Effectiveness of COVID-19 Treatment With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir or Molnupiravir Among U.S. Veterans: Target Trial Emulation Studies With One-Month and Six-Month Outcomes

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Molnupiravir in the Intended-Use Population: an Observational Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

49,515 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of them, 3,957 molnupiravir-treated patients were matched to 19,785 untreated patients. In molnupiravir-treated patients, 70 out of 3,957 (5.1 per 10,000 person-days) experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death, compared to 699 out of 19,785 untreated patients (10.4 per 10,000 person-days); RR: 0.50, (95% CI: 0.39-0.64). All-cause mortality was also lower in the treated group, with 41 out of 3,957 (3.0 per 10,000 person-days) experiencing mortality compared to 414 out of 19,785 untreated patients (6.1 per 10,000 person-days); RR: 0.50 (0.36-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

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

Identifying Veterans Who Benefit From Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir: A Target Trial Emulation

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is recommended for persons at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but remains underutilized. Information on which eligible groups are likely to benefit from treatment is needed.

METHODS

We conducted a target trial emulation study in the Veterans Health Administration comparing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treated versus matched untreated veterans at risk for severe COVID-19 who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from April 2022 through March 2023. We measured incidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days. Outcomes were measured for the entire cohort, as well as among subgroups defined by 30-day risk of death or hospitalization, estimated using an ensemble risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Participants were 87% male with median age 66 years and 16% unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 24 205) had a lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (1.80% vs 2.30%; risk difference [RD], -0.50% points [95% confidence interval {CI}: -.69 to -.35]) and death (0.11% vs 0.30%; RD, -0.20 [95% CI: -.24 to -.13]). The greatest reductions in combined hospitalization or death were observed in the highest risk quartile (RD -2.85 [95% CI: -3.94 to -1.76]), immunocompromised persons (RD -1.91 [95% CI: -3.09 to -.74]), and persons aged ≥75 years (RD -1.16 [95% CI: -1.73 to -.59]). No reductions were observed in the 2 lowest risk quartiles or persons younger than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death in older veterans, those at highest predicted risk for severe outcomes, and immunocompromised groups. Benefit was not observed in younger veterans or groups at lower predicted risk for hospitalization and death.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or Molnupiravir for treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at risk of disease progression

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and Molnupiravir (MPV) reduced the risk of severe/fatal COVID-19 disease. Real-world data are limited, particularly studies directly comparing the two agents.

METHODS

Using the VA National COVID-19 database, we identified previously uninfected, non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 with ≥1 risk factor for disease progression who were prescribed either NMV/r or MPV within 3 days of a positive test. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to account for providers' preferences for a specific treatment. Absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% confidence intervals were determined for those treated with NMV/r vs. MPV. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death within 30 days of treatment prescription using the IPTW approach. Analyses were repeated using propensity-score matched groups.

RESULTS

Between January 1 and November 30, 2022, 9,180 individuals were eligible for inclusion (6,592 prescribed NMV/r; 2,454 prescribed MPV). The ARD for hospitalization/death for NMV/r vs MPV was -0.25 (95% CI -0.79 to 0.28). There was no statistically significant difference in ARD among strata by age, race, comorbidities, or symptoms at baseline. Kaplan-Meier curves did not demonstrate a difference between the two groups (p-value = 0.6). Analysis of the propensity-score matched cohort yielded similar results (ARD for NMV/r vs. MPV -0.9, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.23). Additional analyses showed no difference for development of severe/critical/fatal disease by treatment group.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant difference in short term risk of hospitalization or death among at-risk individuals with COVID-19 treated with either NMV/r or MPV.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Association of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with post-acute sequelae and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies have established the short-term efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in managing COVID-19, yet its effect on post-COVID-19 condition, especially in patients admitted to hospital, remains understudied. This study aimed to examine the effect of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on post-COVID-19 condition among patients admitted to hospital in Hong Kong.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used real-world, territory-wide inpatient records, vaccination records, and confirmed COVID-19 case data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and Department of Health, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Patients aged 18 years and older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 11, 2022, and Oct 10, 2023, and who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were included. The treatment group included patients prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days of symptom onset, excluding those prescribed molnupiravir within 21 days, and the control group had no exposure to either nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir. The outcomes were post-acute inpatient death and 13 sequelae (congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, deep vein thrombosis, chronic pulmonary disease, acute respiratory distress syndrome, interstitial lung disease, seizure, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, end-stage renal disease, acute kidney injury, and pancreatitis). These outcomes were evaluated starting at 21 days after the positive RT-PCR date in each respective cohort constructed for the outcome. Standardised mortality ratio weights were applied to balance covariates, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to investigate the relationship between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and outcomes.

FINDINGS

136 973 patients were screened for inclusion, among whom 50 055 were eligible and included in the analysis (24 873 [49·7%] were female and 25 182 [50·3%] were male). 15 242 patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during acute COVID-19 and 23 756 patients were included in the control group; 11 057 patients did not meet our definition for the exposed and unexposed groups. Patients were followed up for a median of 393 days (IQR 317-489). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group compared with the control group, there was a significantly lower hazard of post-acute inpatient death (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·57-0·68]; p<0·0001), congestive heart failure (0·70 [0·58-0·85]; p=0·0002), atrial fibrillation (0·63 [0·52-0·76]; p<0·0001), coronary artery disease (0·71 [0·59-0·85]; p=0·0002), chronic pulmonary disease (0·68 [0·54-0·86]; p=0·0011), acute respiratory distress syndrome (0·71 [0·58-0·86]; p=0·0007), interstitial lung disease (0·17 [0·04-0·75]; p=0·020), and end-stage renal disease (0·37 [0·18-0·74]; p=0·0049). There was no evidence indicating difference between the groups in deep vein thrombosis, seizure, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, acute kidney injury, and pancreatitis.

INTERPRETATION

This study showed extended benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for reducing the risk of post-acute inpatient death as well as cardiovascular and respiratory complications among patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Further research is essential to uncover the underlying mechanisms responsible for these observed negative associations and to devise effective strategies for preventing the onset of post-acute sequelae.

FUNDING

Health and Medical Research Fund, Research Grants Council theme-based research schemes, and Research Grants Council Collaborative Research Fund.

The clinical outcomes and effectiveness of antiviral agents among underweight patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the outcomes of underweight patients with COVID-19 and the effectiveness of antiviral agents in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using theTriNetX research network was conducted. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the first cohort involving COVID-19 patients with underweight and normal-weight. In the second cohort, underweight patients receiving antiviral agents and untreated individuals were matched using PSM. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause hospitalization and death during the 7-30-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

After PSM, the first cohort including each group of 13,502 patients with balanced baseline characteristics were identified for comparing the outcome of patients with underweight and normal weight. The underweight group had a higher risk of the composite primary outcome than those with normal weight (hazard ratio [HR], 1.251; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.132-1.382). The second cohort included each 884 underweight patients with and without receiving antivirals.Compared with untreated patients, those receiving antiviral treatment had a lower risk of composite primary outcomes (HR, 0.426; 95% CI, 0.278-0.653).

CONCLUSION

Underweight status may be associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization and death in patients with COVID-19.Among underweight patients, antiviral agents demonstrated clinically beneficial effects.

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.

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Natural products as a source of Coronavirus entry inhibitors

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant and lasting impact on the world. Four years on, despite the existence of effective vaccines, the continuous emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants remains a challenge for long-term immunity. Additionally, there remain few purpose-built antivirals to protect individuals at risk of severe disease in the event of future coronavirus outbreaks. A promising mechanism of action for novel coronavirus antivirals is the inhibition of viral entry. To facilitate entry, the coronavirus spike glycoprotein interacts with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on respiratory epithelial cells. Blocking this interaction and consequently viral replication may be an effective strategy for treating infection, however further research is needed to better characterize candidate molecules with antiviral activity before progressing to animal studies and clinical trials. In general, antiviral drugs are developed from purely synthetic compounds or synthetic derivatives of natural products such as plant secondary metabolites. While the former is often favored due to the higher specificity afforded by rational drug design, natural products offer several unique advantages that make them worthy of further study including diverse bioactivity and the ability to work synergistically with other drugs. Accordingly, there has recently been a renewed interest in natural product-derived antivirals in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides a summary of recent research into coronavirus entry inhibitors, with a focus on natural compounds derived from plants, honey, and marine sponges.

Successful salvage of a severe COVID-19 patient previously with lung cancer and radiation pneumonitis by mesenchymal stem cells: a case report and literature review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, elderly patients with underlying condition, such as tumors, had poor prognoses after progressing to severe pneumonia and often had poor response to standard treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may be a promising treatment for patients with severe pneumonia, but MSCs are rarely used for patients with carcinoma. Here, we reported a 67-year-old female patient with lung adenocarcinoma who underwent osimertinib and radiotherapy and suffered from radiation pneumonitis. Unfortunately, she contracted COVID-19 and that rapidly progressed to severe pneumonia. She responded poorly to frontline treatment and was in danger. Subsequently, she received a salvage treatment with four doses of MSCs, and her symptoms surprisingly improved quickly. After a lung CT scan that presented with a significantly improved infection, she was discharged eventually. Her primary disease was stable after 6 months of follow-up, and no tumor recurrence or progression was observed. MSCs may be an effective treatment for hyperactive inflammation due to their ability related to immunomodulation and tissue repair. Our case suggests a potential value of MSCs for severe pneumonia that is unresponsive to conventional therapy after a COVID-19 infection. However, unless the situation is urgent, it needs to be considered with caution for patients with tumors. The safety in tumor patients still needs to be observed.

Oral COVID-19 Antiviral Uptake Among a Highly Vaccinated US Cohort of Adults With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Between December 2021 and October 2022

Background

We described the oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir (MOV) uptake among a subgroup of highly vaccinated adults in a US national prospective cohort who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 12/2021 and 10/2022.

Methods

We estimate antiviral uptake within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as age- and gender-adjusted antiviral uptake prevalence ratios by antiviral eligibility (based on age and comorbidities), sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical characteristics including vaccination status and history of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID).

Results

NMV/r uptake was 13.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-15.2%) among 1594 participants, and MOV uptake was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.1%) among 1398 participants. NMV/r uptake increased over time (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.9%; between 12/2021 and 3/2022; 16.5%; 95% CI, 13.0%-20.0%; between 4/2022 and 7/2022; and 25.3%; 95% CI, 21.6%-29.0%; between 8/2022 and 10/2022). Participants age ≥65 and those who had comorbidities for severe COVID-19 had higher NMV/r uptake. There was lower NMV/r uptake among non-Hispanic Black participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 2.4%-12.0%; relative to other racial/ethnic groups) and among individuals in the lowest income groups (10.6%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.8%; relative to higher income groups). Among a subset of 278 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12/2021 who also had a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with (vs without) a history of long COVID reported greater NMV/r uptake (22.0% vs 7.9%; P = .001). Among those prescribed NMV/r (n = 216), 137 (63%; 95% CI, 57%-70%) reported that NMV/r was helpful for reducing COVID-19 symptoms.

Conclusions

Despite proven effectiveness against severe outcomes, COVID-19 antiviral uptake remains low among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States. Further outreach to providers and patients to improve awareness of COVID-19 oral antivirals and indications is needed.

Risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 despite vaccination in patients requiring treatment with immune-suppressive drugs: A nationwide cohort study of US Veterans

BACKGROUND

Patients taking immune-suppressive drugs are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), not fully ameliorated by vaccination. We assessed the contributions of clinical and demographic factors to the risk of severe disease despite vaccination in patients taking immune-suppressive medications for solid organ transplantation (SOT), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or psoriasis.

METHODS

Veterans Health Administration electronic health records were used to identify patients diagnosed with RA, IBD, psoriasis, or SOT who had been vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were subsequently infected, and had received immune-suppressive drugs within 3 months before infection. The association of severe (defined as hypoxemia, mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone use, or death) versus non-severe COVID-19 with the use of immune-suppressive and antiviral drugs and clinical covariates was assessed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Severe COVID-19 was more common in patients with SOT (230/1011, 22.7%) than RA (173/1355, 12.8%), IBD (51/742, 6.9%), or psoriasis (82/1125, 7.3%). Age was strongly associated with severe COVID-19, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.04 (CI 1.03-1.05) per year. Comorbidities indicating chronic brain, heart, lung, or kidney damage were also associated with severity, aOR 1.35-2.38. The use of glucocorticoids was associated with increased risk (aOR 1.66, CI 1.39-2.18). Treatment with antivirals was associated with reduced severity, for example, aOR 0.28 (CI 0.13-0.62) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

CONCLUSION

The risk of severe COVID-19 despite vaccination is substantial in patients taking immune-suppressive drugs, more so in patients with SOT than in patients with inflammatory diseases. Age and severe comorbidities contribute to risk, as in the general population. Oral antivirals were very beneficial but not widely used.

Clinical Risk and Outpatient Therapy Utilization for COVID-19 in the Medicare Population

Importance

Multiple therapies are available for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 that are highly effective at preventing hospitalization and mortality. Although racial and socioeconomic disparities in use of these therapies have been documented, limited evidence exists on what factors explain differences in use and the potential public health relevance of these differences.

Objective

To assess COVID-19 outpatient treatment utilization in the Medicare population and simulate the potential outcome of allocating treatment according to patient risk for severe COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included patients enrolled in Medicare in 2022 across the US, identified with 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was any COVID-19 outpatient therapy utilization. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 testing, ambulatory visits, and hospitalization. Differences in outcomes were estimated based on patient demographics, treatment contraindications, and a composite risk score for mortality after COVID-19 based on demographics and comorbidities. A simulation of reallocating COVID-19 treatment, particularly with nirmatrelvir, to those at high risk of severe disease was performed, and the potential COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality outcomes were assessed.

Results

In 2022, 6.0% of 20 026 910 beneficiaries received outpatient COVID-19 treatment, 40.5% of which had no associated COVID-19 diagnosis within 10 days. Patients with higher risk for severe disease received less outpatient treatment, such as 6.4% of those aged 65 to 69 years compared with 4.9% of those 90 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]) and 6.4% of White patients compared with 3.0% of Black patients (aOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.54-0.58]). In the highest COVID-19 severity risk quintile, 2.6% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 4.9% received outpatient treatment, compared with 0.2% and 7.5% in the lowest quintile. These patterns were similar among patients with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis, those with no claims for vaccination, and patients who are insured with Medicare Advantage. Differences were not explained by variable COVID-19 testing, ambulatory visits, or treatment contraindications. Reallocation of 2022 outpatient COVID-19 treatment, particularly with nirmatrelvir, based on risk for severe COVID-19 would have averted 16 503 COVID-19 deaths (16.3%) in the sample.

Conclusion

In this cross-sectional study, outpatient COVID-19 treatment was disproportionately accessed by beneficiaries at lower risk for severe infection, undermining its potential public health benefit. Undertreatment was not driven by lack of clinical access or treatment contraindications.

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.

Association of nirmatrelvir for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with subsequent Long COVID symptoms in an observational cohort study

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is approved as treatment for acute COVID-19, but the effect of treatment during acute infection on risk of Long COVID is unknown. We hypothesized that nirmatrelvir treatment during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces risk of developing Long COVID and rebound after treatment is associated with Long COVID. We conducted an observational cohort study within the Covid Citizen Science (CCS) study, an online cohort study with over 100 000 participants. We included vaccinated, nonhospitalized, nonpregnant individuals who reported their first SARS-CoV-2 positive test March-August 2022. Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was ascertained during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patient-reported Long COVID symptoms, symptom rebound and test-positivity rebound were asked on subsequent surveys at least 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 4684 individuals met the eligibility criteria, of whom 988 (21.1%) were treated and 3696 (78.9%) were untreated; 353/988 (35.7%) treated and 1258/3696 (34.0%) untreated responded to the Long COVID survey (n = 1611). Among 1611 participants, median age was 55 years and 66% were female. At 5.4 ± 1.3 months after infection, nirmatrelvir treatment was not associated with subsequent Long COVID symptoms (odds ratio [OR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.64; p = 0.45). Among 666 treated who answered rebound questions, rebound symptoms or test positivity were not associated with Long COVID symptoms (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.74-2.41; p = 0.33). Within this cohort of vaccinated, nonhospitalized individuals, oral nirmatrelvir treatment during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment were not associated with Long COVID symptoms more than 90 days after infection.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs.

RESULTS

An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Effectiveness of Molnupiravir Treatment in Patients with COVID-19 in Korea: A Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The MOVe-OUT (efficacy and safety of molnupiravir [MK-4482] in non-hospitalized adult participants with COVID-19 [MK-4482-002]) trial reported that the administration of molnupiravir in unvaccinated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) before the Omicron epidemic showed a preventive effect of 31% against hospitalization and death. However, studies on the preventive effect of molnupiravir against progression to severe disease and death in patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron epidemic are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the preventive effect of molnupiravir against severe/critical illness or death and death in Korean patients with COVID-19 who were vaccinated mostly during the Omicron epidemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study used large-scale retrospective cohort data to select patients with COVID-19 who were either treated or not treated with molnupiravir, between August 2022 and March 2023, at a ratio of 1 : 4 using the propensity score matching method. In total, 762,768 patients comprised the non- administered group, and 190,692 patients comprised the molnupiravir-administered group. The preventive effect of molnupiravir against severe/critical illness or death and death was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The preventive effect of molnupiravir against severe/critical illness or death and death, represented by the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), in the molnupiravir-administered and non-administered group was (OR: 0.714; CI: 0.667 - 0.764) and (OR: 0.749; CI: 0.682 - 0.823), respectively. As age increased, the preventive effect against severe/critical illness or death and death increased. The preventive effect against severe/critical illness or death at ≥60 years was (OR: 0.669; CI: 0.624 - 0.717), at ≥70 years was (OR: 0.614; CI: 0.570 - 0.661), and at ≥80 years was (OR: 0.563; CI: 0.515 - 0.615). The preventive effect against death at ≥60 years was (OR: 0.729; CI: 0.663 - 0.802), at ≥70 years was (OR: 0.676; CI: 0.612 - 0.747), and at ≥80 years was (OR: 0.622; CI: 0.554 - 0.698).

CONCLUSION

Although molnupiravir showed a relatively weak preventive effect against severe/critical illness or death (29%) and death (25%) among patients with COVID-19, it exhibited a stronger protective effect in older patients than in younger patients. In particular, the preventive effect against severe/critical illness or death (44%) and death (38%) in those aged ≥80 years was pronounced. This study strongly suggests that molnupiravir administration can alleviate the burden on the medical system, and treat patients with COVID-19 effectively by reducing its progression to severe disease and death.

Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Against the Development of Post-COVID-19 Conditions Among U.S. Veterans : A Target Trial Emulation

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been linked to the development of many post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) after acute infection. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of oral antivirals used to treat acute COVID-19 in preventing the development of PCCs.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effectiveness of outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing PCCs.

DESIGN

Retrospective target trial emulation study comparing matched cohorts receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus no treatment.

SETTING

Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

PARTICIPANTS

Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022.

INTERVENTION

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19.

MEASUREMENTS

Cumulative incidence of 31 potential PCCs at 31 to 180 days after treatment or a matched index date, including cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and general conditions and symptoms.

RESULTS

Eighty-six percent of the participants were male, with a median age of 66 years, and 17.5% were unvaccinated. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and matched untreated comparators. No differences were observed between participants treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 9593) and their matched untreated comparators in the incidence of most PCCs examined individually or grouped by organ system, except for lower combined risk for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (subhazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97]; cumulative incidence difference, -0.29 percentage points [CI, -0.52 to -0.05 percentage points]).

LIMITATIONS

Ascertainment of PCCs using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes may be inaccurate. Evaluation of many outcomes could have resulted in spurious associations with combined thromboembolic events by chance.

CONCLUSION

Out of 31 potential PCCs, only combined thromboembolic events seemed to be reduced by nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

N4-hydroxycytidine, the active compound of Molnupiravir, promotes SARS-CoV-2 mutagenesis and escape from a neutralizing nanobody

N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC), the active compound of the drug Molnupiravir, is incorporated into SARS-CoV-2 RNA, causing false base pairing. The desired result is an "error catastrophe," but this bears the risk of mutated virus progeny. To address this experimentally, we propagated the initial SARS-CoV-2 strain in the presence of NHC. Deep sequencing revealed numerous NHC-induced mutations and host-cell-adapted virus variants. The presence of the neutralizing nanobody Re5D06 selected for immune escape mutations, in particular p.E484K and p.F490S, which are key mutations of the Beta/Gamma and Omicron-XBB strains, respectively. With NHC treatment, nanobody resistance occurred two passages earlier than without. Thus, within the limitations of this purely in vitro study, we conclude that the combined action of Molnupiravir and a spike-neutralizing antagonist leads to the rapid emergence of escape mutants. We propose caution use and supervision when using Molnupiravir, especially when patients are still at risk of spreading virus.

Effectiveness of molnupiravir vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study

Background

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Methods

In this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients' characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4; ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses).

Findings

A total of 63,522 non-hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 31,761; molnupiravir: 31,761) and 11,784 hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 5892; molnupiravir: 5892) patients were included. In non-hospitalised setting, 336 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 265, 0.83%), 162 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 91, 0.29%), and 4890 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1853, 5.83%; molnupiravir: 3037, 9.56%) were observed. Lower risks of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 28 days: 0.61%, 95% CI: 0.50-0.72; HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) and hospital admission (ARR at 28 days: 3.73%, 95% CI: 3.31-4.14; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) were observed in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users compared to molnupiravir users. In hospitalised setting, 509 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 176, 2.99%; molnupiravir: 333, 5.65%), and 50 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 26, 0.44%; molnupiravir: 24, 0.41%) were observed. Risk of all-cause mortality was lower for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users than for molnupiravir users (ARR at 28 days: 2.66%, 95% CI: 1.93-3.40; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In both settings, there was no difference in the risk of intensive care unit admission or ventilatory support between groups. The findings were consistent across all subgroup's analyses.

Interpretation

Our analyses suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality in both non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients. When neither drug is contraindicated, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be considered the more effective option.

Funding

HMRF Research on COVID-19, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government; Collaborative Research Fund, University Grants Committee, the HKSAR Government; and Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, the HKSAR Government; the Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H) funded by the AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments.

DATA SOURCES

The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified.

LIMITATION

Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only.

CONCLUSION

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Real-life comparison of mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at risk for clinical progression treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir during the Omicron era in Italy: a nationwide, cohort study

Background

Comparative data on mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with molnupiravir or with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir are inconclusive. We therefore compared all-cause mortality in community-dwelling COVID-19 patients treated with these drugs during the Omicron era.

Methods

Data collected in the nationwide, population-based, cohort of patients registered in the database of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) were used. To increase completeness of the recorded deaths and date correctness, a cross-check with the National Death Registry provided by the Ministry of the Interior was performed. We included in this study all patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 treated within 5 days after the test date and symptom onset between February 8 and April 30, 2022. All-cause mortalities by day 28 were compared between the two treatment groups after balancing for baseline characteristics using weights obtained from a gradient boosting machine algorithm.

Findings

In the considered timeframe, 17,977 patients treated with molnupiravir and 11,576 patients with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were included in the analysis. Most patients (25,617/29,553 = 86.7%) received a full vaccine course including the booster dose. A higher crude incidence rate of all-cause mortality was found among molnupiravir users (51.83 per 100,000 person-days), compared to nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir users (22.29 per 100,000 person-days). However, molnupiravir-treated patients were older than those treated with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and differences between the two populations were found as far as types of co-morbidities were concerned. For this reason, we compared the weight-adjusted cumulative incidences using the Aalen estimator and found that the adjusted cumulative incidence rates were 1.23% (95% CI 1.07%-1.38%) for molnupiravir-treated and 0.78% (95% CI 0.58%-0.98%) for nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir-treated patients (adjusted log rank p = 0.0002). Moreover, the weight-adjusted mixed-effect Cox model including Italian regions and NHS centers as random effects and treatment as the only covariate confirmed a significant reduced risk of death in patients treated with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir. Lastly, a significant reduction in the risk of death associated with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir was confirmed in patient subgroups, such as in females, fully vaccinated patients, those treated within day 2 since symptom onset and patients without (haemato)-oncological diseases.

Interpretation

Early initiation of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir was associated for the first time with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality by day 28 compared to molnupiravir, both in the overall population and in patient subgroups, including those fully vaccinated with the booster dose.

Funding

This study did not receive funding.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Pharmacotherapies Among Nonhospitalized US Veterans, January 2022 to January 2023

Importance

Several pharmacotherapies have been authorized to treat nonhospitalized persons with symptomatic COVID-19. Longitudinal information on the use of these therapies is needed.

Objective

To analyze trends and factors associated with prescription of outpatient COVID-19 pharmacotherapies within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study evaluated nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from January 2022 through January 2023 using VHA and linked Community Care and Medicare databases.

Exposures

Demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, COVID-19 vaccination, and regional and local systems of care, including Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Monthly receipt of any COVID-19 pharmacotherapy (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab, or bebtelovimab) was described. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with receipt of any vs no COVID-19 pharmacotherapy.

Results

Among 285 710 veterans (median [IQR] age, 63.1 [49.9-73.7] years; 247 358 males [86.6%]; 28 444 Hispanic [10.0%]; 61 269 Black [21.4%] and 198 863 White [69.6%]) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January 2022 and January 2023, the proportion receiving any pharmacotherapy increased from 3285 of 102 343 veterans (3.2%) in January 2022 to 5180 of 21 688 veterans (23.9%) in August 2022. The proportion declined to 2194 of 10 551 veterans (20.8%) by January 2023. Across VISNs, the range in proportion of patients who tested positive who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir during January 2023 was 41 of 692 veterans (5.9%) to 106 of 494 veterans (21.4%) and 2.1% to 120 of 1074 veterans (11.1%), respectively. Veterans receiving any treatment were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for ages 65-74 vs 50-64 years, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.22; aOR for ages ≥75 vs 50-64 years, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.23) and have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (aOR for CCI ≥6 vs 0, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.44-1.59). Compared with White veterans, Black veterans (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) were more likely to receive treatment, and compared with non-Hispanic veterans, Hispanic veterans (aOR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) were more likely to receive treatment.

Conclusions And Relevance

This study found that prescription of outpatient COVID-19 pharmacotherapies in the VHA peaked in August 2022 and declined thereafter. There were large regional differences in patterns of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir use.

The impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on the economic burden of Covid-19 in the United States omicron era: a systematic literature review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters.

LIMITATIONS

The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.