COVID-19, underscored by broad vaccine coverage, the utilization of anti-viral therapeutics, and timely response strategies, has resulted in reduced excess mortality. Moreover, there is a crucial need for a phased exit strategy, balancing efforts to curtail disease transmission with the mitigation of socioeconomic impacts from rigorous measures. In this review, we examined the evolution and the epidemiological landscape of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron sub-variants in Taiwan as well as other countries of the world. We also critically evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against various SARS-CoV-2 variants. Additionally, we addressed the advantages of heterologous immunization strategies, fluctuations in neutralizing antibody titers, and complexities in establishing protective correlates among swiftly mutating viral variants.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid)-treated for COVID-19 patients with onset of more than 5 days: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) has received emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration owing to its effectiveness and safety. However, data on the effectiveness and safety of Paxlovid use in COVID-19 patients with onset of more than 5 days are lacking.

Methods

A real-world retrospective study was performed during the outbreak involving the SARS-CoV-2 BA.5.2 subvariant. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients (including mild, moderate, severe and critical cases) were divided into three groups: Paxlovid treatment within (Group A) or more than (Group B) 5 days of COVID-19 onset and no Paxlovid treatment during more than 5 days of COVID-19 onset with only basic symptomatic treatment (Group C). Endpoints were all-cause 28-day mortality, improvement in clinical classification, and a composite endpoint of disease progression, viral load and virus elimination time. Safety was assessed by comparing adverse events reported during treatment in each group.

Results

During the period, 248 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, including 55 in Group A, 170 in Group B, and 23 in Group C, were enrolled. There were no significant differences in the clinical classification improvement rate [80.0% (16/20) vs. 81.3% (52/64), p = 1.000; 60.0% (21/35) vs. 55.7% (59/106), p = 0.653, respectively] or all-cause 28-day mortality [0% (0/20) vs. 1.6% (1/64), p = 1.000; 11.4% (4/35) vs. 6.6% (7/106), p = 0.576, respectively] between Groups A and B for nonsevere and severe cases. However, the clinical classification improvement rate in Group B was markedly higher than that in Group C [81.3% (52/64) vs. 50.0% (6/12), p = 0.049] among nonsevere cases. Cycle threshold values of the N and ORF genes in Group B were significantly increased after Paxlovid treatment [31.14 (IQR 26.81-33.93) vs. 38.14 (IQR 36.92-40.00), p < 0.001; 31.33 (IQR 26.00-33.47) vs. 38.62 (IQR 35.62-40.00), p < 0.001, respectively]. No significant differences in reported adverse events of neurological disease (p = 0.571), liver injury (p = 0.960) or kidney injury (p = 0.193) between Group A and Group B were found.

Conclusion

Paxlovid treatment within 10 days of onset can shorten the disease course of COVID-19 by reducing the viral load. Paxlovid is effective and safe in treating COVID-19 with onset of more than five or even 10 days when patients have a high viral load.

Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid against mortality and viral clearance among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection during the omicron wave in China: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess clinical effectiveness and viral clearance following the use of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China dominated by the omicron BA.5.2 and BF.7 subvariant of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Enrolled patients were assigned to the molnupiravir group or the azvudine group or the paxlovid group or the control group (not taking any antiviral drugs). The primary outcome of the cohort study was viral clearance and viral burden rebound after treatment and the secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The four groups were propensity score-matched (1:1). We plotted viral load trends for each antiviral drug intervention using locally weighted regression (LOWESS) smoothed data. Multivariate logistic regression (stepwise algorithm) models were used to determine any risk factors for 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 1537 patients receiving any treatment, 886 (57.6 %) received molnupiravir, 390 (25.4 %) received azvudine, 94 (6.1 %) received paxlovid, and 167 (10.9 %) did not use any antiviral drugs. Our data analysis showed that age (OR = 1.05, 95 % CI: 1.03-1.07, P < 0.001), Charlson comorbidty index (OR = 1.32, 95 % CI: 1.18-1.48, P < 0.001), severity of COVID-19 (P < 0.001), gamma globulin (OR = 2.04, 95 % CI: 1.03-3.99, P = 0.039) and corticosteroids use (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI: 1.19-4.69, P = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors for 28-day mortality in COVID-19 patients. After propensity score matching (PSM), the paxlovid recipients (OR = 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.05-0.83, P = 0.036) or azvudine recipients (OR = 0.27, 95 % CI: 0.07-0.91, P = 0.046) had lower 28-day mortality compared to their matched controls. Viral rebound occurred in the control group around days 9-16, while no viral rebound was found in any of the three oral antiviral groups. We found that molnupiravir group performed comparably in terms of the rate of nucleic acid conversion negative compared with the paxlovid group, while azvudine group performed slightly worse compared with the paxlovid group or molnupiravir group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the wave of omicron strain, the molnupiravir, paxlovid and azvudine recipients showed a faster and more stable decrease in viral load and rare virus rebound in response to antiviral treatments when compared to the controls. The study supported that initiation treatment with paxlovid and azvudine was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death within 28 days.

Cost-effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for high-risk adult outpatients with COVID-19 in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Nir/Rit) for adult outpatients with COVID-19 from the perspective of a Japanese public healthcare payer.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness simulation was conducted comparing Nir/Rit for the outpatient treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients to best supportive care (BSC) without antiviral or antibody drugs. The analytical model was divided into two phases: the treatment phase, lasting 35 days from the start of COVID-19 treatment, and the post-treatment phase. Patients who survived the treatment phase were assumed to follow a general population survival curve. Expected costs and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both BSC and Nir/Rit were calculated for ages 40 to 80 to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the results was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

The ICERs for patients aged 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 were 18,854,276 Japanese Yen (JPY)/QALY, 8,482,034 JPY/QALY, 4,976,612 JPY/QALY, 2,636,096 JPY/QALY, and 1,597,783 JPY/QALY, respectively. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, both the mortality risk during the treatment phase and the relative mortality risk with Nir/Rit had a high impact on ICER across all ages. In the PSA, when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of the ICER being below the WTP threshold was 0%, 0.2%, 45.4%, 99.9%, and 100% at ages 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Nir/Rit is cost-effective for older individuals aged 60 and over but not for younger age groups.

Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults

INTRODUCTION

Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.

METHODS

We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

Real-World Effectiveness of Ensitrelvir in Reducing Severe Outcomes in Outpatients at High Risk for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ensitrelvir, an oral antiviral, in reducing hospitalization risk in outpatients at high-risk for severe COVID-19 during the Omicron era.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using a large Japanese health insurance claims database. It included high-risk outpatients for severe symptoms who received their first COVID-19 diagnosis between November 2022 and July 2023. The study included outpatients aged ≥ 18 years. The primary endpoint was all-cause hospitalization during the 4-week period from the date of outpatient diagnosis and medication, comparing the ensitrelvir group (n = 5177) and the no antiviral treatment group (n = 162,133). The risk ratio and risk difference were evaluated after adjusting patient background distribution by the inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) method. Secondary endpoints were incidence of respiratory and heart rate monitoring, oxygen therapy, ventilator use, intensive care admission, and all-cause death.

RESULTS

The risk ratio for all-cause hospitalization between the ensitrelvir group (n = 167,385) and the no antiviral treatment group (n = 167,310) after IPTW adjustment was 0.629 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.420, 0.943]. The risk difference was - 0.291 [95% CI - 0.494, - 0.088]. The incidence of both respiratory and heart rate monitoring and oxygen therapy was lower in the ensitrelvir group. Ventilator use, intensive care admission, and all-cause death were difficult to assess because of the limited events.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of all-cause hospitalization was significantly lower in the ensitrelvir group than in the no antiviral treatment group, suggesting ensitrelvir is an effective treatment in patients at risk of severe COVID-19.

In vitro selection and analysis of SARS-CoV-2 nirmatrelvir resistance mutations contributing to clinical virus resistance surveillance

To facilitate the detection and management of potential clinical antiviral resistance, in vitro selection of drug-resistant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) against the virus Mpro inhibitor nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid active component) was conducted. Six Mpro mutation patterns containing T304I alone or in combination with T21I, L50F, T135I, S144A, or A173V emerged, with A173V+T304I and T21I+S144A+T304I mutations showing >20-fold resistance each. Biochemical analyses indicated inhibition constant shifts aligned to antiviral results, with S144A and A173V each markedly reducing nirmatrelvir inhibition and Mpro activity. SARS-CoV-2 surveillance revealed that in vitro resistance-associated mutations from our studies and those reported in the literature were rarely detected in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data database. In the Paxlovid Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients trial, E166V was the only emergent resistance mutation, observed in three Paxlovid-treated patients, none of whom experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death.

The safety of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies used in prehospital treatment of Covid-19

OBJECTIVE

This proof-of-principle pharmacovigilance study used Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to examine the safety of sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir in prehospital treatment of Covid-19.

METHOD

With NHS England approval, we conducted an observational cohort study using OpenSAFELY-TPP, a secure software-platform which executes analyses across EHRs for 24 million people in England. High-risk individuals with Covid-19 eligible for prehospital treatment were included. Adverse events (AEs) were categorised into events in the drug's Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), drug-reactions and immune-mediated. Cox models compared risk across treatments. A pre-pandemic record analysis was performed for comparative purposes.

RESULTS

Between 2021-2023, 37,449 patients received sotrovimab, paxlovid or molnupiravir whilst 109,647 patients made up an eligible-but-untreated population. The 28-day rates of AEs were low: SmPC 0.34 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 0.32-0.36); drug-reactions 0.01 (95% CI 0.01-0.02) and immune-mediated 0.03 (95% CI 0.03-0.04), and similar or lower than the pre-pandemic period. Compared with the eligible but untreated population, sotrovimab and paxlovid associated with a risk of SmPC AE [adjHR 1.36 (95% CI 1.15-1.62) and 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.55), respectively], whilst sotrovimab associated with a risk of drug-reactions [adjHR 2.95 (95% CI 1.56-5.55)] and immune-mediated events [adjHR 3.22 (95% CI 1.86-5.57)].

CONCLUSION

Sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir demonstrate acceptable safety profiles. Although the risk of AEs was greatest with sotrovimab, event rates were lower than comparative pre-pandemic period.

Association between asthma and COVID-19 severity during Omicron epidemic: a retrospective cohort study using real-world data

BACKGROUND

The available evidence presented inconsistencies and inconclusive findings regarding the associations between co-existing asthma and mortality among COVID-19 patients. The objective of the current study is to investigate the relationship between asthma and severe outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in an infection-naïve population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching was conducted. The COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalisation in Hong Kong from January 1, 2022, to November 13, 2022, an Omicron-predominated period, were identified. Severe clinical outcomes were defined as ICU admission and inpatient death after the first positive PCR results as well as a composite outcome of both.

RESULTS

Of the 74,396 hospitalised COVID-19 patients admitted, 1,290 asthma patients and 18,641 non-asthma patients were included in the matched cohort. The rates of death and the composite outcome were 15·3% and 17·2%, respectively, among the non-asthma patients,12·2% and 13·6%, respectively, among the asthma patients, with adjusted hazard ratios equal to 0·775 (95% CI: 0·660-0·909) and 0·770 (95% CI: 0·662-0·895), respectively. The negative association was more apparent in the elderly and female groups. Asthma remained a factor that lowered the risk of disease severity even though the patients were not fully vaccinated with at least two doses.

CONCLUSIONS

We used real-world data to demonstrate that asthma was not a risk factor for COVID-19 severity of the infections of Omicron variant, even though the patients were not fully vaccinated.

COVID-19 drug discovery and treatment options

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, and serious social and economic disruptions worldwide. Unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated older individuals with underlying diseases are especially prone to severe disease. In patients with non-fatal disease, long COVID affecting multiple body systems may persist for months. Unlike SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which have either been mitigated or remained geographically restricted, SARS-CoV-2 has disseminated globally and is likely to continue circulating in humans with possible emergence of new variants that may render vaccines less effective. Thus, safe, effective and readily available COVID-19 therapeutics are urgently needed. In this Review, we summarize the major drug discovery approaches, preclinical antiviral evaluation models, representative virus-targeting and host-targeting therapeutic options, and key therapeutics currently in clinical use for COVID-19. Preparedness against future coronavirus pandemics relies not only on effective vaccines but also on broad-spectrum antivirals targeting conserved viral components or universal host targets, and new therapeutics that can precisely modulate the immune response during infection.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Regimen for Mild/Moderately Severe COVID-19: A Rapid Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for treatment of laboratory-confirmed mild/moderately severe COVID-19 remains unclear.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWS; observational studies) of the efficacy/effectiveness and/or safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for COVID-19. We pooled appropriate data (adjusted estimates for RWS) using an inverse variance, random-effects model. We calculated statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% CI. We further assessed risk of bias/study quality and conducted trial sequential analysis of the evidence from RCTs.

RESULTS

We included 4 RCTs (4,070 persons) and 16 RWS (1,925,047 persons) of adults (aged ≥18 years). One and 3 RCTs were of low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. The RWS were of good quality. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization compared with placebo/no treatment (RR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.10-0.31; I 2 = 77.2%; 2 RCTs, 3,542 persons), but there was no significant difference for decrease of worsening severity (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.01; I 2 = 47.5%; 3 RCTs, 1,824 persons), viral clearance (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.51; I 2 = 82%; 2 RCTs, 528 persons), adverse events (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 0.92-2.14; I 2 = 70.6%; 4 RCTs, 4,070 persons), serious adverse events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62; I 2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.70; I 2 = 49.9%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), although trial sequential analysis suggested that the current total sample sizes for these outcomes were not large enough for conclusions to be drawn. Real-world studies also showed significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization (RR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; I 2 = 95.0%; 11 RWS, 1,421,398 persons) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; I 2 = 65%; 7 RWS, 286,131 persons) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir appears to be promising for preventing hospitalization and potentially decreasing all-cause mortality for persons with mild/moderately severe COVID-19, but the evidence is weak. More studies are needed.

Efficacy thresholds and target populations for antiviral COVID-19 treatments to save lives and costs: a modelling study

Background

In 2023 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was declared endemic, yet hospital admissions have persisted and risen within populations at high and moderate risk of developing severe disease, which include those of older age, and those with co-morbidities. Antiviral treatments, currently only available for high-risk individuals, play an important role in preventing severe disease and hospitalisation within this subpopulation. Here, we further explore the public health and economic benefits of extending target populations for treatment, and assess efficacy thresholds for a treatment strategy to be cost-saving.

Methods

We adapted an individual-based transmission model of SARS-CoV-2, OpenCOVID, which was calibrated and validated to 2020-2023 Swiss, European, and Northern Hemisphere epidemiological data. We used the model to estimate hospitalisations and overall costs for preventatively treating three risk groups for a full range of treatment efficacies and coverages with, besides vaccination and hospital treatments, no other interventions in place. We further calculated efficacy thresholds for strategies to be cost-saving. A global sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the sensitivity of all outcomes for a wide range of treatment properties, emerging variant properties, and vaccination coverages.

Findings

In a high vaccination coverage setting, we found that a high efficacy antiviral treatment given to all those at high-risk could reduce hospitalisations by up to 40%. When expanding treatment coverage to also include all those at moderate-risk, an additional 50% of hospitalisations could be averted. Targeting both high-risk and moderate-risk groups was found to be cost-saving for a treatment efficacy greater than ∼40%. This threshold was found to be robust regardless of vaccination coverage and emerging variant properties, but highly sensitive to treatment costs.

Interpretation

For a sufficiently efficacious antiviral treatment, expanding the target population to include both high-risk and moderate-risk groups should be considered. Equitable treatment costs are found crucial in achieving the best possible public health and health economic outcomes.

Funding

Botnar Research Centre for Child Health (DZX2165 to MAP), the Swiss National Science Foundation Professorship of MAP (P00P3_203450) and Swiss National Science Foundation NFP 78 Covid-19 2020 (4079P0_198428 to MAP).

COVID-19 in patients with myasthenia gravis: a single-center retrospective study in China

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a great concern since 2019. Patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) may be at higher risk of COVID-19 and a more severe disease course. We examined the associations between COVID-19 and MG.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study involved 134 patients who were diagnosed with MG from June 2020 to November 2022 and followed up until April 2023. They were divided into a COVID-19 group and non-COVID-19 group. Logistic regression analysis was used to detect factors potentially associating COVID-19 with MG.

RESULTS

Of the 134 patients with MG, 108 (80.6%) had COVID-19. A higher number of comorbidities was significantly associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (p = 0.040). A total of 103 patients (95.4%) had mild/moderate COVID-19 symptoms, and 4 patients (3.7%) were severe/critical symptoms (including 2 deaths). Higher age (p = 0.036), use of rituximab (p = 0.037), tumors other than thymoma (p = 0.031), Hashimoto's thyroiditis (p = 0.011), more comorbidities (p = 0.002), and a higher baseline MG activities of daily living (MG-ADL) score (p = 0.006) were risk factors for severe COVID-19 symptoms. The MG-ADL score increased by ≥ 2 points in 16 (15.7%) patients. Dry cough and/or expectoration (p = 0.011), use of oral corticosteroids (p = 0.033), and use of more than one kind of immunosuppressant (p = 0.017) were associated with the increase of the post-COVID-19 MG-ADL score.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with MG have a mild course of COVID-19. However, patients with older age, many comorbidities, a high MG-ADL score, and use of a variety of immunosuppressants during COVID-19 may be more prone to severe symptoms.

Real-world severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with use of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies in Scotland

We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n = 137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n = 40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir. Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in children and adolescents aged 12-17 years following SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection: A target trial emulation

Currently there is a lack of randomized trial data examining the use of the antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in paediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This target trial emulation study aims to address this gap by evaluating the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized paediatric patients aged 12-17 years with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. Among paediatric patients diagnosed between 16th March 2022 and 5th February 2023, exposure was defined as outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment within 5 days of symptom onset or COVID-19 diagnosis. Primary outcome was 28 day all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization, while secondary outcomes were 28 day in-hospital disease progression, 28 day COVID-19-specific hospitalization, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), acute liver injury, acute renal failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Overall, 49,378 eligible paediatric patients were included. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28 day all-cause hospitalization (absolute risk reduction = 0.23%, 95%CI = 0.19%-0.31%; relative risk = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.56-0.71). No events of mortality, in-hospital disease progression, or adverse clinical outcomes were observed among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users. The findings confirmed the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing all-cause hospitalization risk among non-hospitalized pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection.

Natural hyperoside extracted from hawthorn exhibits antiviral activity against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus in vitro and in vivo

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) causes severe diarrhea and death in piglets, resulting in significant economic losses for the pork industry. There is an urgent need for new treatment strategies. Here, we focused on optimizing the process of purifying natural hyperoside (nHYP) from hawthorn and evaluating its effectiveness against PEDV both in vitro and in vivo. Our findings demonstrated that nHYP with a purity >98% was successfully isolated from hawthorn with an extraction rate of 0.42 mg/g. Furthermore, nHYP exhibited strong inhibitory effects on PEDV replication in cells, with a selection index of 9.72. nHYP significantly reduced the viral load in the intestines of piglets and protected three of four piglets from death caused by PEDV infection. Mechanistically, nHYP could intervene in the interaction of PEDV N protein and p53. The findings implicate nHYP as having promising therapeutic potential for combating PEDV infections.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of available data on molnupiravir come from an unvaccinated COVID-19 population. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to integrate evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies stratified by vaccination status to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs and 5 observational studies in our meta-analysis. Molnupiravir reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20-0.79, I2 = 0%) but did not decrease the hospitalization rate (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-1.00, I2 = 53%) in the overall population; in the immunized population, no benefits were observed. Molnupiravir lowered the rate of no recovery (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76-0.81, I2 = 0%) and increased virological clearance at day 5 (RR 2.68; 95% CI: 1.94-4.22, I2 = 85%). There was no increase in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir does not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in immunized patients with COVID-19. However, it does shorten the disease course and increases the recovery rate. The use of molnupiravir will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the prevailing social circumstances, the resource setting, drug costs, and the healthcare burden.

Joint analysis of vaccination effectiveness and antiviral drug effectiveness for COVID-19: a causal inference approach

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to estimate the causal effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations in the prevention of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 in an integrative setting with both antivirals and vaccinations considered as interventions.

METHODS

We identified hospitalized adult patients (i.e. aged 18 or above) in Hong Kong with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 16, 2022, and December 31, 2022. An inverse probability-weighted (IPW) Andersen-Gill model with time-dependent predictors was used to address immortal time bias and produce causal estimates for the protection effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations against severe COVID-19.

RESULTS

Given prescription is made within 5 days of confirmed infection, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is more effective in providing protection against all-cause mortality and development into severe COVID-19 than molnupiravir. There was no significant difference between CoronaVac and Comirnaty in the effectiveness of reducing all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of oral antivirals and vaccinations causes lower risks of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 for hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Molnupiravir Use Among Patients with COVID-19 in Real-World Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Molnupiravir (MOV) is an oral antiviral for the treatment of individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progression to severe disease. Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of evidence on the effectiveness of MOV in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in real-world outpatient settings.

METHODS

The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and using pre-determined population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time, and study design inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were published between January 1, 2021, and March 10, 2023, and evaluated the real-world effectiveness of MOV compared to no treatment in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes among outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Nine studies from five countries were included in the review. The size of the MOV-treated group ranged from 359 to 7818 individuals. Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 were dominant in all study periods. Most studies noted differences in the baseline characteristics of the MOV-treated and untreated control groups, with the treated groups generally being older and with more comorbidities. Eight studies reported that treatment with MOV was associated with a significantly reduced risk of at least one severe COVID-19 outcome in at least one age group, with greater benefits consistently observed among older age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this SLR study, treatment with MOV was effective in reducing the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, especially for older individuals. Differences in the ages and baseline comorbidities of the MOV-treated and control groups may have led to underestimation of the effectiveness of MOV in many observational studies. Real-world studies published to date thus provide additional evidence supporting the continued benefits of MOV in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Combination of spironolactone and DPP-4 inhibitors for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a literature review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still causing hospitalization and death, and vaccination appears to become less effective with each emerging variant. Spike, non-spike, and other possible unrecognized mutations have reduced the efficacy of recommended therapeutic approaches, including monoclonal antibodies, plasma transfusion, and antivirals. SARS-CoV-2 binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and probably dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) to initiate the process of endocytosis by employing host proteases such as transmembrane serine protease-2 (TMPRSS-2) and ADAM metallopeptidase domain 17 (ADAM17). Spironolactone reduces the amount of soluble ACE2 and antagonizes TMPRSS-2 and ADAM17. DPP-4 inhibitors play immunomodulatory roles and may block viral entry. The efficacy of treatment with a combination of spironolactone and DPP-4 inhibitors does not appear to be affected by viral mutations. Therefore, the combination of spironolactone and DPP-4 inhibitors might improve the clinical outcome for COVID-19 patients by decreasing the efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells and providing better anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and antifibrotic effects than those achieved using current therapeutic approaches such as antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.

Symptoms, Viral Loads, and Rebound Among COVID-19 Outpatients Treated With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Compared With Propensity Score-Matched Untreated Individuals

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R treatment and similar untreated individuals.

METHODS

We identified symptomatic participants who tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study. Index cases from ambulatory settings and their households contacts were enrolled. We collected daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative polymerase chain reaction for 10 days during March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R treatment (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R treatment completion or 7 days after symptom onset if untreated.

RESULTS

Treated (n = 130) and untreated participants (n = 241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; P = .009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; P < .001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; P = .5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who completed N/R treatment experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but rebound occured more often compared with untreated individuals. Providers should prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate rebound risk to patients.

Real-World Efficacy of Ensitrelvir in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in Japan: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitates continuously evaluating antiviral treatments, especially for high-risk groups, including older individuals. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three antiviral drugs, including remdesivir, molnupiravir, and ensitrelvir, in hospitalized patients as measured by our own institution's antigen test, focusing on outcomes, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen levels, hospitalization duration, and fever resolution.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted at Yoshida Hospital, Asahikawa City, Japan, enrolling 154 patients who received antiviral treatment upon COVID-19 diagnosis from July 1, 2022, to September 15, 2023. The diagnosis was confirmed by proprietary antigen tests or loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays. Patients who received treatment outside the hospital or with consistently negative antigen results were excluded. Drug administration was determined by attending physicians, considering oral administration challenges and renal dysfunction. The data were statistically analyzed using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test and one-way analysis of variance complemented by the Tukey post-hoc test for detailed group comparisons.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the initial antigen levels among the treatment groups. By day 10, the ensitrelvir group showed lower antigen levels than the other groups, but not significantly. The ensitrelvir group had a higher antigen-negative conversion rate and a significantly shorter hospital stay than the molnupiravir group. However, no significant differences were noted in the fever resolution time among the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests the potential benefits of ensitrelvir in reducing antigen levels and hospitalization duration. However, the overall efficacy of the antiviral agents for symptomatic relief appears similar. These findings underscore the need for further research to optimize COVID-19 management by considering personalized treatment approaches and long-term outcomes.

New conjugates based on N4-hydroxycytidine with more potent antiviral efficacy in vitro than EIDD-2801 against SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses

The spread of COVID-19 continues due to genetic variation in SARS-CoV-2. Highly mutated variants of SARS-CoV-2 have an increased transmissibility and immune evasion. Due to the emergence of various new variants of the virus, there is an urgent need to develop broadly effective specific drugs for therapeutic strategies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Molnupiravir (EIDD-2801, MK-4482), is an orally bioavailable ribonucleoside analogue of β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC), has demonstrated efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and was recently approved for COVID-19 treatment. To improve antiviral potency of NHC, we developed a panel of NHC conjugates with lipophilic vectors and ester derivatives with amino- and carboxylic-acids. Most of the synthesized compounds had comparable or higher (2-20 times) antiviral activity than EIDD-2801, against different lineages of SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, seasonal coronaviruses OC43 and 229E, as well as bovine coronavirus. For further studies, we assessed the most promising compound in terms of activity, simplicity and cost of synthesis - NHC conjugate with phenylpropionic acid (SN_9). SN_9 has shown high efficacy in prophylactic, therapeutic and transmission models of COVID-19 infection in hamsters. Importantly, SN_9 profoundly inhibited virus replication in the lower respiratory tract of hamsters and transgenic mice infected with the Omicron sublineages XBB.1.9.1, XBB.1.16 and EG.5.1.1. These data indicate that SN_9 represents a promising antiviral drug candidate for COVID-19 treatment, and NHC modification strategies deserve further investigation as an approach to develop prodrugs against various coronaviruses.

Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for the Prevention of COVID-19-Related Hospitalization and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high risk of progression to severe disease (eg, hospitalization and death). Despite being the preferred option for outpatient treatment in the majority of countries worldwide, NMV/r is currently underutilized in real-world clinical practice.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

As numerous real-world studies have described patient outcomes following treatment with NMV/r, this systematic literature review provides a comprehensive summary of evidence on NMV/r effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality further organized by clinically meaningful categories, such as acute versus longer-term follow-up, age, underlying health conditions, and vaccination status, to help inform health care decision making.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Embase and PubMed (December 22, 2021-March 31, 2023) and congress abstracts (December 1, 2021-December 31, 2022) for reports describing NMV/r effectiveness.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

In total, 18 real-world studies met final selection criteria. The evidence showed that NMV/r significantly reduced postinfection risk of all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in both acute (≤30 days) (21%-92%) and longer-term (>30 days) (1%-61%) follow-up. The reduction in postinfection risk was higher when treatment was received within 5 days of symptom onset. Real-world effectiveness of NMV/r treatment was observed regardless of age, underlying high-risk conditions, and vaccination status.

CONCLUSION

The systematic literature review findings demonstrated the effectiveness of NMV/r against hospitalization and mortality during the Omicron period among individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease.

Real-world application of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with onset of symptoms beyond 5 days: a comparative study

PURPOSE

Physicians may administer Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to patients who have been symptomatic for more than 5 days. There is currently no clear evidence to support this approach.

METHODS

A real-world study was conducted to investigate the potential relationship between the administration of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and the rates of intubation or in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients who experienced symptoms for more than 5 days. The end point was a composite event of intubation or in-hospital mortality. The outcomes between those patients who received Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who did not were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 847 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, 312 patients (36.84%) received Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Within the entire population, 86 patients (10.15%) experienced intubation or in-hospital mortality. The main analysis indicated that there was a significant association between the application of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and intubation or in-hospital mortality, with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.87; P = 0.0153) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The finding was consistent with multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who experienced symptoms for more than 5 days as compared to those who did not receive the treatment.

Review: The Landscape of Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19 in the Era of Widespread Population Immunity and Omicron-Lineage Viruses

The goals of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral therapy early in the pandemic were to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As these outcomes have become infrequent in the age of widespread population immunity, the objectives have shifted. For the general population, COVID-19-directed antiviral therapy should decrease symptom severity and duration and minimize infectiousness, and for immunocompromised individuals, antiviral therapy should reduce severe outcomes and persistent infection. The increased recognition of virologic rebound following ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NMV/r) and the lack of randomized controlled trial data showing benefit of antiviral therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for standard-risk, vaccinated individuals remain major knowledge gaps. Here, we review data for selected antiviral agents and immunomodulators currently available or in late-stage clinical trials for use in outpatients. We do not review antibody products, convalescent plasma, systemic corticosteroids, IL-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, or agents that lack Food and Drug Administration approval or emergency use authorization or are not appropriate for outpatients.

The effectiveness of novel oral antiviral treatment for non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during predominance of omicron XBB subvariants

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the association between nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) or molnupiravir and the outcomes of non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during Omicron XBB subvariants.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX US collaborative network to identify non-hospitalized high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 between 1 February 2023, and 31 August 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients receiving NMV-r or MOV (the study group) with those not receiving antivirals (the control group).

RESULTS

Using PSM, two cohorts of 17,654 patients each with balanced baseline characteristics were identified. During the follow-up period, the study group had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, or death (3.2% [n = 564] versus 3.8% [n = 669]; HR, 0.796; 95% confidence interval [CI], 95% CI, 0.712-0.891). Compared with the control group, the study group had a significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (3.1% vs. 3.4%; HR, 0.847; 95% CI, 0.754-0.950) and mortality (0.1% vs. 0.4%; HR, 0.295; 95% CI, 0.183-0.476).

CONCLUSION

The use of novel oral antiviral including NMV-r or MOV can be associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization, or death in non-hospitalized high-risk patients with COVID-19 during Omicron XBB wave.

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established.

METHODS

In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28.

RESULTS

Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Prevention and treatment strategies for kidney transplant recipients in the context of long-term existence of COVID-19

The sudden outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in early 2020 posed a massive threat to human life and caused an economic upheaval worldwide. Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) became susceptible to infection during the COVID-19 pandemic owing to their use of immunosuppressants, resulting in increased hospitalization and mortality rates. Although the current epidemic situation is alleviated, the long-term existence of COVID-19 still seriously threatens the life and health of KTRs with low immunity. The Omicron variant, a highly infectious but less-pathogenic strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has raised concerns among transplant physicians regarding managing KTRs diagnosed with this variant. However, currently, there are no clear and unified guidelines for caring for KTRs infected with this variant. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the ongoing research on drugs that can treat Omicron variant infections in KTRs and explore the potential of adjusting immunotherapy strategies to enhance their responsiveness to vaccines. Herein, we discuss the situation of KTRs since the emergence of COVID-19 and focus on various prevention and treatment strategies for KTRs since the Omicron variant outbreak. We hope to assist physicians in managing KTRs in the presence of long-term COVID-19 variants.

COVID-19 hospitalization risk after outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, January to August 2022, North Carolina

BACKGROUND

In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods.

RESULTS

Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.

Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes among the hospitalized elderly patients with COVID-19 during the late pandemic phase in central Taiwan

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information regarding outcomes of elderly patients hospitalized with COVID-19 following the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines and antiviral agents.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted between January and August 2022, enrolling patients aged 65 years or older. Patients were categorized into two groups: 'old' (65-79 years) and 'oldest-old' (80 years or more). Multivariate regression was employed to identify independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 797 patients were enrolled, including 428 old and 369 oldest-old patients. In each subgroup, 66.6 % and 59.6 % of patients received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. Approximately 40 % of the patients received oral antiviral agents either before or upon hospital admission. A greater percentage of the oldest-old patients received remdesivir (53.4 % versus 39.7 %, p < 0.001), dexamethasone (49.3 % versus 36.7 %, p < 0.001), and tocilizumab (10.0 % versus 6.8 %, p < 0.001) than old patients. The mortality rate was comparable between the two age subgroups (14 % versus 15.2 %). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included disease severity and comorbidities such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cirrhosis, solid tumours, and haematologic malignancies. Ageing was not correlated with increased in-hospital mortality across all comorbidity subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the later stages of the pandemic, with widespread vaccination and advancements in COVID-19 treatments, outcomes for hospitalized elderly and oldest-old patients with COVID-19 have improved. The influence of age on in-hospital mortality has diminished, while comorbidities such as ESRD, cirrhosis, solid tumours, and hematologic malignancies have been associated with mortality.

Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir combination against COVID-19 caused by omicron BA.2.2 in the elderly: A single-center large observational study

BACKGROUND

Since coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) swept the world, a variety of novel therapeutic and prevention strategies have been developed, among which nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is highly recommended. We intended to assess the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the elderly mild-to-moderate COVID-19 population caused by the omicron BA.2.2 variant in real-world settings.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted retrospectively to review the outcomes of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients admitted between April 26 and June 30, 2022. Patients' baseline characteristics were collected and assessed. Participants in the intervention group were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in addition to standard care, whereas those in the control group only received standard care. The primary outcome was the duration between the initial positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and the subsequent conversion to a negative result.

RESULTS

The analysis included 324 patients who were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and an equal number of control patients. The patient characteristics in both groups were evenly matched. The average duration from the initial positive RT-PCR to negative conversion was similar in both groups (16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 16.1 ± 6.3 days, p = .83). Control patients exhibited slower conversion in comparison to patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment within 10 days of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that administering nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 10 days of symptom onset could potentially reduce the time it takes for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients to negative RT-PCR results, thereby expanding the current usage guidelines for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Predictors of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir receipt among COVID-19 patients in a large US health system

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.

Early administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir leads to faster negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs than monoclonal antibodies in COVID 19 patients at high-risk for severe disease

PURPOSE

Besides the well-established efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19, the impact of early treatments, namely antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), on the time length to negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different early treatments in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding, identifying a single drug that might potentially lead to a more rapid negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study conducted at Ospedale Luigi Sacco in Milan. Data of high-risk COVID-19 patients who received early treatments between 23 December 2021 and March 2023 were extracted. The comparison across treatments was conducted using the Kruskall-Wallis test for continuous variables. Dunn's test with Bonferroni adjustment was performed for post-hoc comparisons of days to negativization. Secondly, a negative binomial regression adjusted for age, sex, number of comorbidities, immunosuppression, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status was implemented.

RESULTS

Data from 428 patients receiving early treatments were collected. The majority were treated with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and were affected by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection with BA.2 sublineage. The median length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization was 9 days [IQR 7-13 days]. We found that Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir determined a significant decrease of the length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization compared to mAbs (p = 0.003), but not compared to Remdesivir (p = 0.147) and Molnupiravir (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the importance of promptly treating high-risk COVID-19 patients with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, as it also contributes to achieving a faster time to negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs.

Comparison of Bivalent and Monovalent mRNA Vaccine Boosters

In this cohort study conducted in Hong Kong where both bivalent and monovalent formulations of BNT162b2 were available, there were no significant differences in the mortality or hospitalization between those who received bivalent and monovalent mRNA as second boosters. Bivalent and monovalent mRNA boosters appear equally protective against clinical outcomes.

Physician characteristics associated with antiviral prescriptions for older adults with COVID-19 in Japan: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Although guidelines recommend antiviral therapy for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to severe conditions, such as older adults, many patients do not receive appropriate treatment. Little is known, however, about the physician factors associated with the prescription of guideline-recommended antiviral therapy for patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Data including outpatient visits in primary care clinics in Japan from April to August 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

We analysed 30 953 outpatients aged ≥65 years treated with COVID-19 (mean (SD) age, 75.0 (7.6) years; 17 652 women (57.0%)) in 1394 primary care clinics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the prescription of guideline-recommended antivirals (ie, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir), adjusted for patient characteristics, months of visits and regions.

RESULTS

Antiviral prescriptions were concentrated among a small proportion of physicians; for example, the top 10% of physicians that had the largest number of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions accounted for 92.4% of all nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions. After adjusting for potential confounders, physicians with higher patient volumes were more likely to prescribe guideline-recommended antivirals to their patients (adjusted OR (aOR) for high vs low volume, 1.76; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.38; adjusted p<0.001). We found no evidence that the likelihood of guideline-recommended antiviral prescription differed based on physicians' gender (aOR for women vs men, 1.24; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.74; adjusted p=0.48) or age (aOR for 45-59 vs <45 years, 1.16; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.54; adjusted p=0.48; aOR for ≥60 vs <45 years, 0.88; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16; adjusted p=0.48). These patterns were similar when examining nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that provider-level factors, such as the clinical experience of treating the patients with COVID-19, play an important role in the appropriate prescription of antiviral medications for COVID-19 in the primary care setting.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infections among Vaccinated Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients: Outcomes and Comparison to Delta Variant

BACKGROUND

Infections with B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants of SARS-CoV-2 became predominant worldwide since late 2021, replacing the previously dominant B.1.617.2 variant (Delta). While those variants are highly transmissible and can evade vaccine protection, population studies suggested that outcomes from infection with Omicron variants are better compared with Delta. Data regarding prognosis of maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients infected with Omicron versus Delta variants, however, are scarce.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes all patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with MHD in Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel, that were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between June 2021 and May 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects were diagnosed with the Delta variant and 71 with Omicron. Despite comparable age between groups and higher mean vaccine doses prior to the infection among the Omicron group (p < 0.001), SARS-CoV-2 infection severity was significantly worse among MHD infected with the Delta variant: 50% developed severe or critical COVID-19 versus 5% in the Omicron group (p < 0.001). Over half of MHD infected with Omicron (57%) were asymptomatic during their illness. The 30-day mortality rate for the whole cohort was 5.2%. It was significantly higher among MHD in the Delta group than in the Omicron group (5/26, 19.2% vs. 0/71, p < 0.001), as was the 90-day mortality rate (5/26, 19.2% vs. 3/71, 4.2%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was associated with worse outcomes compared with Omicron, among subjects on MHD. However, despite mild disease among vaccinated MHD patients, infection with Omicron variant was still associated with the significant 90-day mortality rate.

Comparing Molnupiravir to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression by 88% compared to placebo, while Molnupiravir reduced it by 31%. However, these two agents have not been compared head-to-head. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of both agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients.

METHODS

We identified 240 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Patients were matched using a 1:2 ratio based on age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65) and type of cancer. The collected data included demographics, comorbidities, and treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable characteristics and presenting symptoms. However, dyspnea was more prevalent in the Molnupiravir group, while sore throat was more prevalent in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir group. The rate of disease progression was comparable in both groups by univariate and multivariable analysis. Treatment with Molnupiravir versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir revealed no significant difference in disease progression by multivariable analysis (adjusted OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.14, p = 0.70). Patients who received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, however, were significantly more prone to having drug-drug interactions/adverse events (30% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in cancer patients, Molnupiravir was comparable to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in preventing progression to severe disease/death and rebound events, and it had a superior safety profile.

Counterfactual analysis of the 2023 Omicron XBB wave in China

Background

China has experienced a COVID-19 wave caused by Omicron XBB variant starting in April 2023. Our aim is to conduct a retrospective analysis exploring the dynamics of the outbreak under counterfactual scenarios that combine the use of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Methods

We developed a mathematical model of XBB transmission in China, which has been calibrated using SARS-CoV-2 positive rates per week. Intrinsic age-specific infection-hospitalization risk, infection-ICU risk, and infection-fatality risk were used to estimate disease burdens, characterized as number of hospital admissions, ICU admissions, and deaths.

Results

We estimated that in absence of behavioral change, the XBB outbreak in spring 2023 would have resulted in 0.86 billion infections (∼61% of the total population). Our counterfactual analysis shows that the synergetic effect of vaccination (70% vaccination coverage), antiviral treatment (20% receiving antiviral treatment), and moderate nonpharmaceutical interventions (20% isolation and L1 PHSMs) could reduce the number of deaths to levels close to seasonal influenza (1.17 vs. 0.65 per 10,000 individuals and 5.85 vs. 3.85 per 10,000 individuals aged 60+, respectively). The maximum peak prevalence of hospital and ICU admissions are estimated to be lower than the corresponding capacities (8.6 vs. 10.4 per 10,000 individuals and 1.2 vs. 2.1 per 10,000 individuals, respectively).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the capacity of the Chinese healthcare system was adequate to face the Omicron XBB wave in spring 2023 but, at the same time, supports the importance of administering highly effective vaccine with long-lasting immune response, and the use of antiviral treatments.