Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

Clinical Outcome and 7-Day Virological Clearance in High-Risk Patients with Mild-Moderate COVID-19 Treated with Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Remdesivir

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effectiveness and virological clearance (VC) at day 7 (T7) post-treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high risk (HR) for clinical progression.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study enrolling HR patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Jan-Oct 2022) treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir or 3 days of remdesivir. We investigated clinical recovery at T7 (resolution of symptoms for ≥ 72 h or all-cause death), VC at T7 (PCR/antigenic negative nasopharyngeal swab), and median time to VC (days from symptom onset to the first negative swab). Factors associated with VC were investigated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the study, 92/376 (43.8%) patients received molnupiravir, 150/376 (24.7%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 134/376 (31.5%) remdesivir. Forty-nine (13%) patients were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were younger and presented immunodeficiencies more frequently; remdesivir was used more commonly in patients hospitalized for other diseases. A high proportion of patients obtained clinical recovery without differences among the therapies (97.5% for molnupiravir, 98.3% for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 93.6% for remdesivir); 12 (3.7%) patients died. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher proportion of T7 VC and a shorter time to VC compared to molnupiravir/remdesivir, also after adjustment for age and immunodeficiency (AOR 0.445 RDV vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.240-0.826, p = 0.010; AOR 0.222 MNP vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.105-0.472, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 antiviral treatments are an excellent therapeutic strategy in HR patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed a higher proportion of VC as early as 7 days after treatment, confirming its likely superiority in indirect comparisons.

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.

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.

Molnupiravir versus favipiravir in at-risk outpatients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial in Thailand

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir and favipiravir in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial in Thailand, participants with moderate COVID-19 and at least one factor associated with severe COVID-19 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral molnupiravir or oral favipiravir (standard of care). Phone calls for remote symptom assessment were made on Days 6, 15, and 29. Participants with worsening symptoms were instructed to return to the hospital. The primary endpoint was pulmonary involvement by Day 29, as evidenced by ≥2 of the following: dyspnea, oxygen saturation <92% or imaging.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-seven participants (487 molnupiravir, 490 favipiravir) were enrolled from 8 July 2022 to 19 January 2023. 98% had received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 83% ≥3 doses. By Day 29, pulmonary involvement occurred in 0% (0/483) in molnupiravir arm versus 1% (5/482) in favipiravir arm (-1.0%; Newcombe 95.2% CI: -2.4% to -0.0%; P = 0.021); all-cause death in 0% (0/483) and <1% (1/482); COVID-19 related hospitalization in <1% (1/483) and 1% (3/482); treatment-related adverse event in 1% (5/483) and 1% (4/486); and serious adverse event in 1% (4/483) and 1% (4/486).

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir and molnupiravir had a similar efficacy and safety profile. Whether either of the two reduced the risk of complications during the omicron era in this population with a low risk of pulmonary involvement and a high vaccine coverage remains unclear. There were no differences in any of the safety endpoints.

THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY ID

TCTR20230111009.

Safety of RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Inhibitors, Molnupiravir and VV116, for Oral Treatment of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) inhibitors, molnupiravir and VV116, have the potential to maximize clinical benefits in the oral treatment of COVID-19. Subjects who consume these drugs may experience an increased incidence of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of molnupiravir and VV116.

Methods

A comprehensive search of scientific and medical databases, such as PubMed Central/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted to find relevant articles in English from January 2020 to June 2023. Any kind of adverse events reported in the study were pooled and analyzed in the drug group versus the control group. Estimates of risk effects were summarized through the random effects model using Review Manager version 5.2, and sensitivity analysis was performed by Stata 17.0 software.

Results

Fifteen studies involving 32,796 subjects were included. Eleven studies were placebo-controlled, and four were Paxlovid-controlled. Twelve studies reported adverse events for molnupiravir, and three studies described adverse events for VV116. The total odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the placebo-controlled group was 1.01 (95% CI=0.84-1.22; I2=26%), P=0.88. The total OR for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the Paxlovid-controlled group was 0.32 (95% CI=0.16-0.65; I2=87%), P=0.002. Individual drug subgroup analysis in the placebo-controlled study showed that compared with the placebo group, a total OR for adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.10; I2=0%) in the molnupiravir group and 3.77 (95% CI=0.08-175.77; I2=85%) in the VV116 group.

Conclusion

The RdRp inhibitors molnupiravir and VV116 are safe for oral treatment of COVID-19. Further evidence is necessary that RdRp inhibitors have a higher safety profile than Paxlovid.

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

Scaling the Process Chemistry of a COVID-19 Antiviral Pharmaceutical Down for a Multistep Synthesis Experiment in the Undergraduate Teaching Laboratory

Molnupiravir is an orally bioavailable direct acting antiviral agent that received emergency use authorization in late 2021 from the FDA for the treatment of patients with mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19. This prodrug is metabolized into a ribonucleoside that is incorporated into the viral RNA during replication. Its tautomerization between cytidine- and uridine-like forms ultimately causes multiple irreversible errors in the genetic code of the virus, which prevents successful viral replication. There are multiple process chemistry routes for molnupiravir synthesis published in the literature that attempt to maximize synthetic yield while minimizing cost and waste, which are goals similar to those of an implementable educational laboratory experiment for the teaching laboratory. We have developed a multiweek laboratory module for undergraduate students in which students conduct a multistep synthesis of molnupiravir. Specifically, our Organic Chemistry II Laboratory students performed the final two steps of molnupiravir synthesis using procedures derived directly from the published process chemistry literature. We utilized this opportunity to introduce students to reading and interpreting these primary experimental sources. Students obtained authentic characterization data via high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy to assess the conversion and purity of their products at each synthetic step. We report our in-lab activities and student generated data as well as suggestions for how this laboratory experiment could be tailored to meet similar learning objectives in other courses, such as medicinal chemistry or capstone laboratory courses, and as a function of available instrumentation.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Comparison of azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and safety of azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and molnupiravir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study included patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (asymptomatic, mild, and common types) at the First Hospital of Changsha (Hunan Province, China) between March and November 2022. Eligible patients were classified into the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, or molnupiravir groups according to the antiviral agents they received. The outcomes were the times to nucleic acid negative conversion (NANC). This study included 157 patients treated with azvudine (n = 66), molnupiravir (n = 66), or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 25). There were no statistically significant differences in the time from diagnosis to NANC among the azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups [median, 9 (95% CI 9-11) vs. 11 (95% CI 10-12) vs. 9 (95% CI 8-12) days, P = 0.15], time from administration to NANC [median, 9 (95% CI 8-10) vs. 10 (95% CI 9.48-11) vs. 8.708 (95% CI 7.51-11) days, P = 0.50], or hospital stay [median, 11 (95% CI 11-13) vs. 13 (95% CI 12-14) vs. 12 (95% CI 10-14) days, P = 0.14], even after adjustment for sex, age, COVID-19 type, comorbidities, Ct level, time from diagnosis to antiviral treatment, and number of symptoms. The cumulative NANC rates in the azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups were 15.2%/12.3%/16.0% at day 5 (P = 0.858), 34.8%/21.5%/32.0% at day 7 (P = 0.226), 66.7%/52.3%/60.0% at 10 days (P = 0.246), and 86.4%/86.2%/80.0% at day 14 (P = 0.721). No serious adverse events were reported. Azvudine may be comparable to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 regarding time to NANC, hospital stay, and AEs.

COVID-19: On the threshold of the fifth year. The situation in Spain

Despite having emerged from pandemic status, the incidence of COVID-19 episodes has recently increased in Spain, including pediatric cases and admissions to Intensive Care Units. Several recombinant variants are circulating among us, particularly XBB arising from two Omicron BA.2 sublineages with mutations in the genes encoding the spicule proteins that could increase binding to the ACE2 receptor and be more prone to immune escape. Faced with these, 3 pharmaceutical companies have developed vaccines adapted to the XBB.1.5 sublineage that are already available for administration in our setting with risks that should not be different from those of previous mRNA vaccines and with clearly favorable benefit/risk ratios. They should be applied to patients with potential for poor COVID-19 evolution and to collectives that have a particular relationship of proximity with them. Their application should be understood not only from a perspective of individual convenience but also from that of collective responsibility. The most convenient seems to be a simultaneous immunization of COVID-19 and influenza in our environment. In the therapeutic aspect, there is little to expect right now from antisera, but the already known antiviral drugs are still available and indicated, although their efficacy will have to be reevaluated due to their impact on populations that are mostly immunized and with a better prognosis than in the past. In our opinion, it is necessary to continue to make a reasonable and timely use of masks and other non-pharmacological means of protection.

Antiviral efficacy of molnupiravir versus ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir in patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive trial

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir are the two leading oral COVID-19 antiviral treatments, but their antiviral activities in patients have not been compared directly. The aim of this ongoing platform trial is to compare different antiviral treatments using the rate of viral clearance as the measure of antiviral effect.

METHODS

PLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. The component of the trial reported here was conducted in the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We recruited low-risk adult patients aged 18-50 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms). Eligible patients were randomly assigned using block randomisation via a centralised web app to one of seven treatment groups: molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, casirivimab-imdevimab, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, favipiravir, fluoxetine, or no study drug. The no study drug group comprised a minimum proportion of 20% of patients at all times, with uniform randomisation ratios applied across the active treatment groups. Results for the concurrently randomised molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and no study drug groups are reported here. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as patients with more than 2 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all participants who took at least one dose of the medication. The viral clearance rate was derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 1 week (18 measurements). Treatment groups with a probability of more than 0·9 that viral clearance was accelerated by more than 20% compared with no drug entered a non-inferiority comparison (with a 10% non-inferiority margin) compared with the platform's current most effective drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05041907.

FINDINGS

Between June 6, 2022, and Feb 23, 2023, 209 patients in Thailand were enrolled and concurrently randomly assigned to molnupiravir (n=65), ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (n=59), or no study drug (n=85). 129 (62%) of the patients were female and 80 (38%) were male. Relative to the no study drug group, the rates of viral clearance were 37% (95% credible interval 16-65) faster with molnupiravir and 84% (54-119) faster with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. In the non-inferiority comparison, viral clearance was 25% (10-38) slower with molnupiravir than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Molnupiravir was removed from the study platform when it reached the prespecified inferiority margin of 10% compared with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Median estimated viral clearance half-lives were 8·5 h (IQR 6·7-10·1) with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, 11·6 h (8·6-15·4) with molnupiravir, and 15·5 h (11·9-21·2) with no study drug. Viral rebound occurred more frequently following nirmatrelvir (six [10%] of 58) compared with the no study drug (one [1%] of 84; p=0·018) or the molnupiravir (one [2%] of 65; p=0·051) groups. Persistent infections following molnupiravir had more viral mutations (three of nine patients had an increased number of single nucleotide polymorphisms in samples collected at 7 or more days compared with those at baseline) than after nirmatrelvir (zero of three) or no study drug (zero of 19). There were no adverse events of grade 3 or worse, or serious adverse events in any of the reported treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Both molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in patients with COVID-19, but the antiviral effect of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir was substantially greater. Measurement of oropharyngeal viral clearance rates provides a rapid and well tolerated approach to the assessment and comparison of antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19. It should be evaluated in other acute viral respiratory infections.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Effectiveness of Vaccines and Antiviral Drugs in Preventing Severe and Fatal COVID-19, Hong Kong

We compared the effectiveness and interactions of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 2 vaccines, CoronaVac and Comirnaty, in a large population of inpatients with COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Both the oral antiviral drugs and vaccines were associated with lower risks for all-cause mortality and progression to serious/critical/fatal conditions (study outcomes). No significant interaction effects were observed between the antiviral drugs and vaccinations; their joint effects were additive. If antiviral drugs were prescribed within 5 days of confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, usage was associated with lower risks for the target outcomes for patients >60, but not <60, years of age; no significant clinical benefit was found if prescribed beyond 5 days. Among patients >80 years of age, 3-4 doses of Comirnaty vaccine were associated with significantly lower risks for target outcomes. Policies should encourage COVID-19 vaccination, and oral antivirals should be made accessible to infected persons within 5 days of confirmed diagnosis.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Uridine-cytidine kinase 2 potentiates the mutagenic influence of the antiviral β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine

Molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) is an antiviral that received approval for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection. Treatment of bacteria or cell lines with the active form of molnupiravir, β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC, or EIDD-1931), induces mutations in DNA. Yet these results contrast in vivo genotoxicity studies conducted during registration of the drug. Using a CRISPR screen, we found that inactivating the pyrimidine salvage pathway component uridine-cytidine kinase 2 (Uck2) renders cells more tolerant of NHC. Short-term exposure to NHC increased the mutation rate in a mouse myeloid cell line, with most mutations being T:A to C:G transitions. Inactivating Uck2 impaired the mutagenic activity of NHC, whereas over-expression of Uck2 enhanced mutagenesis. UCK2 is upregulated in many cancers and cell lines. Our results suggest differences in ribonucleoside metabolism contribute to the variable mutagenicity of NHC observed in cancer cell lines and primary tissues.

Virologic Outcomes with Molnupiravir in Non-hospitalized Adult Patients with COVID-19 from the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled MOVe-OUT Trial

INTRODUCTION

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind MOVe-OUT trial demonstrated molnupiravir (800 mg every 12 h for 5 days) as safe and effective for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization/death in high-risk adults. At the time of that report, virologic assessments from the trial were partially incomplete as a result of their time-intensive nature. Here we present final results from all prespecified virology endpoints in MOVe-OUT based on the full trial dataset.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline (day 1, prior to first dose) and days 3, 5 (end-of-treatment visit), 10, 15, and 29. From these samples, change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers (determined by quantitative PCR), detection of infectious SARS-CoV-2 (by plaque assay), and SARS-CoV-2 viral error induction (determined by whole genome next-generation sequencing) were assessed as exploratory endpoints.

RESULTS

Molnupiravir was associated with greater mean reductions from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA than placebo (including 50% relative reduction at end-of-treatment) through day 10. Among participants with infectious virus detected at baseline (n = 96 molnupiravir, n = 97 placebo) and evaluable post-baseline samples, no molnupiravir-treated participant had infectious SARS-CoV-2 by day 3, whereas infectious virus was recovered from 21% of placebo-arm participants on day 3 and 2% at end-of-treatment. Consistent with molnupiravir's mechanism of action, sequence analysis demonstrated that molnupiravir was associated with an increased number of low-frequency transition errors randomly distributed across the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome compared with placebo (median 143.5 molnupiravir, 15 placebo), while transversion errors were infrequent overall (median 2 in both arms). Outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SARS-CoV-2 clade, presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response, or viral load.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5-day course of orally administered molnupiravir demonstrated a consistently greater virologic effect than placebo, including rapidly eliminating infectious SARS-CoV-2, in high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04575597.

BioAct-Het: A Heterogeneous Siamese Neural Network for Bioactivity Prediction Using Novel Bioactivity Representation

Drug failure during experimental procedures due to low bioactivity presents a significant challenge. To mitigate this risk and enhance compound bioactivities, predicting bioactivity classes during lead optimization is essential. The existing studies on structure-activity relationships have highlighted the connection between the chemical structures of compounds and their bioactivity. However, these studies often overlook the intricate relationship between drugs and bioactivity, which encompasses multiple factors beyond the chemical structure alone. To address this issue, we propose the BioAct-Het model, employing a heterogeneous siamese neural network to model the complex relationship between drugs and bioactivity classes, bringing them into a unified latent space. In particular, we introduce a novel representation for the bioactivity classes, called Bio-Prof, and enhance the original bioactivity data sets to tackle data scarcity. These innovative approaches resulted in our model outperforming the previous ones. The evaluation of BioAct-Het is conducted through three distinct strategies: association-based, bioactivity class-based, and compound-based. The association-based strategy utilizes supervised learning classification, while the bioactivity class-based strategy adopts a retrospective study evaluation approach. On the other hand, the compound-based strategy demonstrates similarities to the concept of meta-learning. Furthermore, the model's effectiveness in addressing real-world problems is analyzed through a case study on the application of vancomycin and oseltamivir for COVID-19 treatment as well as molnupiravir's potential efficacy in treating COVID-19 patients. The data and code underlying this article are available on https://github.com/CBRC-lab/BioAct-Het. However, data sets were derived from sources in the public domain.

The Functional Implications of Broad Spectrum Bioactive Compounds Targeting RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (RdRp) in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

As long as COVID-19 endures, viral surface proteins will keep changing and new viral strains will emerge, rendering prior vaccines and treatments decreasingly effective. To provide durable targets for preventive and therapeutic agents, there is increasing interest in slowly mutating viral proteins, including non-surface proteins like RdRp.

METHODS

A scoping review of studies was conducted describing RdRp in the context of COVID-19 through MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE. An iterative approach was used with input from content experts and three independent reviewers, focused on studies related to either RdRp activity inhibition or RdRp mechanisms against SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Of the 205 records screened, 43 studies were included in the review. Twenty-five evaluated RdRp activity inhibition, and eighteen described RdRp mechanisms of existing drugs or compounds against SARS-CoV-2. In silico experiments suggested that RdRp inhibitors developed for other RNA viruses may be effective in disrupting SARS-CoV-2 replication, indicating a possible reduction of disease progression from current and future variants. In vitro, in vivo, and human clinical trial studies were largely consistent with these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Future risk mitigation and treatment strategies against forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 variants should consider targeting RdRp proteins instead of surface proteins.

Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in patients with Omicron variant vaccine breakthrough COVID-19 infection: a randomized, controlled trial

Introduction: Randomized, controlled trials of molnupiravir in real-world use during the Omicron wave are scarce. The frequency of hospitalization and death is low, so further research is needed to confirm the virological efficacy of molnupiravir. Methods: A single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted, and 111 hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1. Fifty-three patients in the molnupiravir group were administered 800 mg of molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days in addition to the standard therapy, and 58 patients in the control group only received the standard therapy in accordance with local guidelines. The antiviral effect and adverse events were evaluated during the follow-up. Results: The median viral clearance time in the molnupiravir group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients who started molnupiravir therapy within 3 days had significantly shorter viral clearance time than the controls (p = 0.003). In the vaccinated subgroup, molnupiravir therapy was also associated with a shorter viral clearance time (p = 0.003). A total of three adverse events, which were minor, were reported in the molnupiravir group. One of the patients had mild liver function abnormalities, and all of them were resolved without intervention. However, the remission time was similar between the two tested groups. Conclusion: Molnupiravir exhibited good viral replication inhibitor efficacy in patients with Omicron variant vaccine breakthrough COVID-19 infection. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/], identifier [ChiCTR2200059796].

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.

A molnupiravir-associated mutational signature in global SARS-CoV-2 genomes

Molnupiravir, an antiviral medication widely used against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), acts by inducing mutations in the virus genome during replication. Most random mutations are likely to be deleterious to the virus and many will be lethal; thus, molnupiravir-induced elevated mutation rates reduce viral load1,2. However, if some patients treated with molnupiravir do not fully clear the SARS-CoV-2 infections, there could be the potential for onward transmission of molnupiravir-mutated viruses. Here we show that SARS-CoV-2 sequencing databases contain extensive evidence of molnupiravir mutagenesis. Using a systematic approach, we find that a specific class of long phylogenetic branches, distinguished by a high proportion of G-to-A and C-to-T mutations, are found almost exclusively in sequences from 2022, after the introduction of molnupiravir treatment, and in countries and age groups with widespread use of the drug. We identify a mutational spectrum, with preferred nucleotide contexts, from viruses in patients known to have been treated with molnupiravir and show that its signature matches that seen in these long branches, in some cases with onward transmission of molnupiravir-derived lineages. Finally, we analyse treatment records to confirm a direct association between these high G-to-A branches and the use of molnupiravir.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in solid organ transplant recipients: Experience with molnupiravir

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) constitute one of the groups at highest risk for the development of severe COVID-19. However, evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for SARS-CoV-2 infection in this group of patients is scarce. Molnupiravir is an orally administered antiviral drug that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients, mainly in the unvaccinated population. Although its effectiveness is lower than that of other antivirals, on many occasions it is the only therapeutic option in transplant recipients given the absence of pharmacological interactions with immunosuppressive treatment, the oral route of administration and the good safety profile.

Adverse events associated with molnupiravir: a real-world disproportionality analysis in food and drug administration adverse event reporting system

Molnupiravir, an urgently approved drug during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, serves as the basis for our study, which relies on the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The objective is to extract adverse event (AE) signals associated with molnupiravir from the FAERS database, thereby providing a reference for post-marketing monitoring of adverse events. Specifically, we extracted individual case safety reports (ICSRs) from the database, focusing on cases with COVID-19 indications and molnupiravir identified as the primary suspect drug. Descriptive analysis of the extracted data was performed, followed by four disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method. These analyses were conducted across four levels, encompassing overall data, reports by health professionals, as well as age and gender differentiations, ensuring the robustness of the analysis results. In total, 116,576 ICSRs with COVID-19 indications and 2,285 ICSRs with molnupiravir as the primary suspect were extracted. Notably, after excluding cases with unknown age or gender, a higher proportion of molnupiravir-related ICSRs were observed among individuals aged 65 years and older (70.07%) and women (54.06%). The most frequently reported adverse events and AE signals were associated with gastrointestinal disorders, as well as skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. Moreover, individuals aged 65 years and older exhibited a higher risk of cardiac disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, and vascular disorders. In conclusion, this study found molnupiravir demonstrated a lower risk of serious adverse events compared to other RNA antiviral drugs like remdesivir in patients under 65 years old. However, close monitoring of its safety is still necessary for elderly patients aged 65 years and above. Further studies are warranted to continuously assess the safety profile of molnupiravir as its usage increases, especially in high risk populations.

Molnupiravir Use and 30-Day Hospitalizations or Death in a Previously Uninfected Nonhospitalized High-risk Population With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefit of molnupiravir (MPV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected subpopulations is unclear.

METHODS

We used a matched cohort study design to determine the rate of hospitalization or death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among MPV treated and untreated controls. Participants were nonhospitalized, previously uninfected Veterans with a first confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection between 1 January and 31 August 2022, who were prescribed MPV within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis, and matched individuals who were not prescribed MPV.

RESULTS

Among 1459 matched pairs, the incidence of hospitalization/death was not different among MPV treated versus untreated controls (48 vs 44 cases; absolute risk difference [ARD], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.94 to 1.49). No benefit was observed among those >60 or ≤60 years old (ARD, 0.27; 95% CI, -1.25 to 1.79 vs ARD, -0.29; 95% CI, -1.22 to 1.80), those with specific comorbidities, or by vaccination status. A significant benefit was observed in asymptomatic but not in symptomatic persons (ARD, -2.80; 95% CI, -4.74 to -.87 vs ARD, 1.12; 95% CI -.31 to 2.55). Kaplan-Meier curves did not show a difference in proportion of persons who were hospitalized or died among MPV treated compared with untreated controls (logrank P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

MPV was not associated with a reduction in hospitalization or death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. A subgroup of patients presenting without symptoms experienced a benefit.

Molnupiravir compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 in high-risk patients with haematological malignancy in Europe. A matched-paired analysis from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

INTRODUCTION

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are antivirals used to prevent progression to severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and decrease hospitalisation and mortality rates. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was authorised in Europe in December 2021, whereas molnupiravir is not yet licensed in Europe as of February 2022. Molnupiravir may be an alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir because it is associated with fewer drug-drug interactions and contraindications. A caveat for molnupiravir is the mode of action induces viral mutations. Mortality rate reduction with molnupiravir was less pronounced than that with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients without haematological malignancy. Little is known about the comparative efficacy of the two drugs in patients with haematological malignancy at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Thus, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared in a cohort of patients with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

Clinical data from patients treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir monotherapy for COVID-19 were retrieved from the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Patients treated with molnupiravir were matched by sex, age (±10 years), and severity of baseline haematological malignancy to controls treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients receiving molnupiravir for the clinical management of COVID-19 were matched to an equal number of controls receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In each of the groups, 68 (59%) patients were male; with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-74) for molnupiravir recipients and 64 years (IQR 54-73) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients; 56.9% (n=66) of the patients had controlled baseline haematological malignancy, 12.9% (n=15) had stable disease, and 30.2% (n=35) had active disease at COVID-19 onset in each group. During COVID-19 infection, one third of patients from each group were admitted to hospital. Although a similar proportion of patients in the two groups were vaccinated (molnupiravir n=77, 66% vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir n=87, 75%), more of those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had received four vaccine doses (n=27, 23%) compared with those treated with molnupiravir (n=5, 4%) (P<0.001). No differences were detected in COVID-19 severity (P=0.39) or hospitalisation (P=1.0). No statistically significant differences were identified in overall mortality rate (P=0.78) or survival probability (d30 P=0.19, d60 P=0.67, d90 P=0.68, last day of follow up P=0.68). Deaths were either attributed to COVID-19, or the infection was judged by the treating physician to have contributed to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalisation and mortality rates with molnupiravir were comparable to those with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a plausible alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 treatment in patients with haematological malignancy.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of non-severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials with 34 570 patients

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir has been considered a promising candidate for COVID-19. Its efficacy and safety in non-severe COVID-19 patients and the differences between patients with different risk factors need further evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that allocated adult patients with non-severe COVID-19 to molnupiravir or a control. We used random-effects models, and conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression for COVID-19 patients with high-risk factors. The GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 34 570 patients were included. Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed that molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalization (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85), risk of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72) and time to symptom resolution (mean differences [MD] = -2.91 days, 95% CI: -3.66 to -2.16). However, no significant differences were found in adverse events, all-cause mortality, rate of and time to viral clearance, or duration of hospitalization. For the rate of viral clearance, subgroup effects were found between trials with low and high risk of bias (P = 0.001) and between trials with male or female majority (P < 0.001). For admission to hospital, subgroup effects were also found between trials with ≥50% and <50% of the participants being female (P = 0.04). Meta-regression showed a significant association between higher trial mean age and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011), and female majority and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir was found to be effective in non-severe COVID-19, but the efficacy varied with age and sex.

Current state-of-the-art and potential future therapeutic drugs against COVID-19

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues to endanger human health, and its therapeutic drugs are under intensive research and development. Identifying the efficacy and toxicity of drugs in animal models is helpful for further screening of effective medications, which is also a prerequisite for drugs to enter clinical trials. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) invades host cells mainly by the S protein on its surface. After the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome is injected into the cells, M protein will help assemble and release new viruses. RdRp is crucial for virus replication, assembly, and release of new virus particles. This review analyzes and discusses 26 anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs based on their mechanism of action, effectiveness and safety in different animal models. We propose five drugs to be the most promising to enter the next stage of clinical trial research, thus providing a reference for future drug development.

N4 -Hydroxycytidine/Molnupiravir Inhibits RNA-Virus Induced Encephalitis by Producing Mutated Viruses with Reduced Fitness

A diverse group of RNA viruses including Rabies, Polio, La Crosse, West Nile, Zika, Nipah, Eastern and Western equine encephalitis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Japanese encephalitis, and tick-borne encephalitis viruses have the ability to gain access to and replicate in the central nervous system (CNS), causing severe neurological disease. Current treatment for these patients is generally limited to supportive care. To address the need for a generalizable antiviral, we utilized a strategy of mutagenesis to limit virus replication. We evaluated ribavirin (RBV), favipiravir (FAV) and N 4 -hydroxycytidine (NHC) against La Crosse virus (LACV) which is the primary cause of pediatric arboviral encephalitis cases in North America. NHC was more potent than RBV or FAV in neuronal cells. Oral administration of molnupiravir (MOV), the 5'-isobutyryl prodrug of NHC, decreased neurological disease development by 32% following intraperitoneal (IP) infection of LACV. MOV also reduced disease by 23% when virus was administered intranasally (IN). NHC and MOV produced less fit viruses by incorporating predominantly G-to-A or C-to-U mutations. Furthermore, NHC also inhibited two other orthobunyaviruses, Jamestown Canyon virus and Cache Valley virus. Collectively, these studies indicate that NHC/MOV has therapeutic potential to inhibit virus replication and subsequent neurological disease caused by this neurotropic RNA virus.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

Preparing for the next viral threat with broad-spectrum antivirals

There is a large global unmet need for the development of countermeasures to combat hundreds of viruses known to cause human disease and for the establishment of a therapeutic portfolio for future pandemic preparedness. Most approved antiviral therapeutics target proteins encoded by a single virus, providing a narrow spectrum of coverage. This, combined with the slow pace and high cost of drug development, limits the scalability of this direct-acting antiviral (DAA) approach. Here, we summarize progress and challenges in the development of broad-spectrum antivirals that target either viral elements (proteins, genome structures, and lipid envelopes) or cellular proviral factors co-opted by multiple viruses via newly discovered compounds or repurposing of approved drugs. These strategies offer new means for developing therapeutics against both existing and emerging viral threats that complement DAAs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.

Non-randomized evaluation of hospitalization after a prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus molnupiravir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare subsequent hospital admissions within 30 days for patients after receiving a prescription for either oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or oral molnupiravir.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 3207 high-risk, non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who received a prescription for molnupiravir (n = 209) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 2998) at an academic medical centre in New York City from April to December 2022. Variables including age, vaccination status, high-risk conditions and demographic factors were pulled from the electronic medical record. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

All-cause 30 day hospitalization was not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (1.4% versus 1.9%, P value = 0.55). The association between COVID-related hospitalization and medication was also not significant (0.7%versus 0.5%, P value = 0.99). Patients who received molnupiravir were more likely to have more underlying high-risk conditions. After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds of all-cause hospitalizations were not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.4-3.3, P value = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide additional evidence to support molnupiravir as a suitable alternative when other COVID-19 antivirals cannot be given.

Efficacy analysis and research progress of complementary and alternative medicines in the adjuvant treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted human lifestyles around the world, causing huge distress in terms of public health systems, emergency response capacity and economic development. The causative agent of COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with respiratory involvement, cardiovascular-related diseases, and ultimately causes multiple organ failure and death in severely affected individuals. Thus, effective prevention or early treatment of COVID-19 is critical. An effective vaccine offers a way out of the pandemic for governments, the scientific community and people worldwide, but we still lack effective drug therapies, including treatments for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. This had led to a high global demand for many complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs). Moreover, many healthcare providers are now requesting information about CAMs that prevent, relieve, or treat the symptoms of COVID-19 and even alleviate vaccine-related side effects. Experts and scholars must therefore become familiar with the use of CAMs in COVID-19, current research directions and effectiveness of CAMs for COVID-19. This narrative review updates the current status and research worldwide on the use of CAMs for COVID-19. The review provides reliable evidence on theoretical viewpoints and therapeutic efficacies of CAM combinations, and evidence in support of the therapeutic strategy of Taiwan Chingguan Erhau (NRICM102) against moderate-to-severe novel coronavirus infectious disease in Taiwan.

Vaccines and therapeutics for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.

Potential Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Prodrugs Activated by Phosphorylation and Their Role in the Aged Population

The COVID-19 pandemic has flared across every part of the globe and affected populations from different age groups differently. People aged from 40 to 80 years or older are at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to develop therapeutics to decrease the risk of the disease in the aged population. Over the last few years, several prodrugs have demonstrated significant anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects in in vitro assays, animal models, and medical practice. Prodrugs are used to enhance drug delivery by improving pharmacokinetic parameters, decreasing toxicity, and attaining site specificity. This article discusses recently explored prodrugs such as remdesivir, molnupiravir, favipiravir, and 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) and their implications in the aged population, as well as investigating recent clinical trials.

HIV and COVID-19 Co-Infection: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global medical emergency with a significant socio-economic impact. People with HIV (PWH), due to the underlying immunosuppression and the particularities of HIV stigma, are considered a vulnerable population at high risk. In this review, we report what is currently known in the available literature with regards to the clinical implications of the overlap of the two epidemics. PWH share the same risk factors for severe COVID-19 as the general population (age, comorbidities), but virological and immunological status also plays an important role. Clinical presentation does not differ significantly, but there are some opportunistic infections that can mimic or co-exist with COVID-19. PWH should be prime candidates for preventative COVID-19 treatments when they are available, but in the setting of resistant strains, this might be not easy. When considering small-molecule medications, physicians need to always remember to address potential interactions with ART, and when considering immunosuppressants, they need to be aware of potential risks for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 shares similarities with HIV in how the public perceives patients-with fear of the unknown and prejudice. There are opportunities for HIV treatment hidden in COVID-19 research with the leaps gained in both monoclonal antibody and vaccine development.

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.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Oral GS-441524 derivatives: Next-generation inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

GS-441524, an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) inhibitor, is a 1'-CN-substituted adenine C-nucleoside analog with broad-spectrum antiviral activity. However, the low oral bioavailability of GS-441524 poses a challenge to its anti-SARS-CoV-2 efficacy. Remdesivir, the intravenously administered version (version 1.0) of GS-441524, is the first FDA-approved agent for SARS-CoV-2 treatment. However, clinical trials have presented conflicting evidence on the value of remdesivir in COVID-19. Therefore, oral GS-441524 derivatives (VV116, ATV006, and GS-621763; version 2.0, targeting highly conserved viral RdRp) could be considered as game-changers in treating COVID-19 because oral administration has the potential to maximize clinical benefits, including decreased duration of COVID-19 and reduced post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as limited side effects such as hepatic accumulation. This review summarizes the current research related to the oral derivatives of GS-441524, and provides important insights into the potential factors underlying the controversial observations regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir; overall, it offers an effective launching pad for developing an oral version of GS-441524.

Characterisation of SARS-CoV-2 genomic variation in response to molnupiravir treatment in the AGILE Phase IIa clinical trial

Molnupiravir is an antiviral, currently approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for treating at-risk COVID-19 patients, that induces lethal error catastrophe in SARS-CoV-2. How this drug-induced mechanism of action might impact the emergence of resistance mutations is unclear. To investigate this, we used samples from the AGILE Candidate Specific Trial (CST)-2 (clinical trial number NCT04746183). The primary outcomes of AGILE CST-2 were to measure the drug safety and antiviral efficacy of molnupiravir in humans (180 participants randomised 1:1 with placebo). Here, we describe the pre-specified exploratory virological endpoint of CST-2, which was to determine the possible genomic changes in SARS-CoV-2 induced by molnupiravir treatment. We use high-throughput amplicon sequencing and minor variant analysis to characterise viral genomics in each participant whose longitudinal samples (days 1, 3 and 5 post-randomisation) pass the viral genomic quality criteria (n = 59 for molnupiravir and n = 65 for placebo). Over the course of treatment, no specific mutations were associated with molnupiravir treatment. We find that molnupiravir significantly increased the transition:transversion mutation ratio in SARS-CoV-2, consistent with the model of lethal error catastrophe. This study highlights the utility of examining intra-host virus populations to strengthen the prediction, and surveillance, of potential treatment-emergent adaptations.

Real-Life Experience of Molnupiravir in Hospitalized Patients Who Developed SARS-CoV2-Infection: Preliminary Results from CORACLE Registry

Real-life experience of molnupiravir treatment is lacking, especially in people hospitalized for underlying diseases not related to COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective analysis regarding molnupiravir therapy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted for underlying diseases not associated with COVID-19. Forty-four patients were included. The median age was 79 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 51-93 years), and most males were 57,4%. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index and 4C score were, respectively, 5 (IQR: 3-10) and 9.9 (IQR: 4-12). Moreover, 77.5% of the patients had at least two doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, although 10.6% had not received any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Frequent comorbidities were cardiovascular diseases (68.1%), and diabetes (31.9%), and most admissions were for the acute chronic heart (20.4%) or liver (8.5%) failure. After molnupiravir started, 8 (18.1%) patients developed acute respiratory failure, and five (11.4%) patients died during hospitalisation. Moreover, molnupiravir treatment does not result in a statistically significant change in laboratory markers except for an increase in the monocyte count (p = 0.048, Z = 1.978). Molnupiravir treatment in our analysis was safe and well tolerated. In addition, no patients' characteristics were found significantly related to hospital mortality or an increase in oxygen support. The efficacy of the molecule remains controversial in large clinical studies, and further studies, including larger populations, are required to fill the gap in this issue.