Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

High-throughput screening identifies broad-spectrum Coronavirus entry inhibitors

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for antivirals against emerging coronaviruses (CoV). Inhibiting spike (S) glycoprotein-mediated viral entry is a promising strategy. To identify small molecule inhibitors that block entry downstream of receptor binding, we established a high-throughput screening (HTS) platform based on pseudoviruses. We employed a three-step process to screen nearly 200,000 small molecules. First, we identified hits that inhibit pseudoviruses bearing the SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein. Counter-screening against pseudoviruses with the vesicular stomatitis virus glycoprotein (VSV-G), yielded sixty-five SARS-CoV-2 S-specific inhibitors. These were further tested against pseudoviruses bearing the MERS-CoV S glycoprotein, which uses a different receptor. Out of these, five compounds, which included the known broad-spectrum inhibitor Nafamostat, were subjected to further validation and tested against pseudoviruses bearing the S glycoprotein of the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants as well as bona fide SARS-CoV-2. This rigorous approach revealed an unreported inhibitor and its derivative as potential broad-spectrum antivirals.

Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2).

METHODS

A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.

Economic Evaluation of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Among Adults Against Hospitalization During the Omicron Dominated Period in Malaysia: A Real-World Evidence Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was administered orally to manage mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 in adult patients. The objectives of this study were to (i) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within 5 days of a COVID-19 illness in order to avert hospitalization within a 30-day period in the Malaysia setting; (ii) determine how variations in pricing and hospitalization rates will affect the cost-effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

METHODS

The 30-day hospitalization related to COVID-19 was determined using 1 to 1 propensity score-matched real-world data in Malaysia from 14 July 2022 to 14 November 2022. To determine the total per-person costs related to COVID-19, we added the cost of drug (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or control), clinic visits and inpatient care. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per hospitalization averted was calculated.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 31,487 patients. The rate of hospitalization within 30 days was found to be 0.35% for the group treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 0.52% for the control group. The nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group cost an additional MYR 1,625.72 (USD 358.88) per patient. This treatment also resulted in a reduction of 0.17% risk for hospitalization, which corresponded to an ICER of MYR 946,801.26 (USD 209,006.90) per hospitalization averted.

CONCLUSION

In Malaysia, where vaccination rates were high, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has been shown to be beneficial in the outpatient treatment of adults with COVID-19 who have risk factors; however, it was only marginally cost effective against hospitalization for healthy adults during the Omicron period.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with lomustine in the treatment of progressive glioblastoma using a Markov model simulation analysis

Background

Progressive glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignancy with extremely poor prognosis. Chemotherapy is one of the approved systemic treatment modalities. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of using bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with lomustine (LOM) regimen for the treatment of progressive glioblastoma in China.

Methods

The estimation results are derived from a multicenter randomized phase III trial, which demonstrated improved survival in GBM patients receiving BEV+LOM combination therapy. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of Chinese society, a Markov model was established. Univariate deterministic analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to address the uncertainties within the model.

Results

Compared to LOM monotherapy, the total treatment cost for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from $2,646.70 to $23,650.98. The health-adjusted life years (QALYs) for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from 0.26 QALYs to 0.51 QALYs, representing an increment of 0.25 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $84,071.12. The cost-effectiveness curve indicates that within the willingness-to-pay (WTP) range of $35,906 per QALY, BEV+LOM combination therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma patients.

Conclusions

Taken as a whole, the findings of this study suggest that, from the perspective of payers in China, BEV+LOM combination therapy as a first-line treatment for GBM is not a cost-effective option. However, considering the survival advantages this regimen may offer for this rare disease, it may still be one of the clinical treatment options for this patient population.

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.

Paxlovid use is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular diseases in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Paxlovid has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is not known whether Paxlovid can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in COVID-19-surviving patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs).

METHODS

TriNetX data from the US Collaborative Network were used in this study. A total of 5,671,395 patients with AIRDs were enrolled between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. People diagnosed with COVID-19 were included in the cohort (n = 238,142) from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. The Study population was divided into two groups based on Paxlovid use. Propensity score matching was used to generate groups with matched baseline characteristics. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals of cardiovascular outcomes, admission rate, mortality rate, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate were calculated between Paxlovid and non-Paxlovid groups. Subgroup analyses on sex, age, race, autoimmune diseases group, and sensitivity analyses for Paxlovid use within the first day or within 2-5 days of COVID-19 diagnosis were performed.

RESULTS

Paxlovid use was associated with lower risks of cerebrovascular complications (HR = 0.65 [0.47-0.88]), arrhythmia outcomes (HR = 0.81 [0.68-0.94]), ischemic heart disease, other cardiac disorders (HR = 0.51 [0.35-0.74]) naming heart failure (HR = 0.41 [0.26-0.63]) and deep vein thrombosis (HR = 0.46 [0.24-0.87]) belonging to thrombotic disorders in AIRD patients with COVID-19. Compared with the Non-Paxlovid group, risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR = 0.56 [0.44-0.70]) and any cardiovascular outcome mentioned above (HR = 0.76 [0.66-0.86]) were lower in the Paxlovid group. Moreover, the mortality (HR = 0.21 [0.11-0.40]), admission (HR = 0.68 [0.60-0.76]), and ICU admission rates (HR = 0.52 [0.33-0.80]) were significantly lower in the Paxlovid group than in the non-Paxlovid group. Paxlovid appears to be more effective in male, older, and Black patients with AIRD. The risks of cardiovascular outcomes and severe conditions were reduced significantly with Paxlovid prescribed within the first day of COVID-19 diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Paxlovid use is associated with a lower risk of CVDs and severe conditions in COVID-19-surviving patients with AIRD.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to explore relevant studies from January 2021 to November 2023. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.0).

RESULTS

Fifteen retrospective studies involving 13, 306 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 1.38), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.10), and intensive unit care admission (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 10.07). In terms of safety, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.29 to 9.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab have similar effectiveness in treating COVID-19 patients. However, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is low. High-quality research is needed to better compare these interventions in COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) related to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen SRs with meta-analysis published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 108 overlapping reports, based on 43 individual primary studies [3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 40 non-RCTs]. In outpatient settings the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced overall mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease compared with controls (from moderate to low certainty of evidence); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease in both immunized and non-immunized patients. No differences in the occurrence of any adverse events between groups were observed in the large majority of SRs; serious adverse events, including adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, were reported with lower prevalence in nirmatrelvir recipients compared with controls (from low to moderate certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate certainty of evidence from SRs that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces mortality, clinical progression and hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared with controls, without increasing the occurrence of overall and serious adverse events. Based on the overall methodological assessment, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Is antiviral treatment at the acute phase of COVID-19 effective for decreasing the risk of long-COVID? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Preliminary evidence suggests a potential effect of antiviral medication used during the acute COVID-19 phase for preventing long-COVID. This review investigates if having received pharmacological treatment during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection may reduce the risk of long-COVID.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv/bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to July 15th, 2023. Articles comparing the presence of long-COVID symptoms between individuals who received or not a specific medication, particularly antivirals, during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane's Risk of Bias (Rob) tool.

RESULTS

From 517 studies identified, 6 peer-reviewed studies and one preprint met all inclusion criteria. The sample included 2683 (n = 4) hospitalized COVID-19 survivors and 307,409 (n = 3) non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality was high in 71% of studies (n = 5/7). Two studies investigating the effects of Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir and three studies the effect of Remdesivir reported conflicting results on effectiveness for preventing long-COVID. Three studies investigating the effects of other medication such as Dexamethasone (n = 2) or Metformin (n = 1) found positive results of these medications for preventing long-COVID.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence about the effect of medication treatment with antivirals during acute COVID-19 and reduced risk of developing long-COVID is conflicting. Heterogeneous evidence suggests that Remdesivir or Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir could have a potential protective effect for long-COVID. A limited number of studies demonstrated a potential benefit of other medications such as Dexamethasone or Metformin, but more studies are needed.

Safety Profile of Paxlovid in the Treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With the urgent and widespread application of Paxlovid, a novel antiviral drug for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in clinical practice, concerns regarding its actual efficacy and safety have emerged. In order to provide more evidence to support its clinical application, we sought to perform a descriptive analysis of cases who experienced at least one Paxlovid-related adverse event (AEs) and reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in the post-marketing period.

METHODS

Individual adverse event reports between January 1, 2022 and September 30, 2022, were downloaded from the FAERS website. We completed a descriptive study about the safety of Paxlovid in the treatment of COVID-19. Further, we also analyzed the onset time of Paxlovid-related AEs.

RESULTS

As of 30 September 2022, 16,529 de-duplicated cases were submitted to the FDA, and 5,860 (35.45%) were female. The average age was 58.38 years (S.D. 15.50). Most reports (12,390, 74.96%) were submitted by consumers and 1,436 (8.68%) concerned serious outcomes. The most frequently reported AEs were disease recurrence (7,724, 16.23%), dysgeusia (2,877, 6.05%), and diarrhoea (1,448, 3.04%). The median onset time of Paxlovid-related AEs was 8 days (interquartile range,1-10 days), and most of the cases (2,629, 19.12%) occurred on the day after Paxlovid initiation.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the most common AEs reported with Paxlovid in post-marketing experience are consistent with the safety assessment of antiviral drugs. Even without emerging apparent safety concerns, the incidence of serious outcomes was unexpectedly high, and a few cases of potential new AEs occurred.

Long COVID or Post-COVID-19 Condition: Past, Present and Future Research Directions

The presence of symptoms after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (long-COVID) has become a worldwide healthcare emergency but remains underestimated and undertreated due to a lack of recognition of the condition and knowledge of the underlying mechanisms. In fact, the prevalence of post-COVID symptoms ranges from 50% during the first months after the infection up to 20% two-years after. This perspective review aimed to map the existing literature on post-COVID symptoms and to identify gaps in the literature to guide the global effort toward an improved understanding of long-COVID and suggest future research directions. There is a plethora of symptomatology that can be due to COVID-19; however, today, there is no clear classification and definition of this condition, termed long-COVID or post-COVID-19 condition. The heterogeneity in the symptomatology has led to the presence of groups/clusters of patients, which could exhibit different risk factors and different mechanisms. Viral persistence, long-lasting inflammation, immune dysregulation, autoimmune reactions, reactivation of latent infections, endothelial dysfunction and alteration in gut microbiota have been proposed as potential mechanisms explaining the complexity of long-COVID. In such an equation, viral biology (e.g., re-infections, SARS-CoV-2 variants), host biology (e.g., genetics, epigenetics) and external factors (e.g., vaccination) should be also considered. These various factors will be discussed in the current perspective review and future directions suggested.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and drug-drug interactions in older COVID-19 inpatients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and drug-drug interactions on in-hospital mortality in older COVID-19 inpatients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic medical data from a tertiary hospital in Chengdu from December 2022 to January 2023. The 2019 AGS/Beers criteria was used to evaluate the potentially inappropriate mediation (PIM) status of older COVID-19 inpatients (age ≥ 65 years), the drug-drug interactions were evaluated on Medscape, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 206 older COVID-19 inpatients were included in the study. The mean number of drugs per day was 13.04. The prevalence of PIM use based on the 2019 AGS Beers Criteria was 66.99%. The prevalence of drug-drug interactions was 61.65%. Logistic regression demonstrated that age ≥ 80 (OR: 10.321, 95% CI: 1.649, 64.579, P = 0.013), renal insufficiency (OR: 4.740, 95% CI: 1.366, 16.447, P = 0.014), long-term hospitalization (OR: 6.637, 95% CI: 1.030, 42.779, P = 0.046), severe pneumonia (OR: 50.230, 95% CI: 5.180, 487.041, P = 0.001) were influencing factors associated with in-hospital mortality in older COVID-19 inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

The polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and drug-drug interactions were seen in many older COVID-19 inpatients.

Evaluation of oral small molecule drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

At present, there are some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral small molecule drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral small molecule drug treatment for COVID-19.

METHODS

RCTs were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 1 April 2023. A total of nine RCTs were included, including 30,970 COVID-19 patients comparing five treatments (azvudine, molnupiravir, paxlovid, VV116, and placebo). The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB) was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. The direct and indirect evidence were combined using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42023397837).

RESULTS

Direct analysis showed that paxlovid was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.25) and hospitalization (OR = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00-0.67) compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis showed that paxlovid had the highest probability of being the best management strategy in patients with COVID-19, reducing mortality (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-1.99; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 0.77) and hospitalization (OR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00-1.03; SUCRA: 0.95). For prespecified safety outcomes, SUCRA values ranked VV116 (OR = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.00-2.07: SUCRA 0.86) as the most beneficial intervention for the prevention of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to other antiviral medications, paxlovid can reduce the mortality and hospitalization of COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and safety of azvudine in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Azivudine has undergone a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as of late. This study aimed to assess the COVID-19 treatment with azvudine's efficacy and safety.

Methods

Through January 20, 2023, systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and MedRxiv were conducted to find the RCTs. The included studies' bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 (PROSPERO Code: CRD42023395022).

Results

A total of five RCTs with 1142 COVID-19 patients, 575 of whom received azvudine, were included. Additionally, seven RCTs are currently being conducted. In terms of clinical improvement and PT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) negativity, the azvudine group had a greater patient percentage than the usual treatment or placebo group. It also took less time for the PT-PCR to become negative. In comparison to the placebo or standard treatment groups, the frequency of adverse events was reduced in the azvudine group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 0.99) and major adverse events (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.79) groups.

Conclusions

Without the burden of side effects, azvudine can hasten the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients and PT-PCR negative. It will take more extensive research to confirm these conclusions.