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

Molnupiravir: A Versatile Prodrug against SARS-CoV-2 Variants

The nucleoside analog β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine is the active metabolite of the prodrug molnupiravir and is accepted as an efficient drug against COVID-19. Molnupiravir targets the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme, which is responsible for replicating the viral genome during the replication process of certain types of viruses. It works by disrupting the normal function of the RdRp enzyme, causing it to make mistakes during the replication of the viral genome. These mistakes can prevent the viral RNA from being transcribed, converted into a complementary DNA template, translated, or converted into a functional protein. By disrupting these crucial steps in the viral replication process, molnupiravir can effectively inhibit the replication of the virus and reduce its ability to cause disease. This review article sheds light on the impact of molnupiravir and its metabolite on SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, such as delta, omicron, and hybrid/recombinant variants. The detailed mechanism and molecular interactions using molecular docking and dynamics have also been covered. The safety and tolerability of molnupiravir in patients with comorbidities have also been emphasized.

Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir and COVID-19 outcomes in the age of Omicron variant

Nirmatrelvir boosted with Ritonavir is the recommended and preferred treatment for COVID-19. Because real-world evidence of Nirmatrelvir's antiviral activity against the Omicron variation is minimal, our study focuses on recent papers suggesting the use of Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir in the real world against the most frequent SARS coronavirus variant circulating worldwide (Omicron). Despite sparse clinical evidence, we discovered that Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir reduced COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality during the onset of the Omicron variant. Furthermore, this study discusses the main limitations and offers recommendations for administering this drug in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients at high risk for severe infection.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Molnupiravir for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19 in Adult Patients during the Dominance of the Omicron Variant: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic impact of molnupiravir in the Omicron variant phase is unknown. The goal of the current meta-analysis was to compare the real-world clinical outcomes of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 during the dominance of the Omicron variant in adult patients to that of a placebo.

METHODS

To be included, studies had to directly compare the clinical effectiveness of molnupiravir in treating adult COVID-19 patients to that of a placebo. Studies were included based on the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, composite outcome of disease progression, hospitalization rate, and viral load.

RESULTS

The current meta-analysis included six studies that indicated that the risk of mortality was reduced by 34%, and the risk of composite outcome of disease progression was reduced by 37% among patients who received molnupiravir. Molnupiravir was associated with faster reduction in viral loads than the placebo. There was no clinical benefit of reducing all-cause mortality in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients with high COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

CONCLUSION

The clinical effectiveness of molnupiravir was associated with COVID-19 vaccination coverage in COVID-19 patients. There is a lack of detailed data on its effectiveness in vaccinated patients, especially those with low COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDY OF GENERIC MOLNUPIRAVIR IN HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS

Molnupiravir is one of the drugs for the etiotropic therapy of a new coronavirus infection COVID-19. It has confirmed its clinical efficacy in the treatment of patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, including those who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease.

The aim of the study was to evaluate bioequivalence of the generic drug molnupiravir ALARIO-TL and the original drug Lagevrio with a single oral administration in healthy volunteers.

Materials and methods. This bioequivalence study was an open, randomized, two-period crossover study. In each of the two periods, volunteers received a single dose of the test drug, or reference drug molnupiravir, in the form of capsules at the dose of 200 mg. The washout period between the doses was 3 days. To determine pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and bioequivalence, the concentration the concentration of N-hydrozycytidine (NHC), the main molnupiravir metabolit in the blood plasma of volunteers was evaluated. The blood plasma sampling was carried out in the range from 0 to 16 hours in each of the study periods. Bioequivalence was assessed by comparing 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means of AUC(0–16) and Cmax of the test drug and reference drugs with the established equivalence limits of 80.00 – 125.00%.

Results. A total of 28 healthy male volunteers were included in the study. According to the results of the statistical analysis, after the administration of the test and reference drugs, the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC (0–16) and Cmax were 96.31% – 113.64% and 91.37% – 114.8%, respectively. These intervals fit within the established limits of 80.00–125.00%, which confirms the bioequivalence of the drugs. When comparing the frequency of the individual adverse events registration, no significant differences were found out after the administration of the test and reference drugs.

Conclusion. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the test and reference drugs of molnupiravir are bioequivalent. In addition, the data obtained indicate that the drugs have similar safety profiles.

Nirmatrelvir and COVID-19: development, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, resistance, relapse, and pharmacoeconomics

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) is one of the most effective antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2. The preclinical development, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of N/R are reviewed herein. Randomized clinical trials have been conducted exclusively with pre-Omicron variants of concern, but in vitro studies show that efficacy against all Omicron sublineages is preserved, as confirmed by post-marketing observational studies. Nevertheless, investigations of large viral genome repositories have shown that mutation in the main protease causing resistance to N/R are increasingly frequent. In addition, virological and clinical rebounds after N/R discontinuation have been reported in immunocompetent patients. This finding is of concern when translated to immunocompromised patients, in whom N/R efficacy has not been formally investigated in clinical trials. Economical sustainability and perspectives for this therapeutic arena are discussed.

Real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron BA.2 variant in a SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive population

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has demonstrated enhanced transmissibility and escape of vaccine-derived immunity. Although first-generation vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death, robust evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against all Omicron infections, irrespective of symptoms, remains sparse. We used a community-wide serosurvey with 5,310 subjects to estimate how vaccination histories modulated risk of infection in infection-naive Hong Kong during a large wave of Omicron BA.2 epidemic in January-July 2022. We estimated that Omicron infected 45% (41-48%) of the local population. Three and four doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were effective against Omicron infection 7 days after vaccination (VE of 48% (95% credible interval 34-64%) and 69% (46-98%) for three and four doses of BNT162b2, respectively; VE of 30% (1-66%) and 56% (6-97%) for three and four doses of CoronaVac, respectively). At 100 days after immunization, VE waned to 26% (7-41%) and 35% (10-71%) for three and four doses of BNT162b2, and to 6% (0-29%) and 11% (0-54%) for three and four doses of CoronaVac. The rapid waning of VE against infection conferred by first-generation vaccines and an increasingly complex viral evolutionary landscape highlight the necessity for rapidly deploying updated vaccines followed by vigilant monitoring of VE.

Efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) for COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the relevant evidence up to November 10, 2022. The reference lists of key studies were also scanned to find additional records. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane tools for assessing the risk of bias. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 was employed for data analysis. Twenty-three studies involving 314 353 patients were included in the analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between the Paxlovid and no-Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.45), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24-0.69), polymerase chain reaction negative conversion time (mean difference [MD] = -2.46; 95% CI: -4.31 to -0.61), and hospitalization or death rate (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.06-0.46). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.04), emergency department visit (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.45-1.24), intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.13-1.01), and adverse events (OR = 2.20; 95% CI: 0.42-11.47). The results of the present study support the efficacy and safety of Paxlovid in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to investigate the COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.

Weekly symptom profiles of nonhospitalized individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Omicron outbreak in Hong Kong: A retrospective observational study from a telemedicine center

Omicron BA.2.2 is the dominant variant in the Hong Kong outbreak since December 31, 2021. There is no study reporting the weekly symptom profile after infection. In this retrospective study, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after December 31, 2021, and registered in the telemedicine system between March 14 and May 6, 2022, were analyzed. Among registered 12 950 self-quarantined COVID-19-positive patients, 11 776 symptomatic patients were included for weekly symptom profile analysis. A total of 4718 (40.1%) patients reported symptoms in the first week after a positive test, 2501 (21.2%) in the second week, 1498 (12.7%) in the third week, 1048 (8.9%) in the fourth week, and 2011 (17.1%) in over 4 weeks. Cough was the most common symptom in all participants. Patients in the first week had higher odds of reporting fever (0.206, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.161-0.263, p < 0.001) and sore throat (0.228, 95% CI: 0.208-0.252, p < 0.001). Patients in over 4 weeks had higher odds of reporting fatigue (1.263, 95% CI: 1.139-1.402, p < 0.001). Further, having at least two vaccine doses linked to lower odds of having fever (0.675, 95% CI: 0.562-0.811, p < 0.001), but not associated with the presence of cough and fatigue. Diabetic patients had higher odds of reporting diarrhea (1.637, 95% CI: 1.351-1.982, p < 0.001). Symptoms from Omicron infection may last for more than 4 weeks and symptom profiles vary from week to week. Vaccination and comorbidity affect the symptom profiles.

The Outcome of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-Sand mRNA-1273 Vaccines and Two Boosters: A Prospective Longitudinal Real-World Study

To date, the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and booster doses has yet to be evaluated in longitudinal head-to-head studies. This single-center longitudinal study assessed the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and assessed two BNT162b2 boosters in 1550 participants, of whom 26% had comorbidities. In addition, the SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics was monitored. A group of 1500 unvaccinated subjects was included as the controls. The study's endpoint was the development of virologically-proven COVID-19 cases after vaccine completion, while the secondary endpoint was hospitalizations due to severe COVID-19. Overall, 23 (4.6%), 16 (3%), and 18 (3.8%) participants vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively, developed COVID-19 after vaccine completion, with an effectiveness of 89%, 92%, and 90%. Ten COVID-19 cases were reported in participants with comorbidities, three of whom were hospitalized. No hospitalizations occurred after boosters. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels peaked 2-4 weeks after the second vaccine dose but declined after a mean of 28.50 ± 3.48 weeks. Booster doses significantly enhanced antibody responses. Antibody titers ≤ 154 U/mL were associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 emergence. Thus, COVID-19 vaccines effectively reduced COVID-19 and prevented severe disease. The vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses declined after 28-32 weeks. Booster doses induced significant maintained responses. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels may help determine the timing and need for vaccine booster doses.

Is the 4C Score Still a Valid Item to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in People with SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the Omicron Variant Era?

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several scores have been proposed to identify infected individuals at a higher risk of progression and death. The most famous is the 4C score. However, it was developed in early 2020. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the 4C score during the wave in which the Omicron variant was prevalent. An observational study was conducted at an Italian University Hospital between 1 January and 31 July 2022. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of the 4C score to predict mortality. Overall, 1186 people were recruited, of which 160 (13.5%) died. According to the 4C score, 177 (11.6%) were classified as having a low risk of mortality, 302 (25.5%) were intermediate, 596 (50.3%) were high, and 151 (12.7%) were very high. The ROC curve of the 4C score showed an AUC (95% CI) value of 0.78 (0.74−0.82). At the criterion value of > 10, the sensitivity was 76.2% and the specificity was 62.67%. Similar to previous studies, the 4C mortality score performed well in our sample, and it is still a useful tool for clinicians to identify patients with a high risk of progression. However, clinicians must be aware that the mortality rate reported in the original studies was higher than that observed in our study.

Protective effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on COVID-19 in patients with chronic liver disease

Objective

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may reduce susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by downregulating angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), based on recent experimental investigation. This study aimed to determine the potential protective effect of UDCA against SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with chronic liver disease.

Methods

Patients with chronic liver disease receiving UDCA (taking UDCA ≥1 month) at Beijing Ditan Hospital between January 2022 and December 2022 were consecutively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio to those with liver disease not receiving UDCA during the same period by using a propensity score matching analysis with nearest neighbor matching algorithm. We conducted a phone survey of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection during the early phase of the pandemic liberation (from 15 December 2022 to 15 January 2023). The risk of COVID-19 was compared in two matched cohorts of 225 UDCA users and 225 non-UDCA users based on patient self-report.

Results

In the adjusted analysis, the control group was superior to the UDCA group in COVID-19 vaccination rates and liver function indicators, including γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.05). UDCA was associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (UDCA 85.3% vs. control 94.2%, p = 0.002), more mild cases (80.0% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.047), and shorter median time from infection to recovery (5 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that UDCA was a significant protective factor against COVID-19 infection (OR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.16-0.64, p = 0.001). Furthermore, diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.48, 95%CI: 1.11-5.54, p = 0.027) and moderate/severe infection (OR: 8.94, 95%CI: 1.07-74.61, p = 0.043) were more likely to prolong the time from infection to recovery.

Conclusion

UDCA therapy may be beneficial in reducing COVID-19 infection risk, alleviating symptoms, and shortening the recovery time in patients with chronic liver disease. However, it should be emphasized that the conclusions were based on patient self-report rather than classical COVID-19 detection by experimental investigations. Further large clinical and experimental studies are needed to validate these findings.

Impact of Early SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Therapy on Disease Progression

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several treatments have been proposed to prevent the progression of the disease. Currently, three antiviral (molnupiravir, nirmaltrevir/r, remdesivir) and two monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab) are available in Italy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the presence of risk factors associated with disease progression. We conducted a retrospective cohort study, including all patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 evaluated between 01/01/2022 ad 10/05/2022 by our Unit of Infectious Diseases in Sassari. We defined disease progression as the necessity of starting O2 therapy. According to AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency) indications, preventive treatment was prescribed in patients with recent symptoms onset (≤five days), no need for oxygen supplementation, and risk factors for disease progression. Subgroup differences in quantitative variables were evaluated using Student's t-test. Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess differences for qualitative variables. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was performed to determine factors associated with progression. A two-tailed p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 17 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). We included 1145 people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, of which 336 (29.3%) developed severe disease with oxygen supplementation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, age, dementia, haematologic tumors, heart failure, dyspnoea or fever at first evaluation, having ground glass opacities or consolidation at the first CT scan, and bacteria coinfection were associated with an increased risk of disease progression. Vaccination (at least two doses) and early treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies were associated with a lower risk of disease progression. In conclusion, our study showed that vaccination and early treatment with antiviral and/or monoclonal antibodies significantly reduce the risk of disease progression.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for a prolonged length of stay of patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 during the wave of Omicron from Shanghai, China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the clinical characteristics and the length of hospital stay (LOS), as well as risk factors for prolonged LOS in a cohort of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 patients infected with the Omicron variant.

METHODS

A total of 1166 COVID-19 patients discharged from the inpatient ward of the largest makeshift hospital (May 8-10, 2022) in Shanghai, China, were included. The demographics, medical history, and the lowest and admission cycle threshold (Ct) values of the RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 genes of the open reading frame 1ab (Ct-ORF) and the nucleocapsid protein (Ct-N) during hospitalization were recorded. Patients with LOS > 7 days, or LOS ≤ 7 days were included in the Prolonged group or the Control group, separately. The clinical characteristics and LOS of the participants in the two groups were described and compared. Multivariate Logistic and linear regression analyses were applied to explore the risk factors for prolonged LOS. The diagnostic efficacy of the lowest and admission Ct values for the Prolonged group was tested via the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The median LOS was 6 days in the total study population. The age was older (45.52 ± 14.78 vs. 42.54 ± 15.30, P = 0.001), while both the lowest and admission Ct-ORF (27.68 ± 3.88 vs. 37.00 ± 4.62, P < 0.001; 30.48 ± 5.03 vs. 37.79 ± 3.81, P < 0.001) and Ct-N (25.79 ± 3.60 vs. 36.06 ± 5.39, P < 0.001; 28.71 ± 4.95 vs. 36.95 ± 4.59, P < 0.001) values were significantly lower in the Prolonged group. There were more mild cases in the Prolonged group (23.8% vs. 11.5%, P < 0.001). The symptom spectrum differed between the two groups. In multivariate analyses, age, disease category, and the lowest Ct-N values were shown to be associated with prolonged LOS. Besides, both the lowest and admission Ct-ORF (AUC = 0.911 and 0.873) and Ct-N (AUC = 0.912 and 0.874) showed robust diagnostic efficacy for prolonged LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study firstly reports the clinical characteristics and risk factors for prolonged LOS during the wave of the Omicron epidemic in Shanghai, China. These findings provide evidence for the early identification of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 patients at a high risk of prolonged hospitalization who may require early intervention, and long-term monitoring and management.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir among U.S. Veterans: target trial emulation studies with one-month and six-month outcomes

Background

Information about the effectiveness of oral antivirals in preventing short- and long-term COVID-19-related outcomes during the Omicron surge is limited. We sought to determine the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted three retrospective target trial emulation studies comparing matched patient cohorts who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment, molnupiravir versus no treatment, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus molnupiravir in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Participants were Veterans in VHA care at risk for severe COVID-19 who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the outpatient setting during January and February 2022. Primary outcomes included all-cause 30-day hospitalization or death and 31-180-day incidence of acute or long-term care admission, death, or post-COVID-19 conditions. For 30-day outcomes, we calculated unadjusted risk rates, risk differences, and risk ratios. For 31-180-day outcomes, we used unadjusted time-to-event analyses.

Results

Participants were 90% male with median age 67 years and 26% unvaccinated. Compared to matched untreated controls, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir-treated participants (N=1,587) had a lower 30-day risk of hospitalization (27.10/1000 versus 41.06/1000, risk difference [RD] - 13.97, 95% CI -23.85 to -4.09) and death (3.15/1000 versus 14.86/1000, RD -11.71, 95% CI - 16.07 to -7.35). Among persons who were alive at day 31, further significant reductions in 31-180-day incidence of hospitalization (sub-hazard ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.37) or death (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.08) were not observed. Molnupiravir-treated participants aged ≥65 years (n=543) had a lower combined 30-day risk of hospitalization or death (55.25/1000 versus 82.35/1000, RD -27.10, 95% CI -50.63 to -3.58). A statistically significant difference in 30-day or 31-180-day risk of hospitalization or death was not observed between matched nirmatrelvir- or molnupiravir-treated participants. Incidence of most post-COVID conditions was similar across comparison groups.

Conclusions

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was highly effective in preventing 30-day hospitalization and death. Short-term benefit from molnupiravir was observed in older groups. Significant reductions in adverse outcomes from 31-180 days were not observed with either antiviral.

Drugs for COVID-19: An Update

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the seventh known human coronavirus, and it was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, in 2020. It caused the highly contagious disease called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. A great number of studies in the search of new therapies and vaccines have been carried out in these three long years, producing a series of successes; however, the need for more effective vaccines, therapies and other solutions is still being pursued. This review represents a tracking shot of the current pharmacological therapies used for the treatment of COVID-19.

Oral Antiviral Treatment for COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir

Despite the rapid development of efficient and safe vaccines against COVID-19, the need to confine the pandemic and treat infected individuals on an outpatient basis has led to the approval of oral antiviral agents. Taking into account the viral kinetic pattern of SARS-CoV-2, it is of high importance to intervene at the early stages of the disease. A protease inhibitor called nirmatrelvir coupled with ritonavir (NMV/r), which acts as a CYP3A inhibitor, delivered as an oral formulation, has shown much promise in preventing disease progression in high-risk patients with no need for supplemental oxygen administration. Real-world data seem to confirm the drug combination's efficacy and safety against all viral variants of concern in adult populations. Although, not fully clarified, viral rebound and recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms have been described following treatment; however, more data on potential resistance issues concerning the Mpro gene, which acts as the drug's therapeutic target, are needed. NMV/r has been a gamechanger in the fight against the pandemic by preventing hospitalizations and halting disease severity; therefore, more research on future development and greater awareness on its use are warranted.

MODERN DIRECTED ANTIVIRAL COVID-19 THERAPY: RESULTS OF MULTICENTER CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY STUDY OF FIXED NIRMATRELVIR+RITONAVIR COMBINATION

The article presents the data from an open, two-stage, multicenter study on the efficacy and safety evaluation of a combined drug (a fixed combination of nirmatrelvir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg) in the complex therapy in COVID-19 patients.

The aim of the study was to assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic parameters of the fixed combination of nirmatrelvir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in healthy volunteers, the efficacy and safety assessment of the drug in the combination therapy compared with the standard therapy in COVID-19 patients.

Material and methods. An open two-stage multicenter clinical study to assess the main pharmacokinetic parameters, safety, and efficacy against COVID-19 of the drug nirmatrelvir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg combination (Skyvira® PROMOMED RUS LLC, Russia) in the adult population, included 2 stages. At stage 1, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated in healthy volunteers (over 18 years of age) in order to confirm their comparability with the literature data known for a set of active substances. Phase 2 assessed efficacy and safety in COVID-19 patients. As a part of the second stage, the study involved 264 patients (men and women aged 18 to 80 years), who had been divided into two groups. The first group patients (n=132) received the study drugs (nirmatrelvir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg) – 1 tablet twice a day with an interval of 12±2 hours for 5 days in combination with pathogenetic and symptomatic therapy. The second group patients (n=132) received standard therapy in accordance with the approved Temporary Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Infection (Version 15 dated February 22, 2022).

Results. During the study, none of the patients from the (nirmatrelvir + ritonavir) group experienced a transition of the COVID-19 course to a heavier severity level, in contrast to the patients in the standard therapy group. The study participants included patients with comorbidities (68% of the general population), with risk factors for COVID-19 progression to a heavier severity level and the risk of hospitalization (75% of the general population). There were no cases of COVID-19 progression to a heavier severity level in the study drug group. By the 6th day, in the nirmatrelvir + ritonavir group, the proportion of the patients who had achieved a complete recovery was twice more and amounted to 35.61% (p=0.0001), and the proportion of the patients with a negative RNA analysis to SARS-CoV-2 was 20% higher than in the comparison group, and amounted to 82.58% (p=0.0001). The fixed nirmatrelvir + ritonavir combination therapy has a favorable safety profile comparable to the standard therapy. The identified adverse reactions were transient in nature and did not require discontinuation of therapy or changes in the treatment regimen.

Conclusion. The fixed nirmatrelvir + ritonavir combination has a favorable safety profile in COVID-19 patients, comparable to the standard therapy. The data obtained demonstrate a clinical and pharmacoeconomic feasibility of including the fixed (nirmatrelvir + ritonavir) combination in the COVID-19 treatment regimen.