The Antiviral Effect of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir during COVID-19 Pandemic Real-World Data

Viral Rebound After Antiviral Treatment: A Mathematical Modeling Study of the Role of Antiviral Mechanism of Action

The development of antiviral treatments for SARS-CoV-2 was an important turning point for the pandemic. Availability of safe and effective antivirals has allowed people to return back to normal life. While SARS-CoV-2 antivirals are highly effective at preventing severe disease, there have been concerning reports of viral rebound in some patients after cessation of antiviral treatment. In this study, we use a mathematical model of viral infection to study the potential of different antivirals to prevent viral rebound. We find that antivirals that block production are most likely to result in viral rebound if the treatment time course is not sufficiently long. Since these antivirals do not prevent infection of cells, cells continue to be infected during treatment. When treatment is stopped, the infected cells will begin producing virus at the usual rate. Antivirals that prevent infection of cells are less likely to result in viral rebound since cells are not being infected during treatment. This study highlights the role of antiviral mechanism of action in increasing or reducing the probability of viral rebound.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023429232.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Low Prevalence of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Resistance-Associated Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Lineages From Botswana

Background

We evaluated naturally occurring nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NTV/r) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains from Botswana, a country with no NTV/r use to date, in order to recommend the usage of the agent for high-risk patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis using 5254 complete SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Botswana (September 2020-September 2023). We evaluated the mutational landscape of SARS-CoV-2 3-Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) relative to the highlighted list of RAMs granted Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization in 2023.

Results

The sequenced 5254 samples included Beta variants of concerns (VOCs; n = 323), Delta VOCs (n = 1314), and Omicron VOCs (n = 3354). Overall, 77.8% of the sequences exhibited at least 1 polymorphism within 76/306 amino acid positions in the nsp5 gene. NTV/rRAMs were identified in 34/5254 (0.65%; 95% CI, 0.43%-0.87%) and occurred at 5 distinct positions. Among the NTV/r RAMS detected, A191V was the most prevalent (24/34; 70.6%). Notably, T21I mutation had a prevalence of 20.6% (7/34) and coexisted with either K90R (n = 3) polymorphism in Beta sequences with RAMs or P132H (n = 3) polymorphism for Omicron sequences with RAMs. Other NTV/r RAMs detected included P108S, with a prevalence of 5.88% (2/34), and L50F, with a prevalence of 2.94% (1/34). NTV/r RAMs were significantly higher (P < .001) in Delta (24/35) compared with Beta (4/34) and Omicron (6/34) sequences.

Conclusions

The frequency of NTV/r RAMs in Botswana was low. Higher rates were observed in Delta VOCs compared to Omicron and Beta VOCs. As NTV/r use expands globally, continuous surveillance for drug-resistant variants is essential, given the RAMs identified in our study.

Adherence and recommended optimal treatment to Azvudine application for the treatment of outpatient COVID-19 patients: A real-world retrospective study

Background

Azvudine was approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China and has been widely used since the outbreak in December 2022. However, real-world research on the adherence of Azvudine is lacking. Additionally, limited research exists on determining the optimal duration for Azvudine treatment.

Methods

We studied adult patients with COVID-19 who got Azvudine or supportive treatment at an outpatient department between December 19, 2022 and January 5, 2023. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the Azvudine group, which received Azvudine, and the control group, which only received supportive care. We recorded their information and analyzed it using descriptive statistics. The primary outcome of this study was the compliance of outpatients with Azvudine, and the secondary outcome of this study was the optimal duration of Azvudine. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address the imbalance between groups when comparing the optimal duration of Azvudine, and Cox regression to evaluate the effect of Azvudine on the 28-day disease progression rate.

Results

We enrolled a total of 882 patients, of which 382 received Azvudine. Among the patients, 94.0 % (359) had good compliance, and non-compliance was primarily attributed to dosage errors. Azvudine appeared to have a beneficial therapeutic effect when administered for at least 7 days.

Conclusions

Outpatients have relatively good compliance with Azvudine, and optimal therapeutic effects were observed with the recommended duration of at least 7 days.

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.

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.

Phase I study, and dosing regimen selection for a pivotal COVID-19 trial of GST-HG171

This study is aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK), as well as to select an appropriate dosing regimen for the pivotal clinical trial of GST-HG171, an orally bioavailable, potent, and selective 3CL protease inhibitor by a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled phase I trial in healthy subjects. We conducted a Ph1 study involving 78 healthy subjects to assess the safety, tolerability, and PK of single ascending doses (150-900 mg) as well as multiple ascending doses (MADs) (150 and 300 mg) of GST-HG171. Additionally, we examined the food effect and drug-drug interaction of GST-HG171 in combination with ritonavir through a MAD regimen of GST-HG171/ritonavir (BID or TID) for 5 days. Throughout the course of these studies, no serious AEs or deaths occurred, and no AEs necessitated study discontinuation. We observed that food had no significant impact on the exposure of GST-HG171. However, the presence of ritonavir substantially increased the exposure of GST-HG171, which facilitated the selection of the GST-HG171/ritonavir dose and regimen (150/100 mg BID) for subsequent phase II/III trials. The selected dose regimen was achieved through concentrations continuously at 6.2-9.9-fold above the levels required for protein-binding adjusted 50% inhibition (IC50) of viral replication in vitro. The combination of 150 mg GST-HG171/100 mg ritonavir demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles. The PK data obtained from GST-HG171/ritonavir administration guided the selection of appropriate dose for a pivotal phase II/III trial currently in progress. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT05668897).

Main and papain-like proteases as prospective targets for pharmacological treatment of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 led to a global crisis in the world healthcare system. Despite some progress in the creation of antiviral vaccines and mass vaccination of the population, the number of patients continues to grow because of the spread of new SARS-CoV-2 mutations. There is an urgent need for direct-acting drugs capable of suppressing or stopping the main mechanisms of reproduction of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Several studies have shown that the successful replication of the virus in the cell requires proteolytic cleavage of the protein structures of the virus. Two proteases are crucial in replicating SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses: the main protease (Mpro) and the papain-like protease (PLpro). In this review, we summarize the essential viral proteins of SARS-CoV-2 required for its viral life cycle as targets for chemotherapy of coronavirus infection and provide a critical summary of the development of drugs against COVID-19 from the drug repurposing strategy up to the molecular design of novel covalent and non-covalent agents capable of inhibiting virus replication. We overview the main antiviral strategy and the choice of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and PLpro proteases as promising targets for pharmacological impact on the coronavirus life cycle.

Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir vs. Intravenous Three-Day Remdesivir in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19: A Single-Center, Prospective, Comparative, Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and three-day course remdesivir (3RDV) have been approved as early treatments for COVID-19 outpatients not requiring supplemental oxygen. Real-life data on the efficacy of antivirals among immunocompromised patients or directly comparing their effectiveness in preventing hospitalization and/or death are scarce.

METHODS

Prospective, observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital, from 1 January 2022 until 15 March 2023, during the prevalence of the Omicron variant. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for differences between treatment groups.

RESULTS

We included 521, mainly immunocompromised (56%), patients in our analysis; 356 (68.3%) received 3RDV and 165 (31.7%) NMV/r. Overall, 15/521 (2.9%) patients met the primary end-point of hospitalization at 30 days (3RDV arm: 10/356, 2.8% vs. NMV/r arm: 5/165, 3%, p = 1). On IPTW-adjusted univariable analysis, the choice of treatment did not affect outcomes. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, we found that one (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.07-0.99, p = 0.049) or two (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.01-0.55, p = 0.014) vaccine booster shots reduced the risk for adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In our patient population of high-risk, mainly immunocompromised, vaccinated patients during the prevalence of the Omicron variant, NMV/r and 3RDV were equally effective early treatments for the prevention of hospitalization and/or death.