SARS-CoV-2 Virologic Rebound With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Therapy : An Observational Study

COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir

Background

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NM/r) is a safe and effective oral antiviral therapeutic used for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Case reports described a clinical rebound syndrome whereby individuals experience a relapse of symptoms shortly after completing successful treatment. There is a lack of information on frequency of COVID-19 rebound after NM/r in routine clinical care, contributing factors, and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records to verify COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment with NM/r from January-June 2022. We defined COVID-19 clinical rebound as clear improvement in symptoms followed by recurrence or worsening of symptoms within 30 days of a five-day course of NM/r.

Results

We studied 268 adults with median age 57 (IQR 47, 68), 80% White race, 85% non-Hispanic ethnicity, 55% female, 80% vaccinated and boosted against SARS-CoV-2, and 68% with any co-morbidity. Sixteen (6.0%) of studied patients were determined to have COVID-19 clinical rebound. The median time from starting NM/r to rebound was 11 days (IQR 9, 13). Notable demographic and clinical factors with higher proportion (not statistically significant) among COVID-19 rebound patients were female sex (75% rebound vs 54.5% no rebound), Black race (12.5% rebound vs 4.9% no rebound), presence of at least one co-morbidity (81.3% rebound vs 67.5% no rebound), and lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (100% rebound vs 92.9% no rebound). Only one patient (6.25%) was hospitalized after COVID-19 rebound.

Conclusions

COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with NM/r is mild with favorable outcomes and more common than previously reported from real-world clinical care studies.

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.

Viral SARS-CoV-2 Rebound Rates in Linked Commercial Pharmacy-Based Testing and Health Care Claims

Background

Viral SARS-CoV-2 rebound (viral RNA rebound) is challenging to characterize in large cohorts due to the logistics of collecting frequent and regular diagnostic test results. Pharmacy-based testing data provide an opportunity to study the phenomenon in a large population, also enabling subgroup analyses. The current real-world evidence approach complements approaches focused on smaller, prospective study designs.

Methods

We linked real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction test data from national pharmacy-based testing to health care claims data via tokenization to calculate the cumulative incidence of viral RNA rebound within 28 days following positive test results in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV-r)-treated and untreated individuals during the Omicron era (December 2021-November 2022) and prior to the Omicron era (October 2020-November 2021).

Results

Among 30 646 patients, the rate of viral RNA rebound was 3.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-5.7%) in NMV-r-treated infections as compared with 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.7%) in untreated infections during the Omicron era and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.1%) prior to the Omicron era. Viral RNA rebound in patients who were vaccinated (n = 8151), high risk (n = 4411), or older (≥65 years, n = 4411) occurred at comparable rates to the overall cohort (range, 1.1%-4.8%). Viral rebounds to high RNA levels in NMV-r-treated infections occurred in 8% of viral rebounds as compared with 5% to 11% in untreated infections. Rates of hospitalization were comparable between patients with NMV-r-treated infections with viral RNA rebound (0%) and untreated patients with viral RNA rebound (0%-1.2%).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest viral RNA rebound is rare (< 5%), with rates that were consistent with those from the EPIC-HR trial (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients). Most occurrences of viral RNA rebound were associated with low viral RNA levels, and viral RNA rebound progression to severe disease was not observed.

Protecting the vulnerable: addressing the COVID-19 care needs of people with compromised immunity

While the general population regained a certain level of normalcy with the end of the global health emergency, the risk of contracting COVID-19 with a severe outcome is still a major concern for people with compromised immunity. This paper reviews the impact of COVID-19 on people with immunocompromised status, identifies the gaps in the current management landscape, and proposes actions to address this unmet need. Observational studies have demonstrated that people with immune dysfunction have a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, despite vaccination, than the general population. More research is needed to define the optimal prevention and treatment strategies that are specific to people with immunocompromised status, including novel vaccination strategies, monoclonal antibodies that provide passive immunity and complement suboptimal vaccination responses, and improved and safer antiviral treatment for COVID-19. Preventive measures beyond vaccination alone are urgently needed to protect this vulnerable population.

A unifying model to explain high nirmatrelvir therapeutic efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, despite low post-exposure prophylaxis efficacy and frequent viral rebound

In a pivotal trial (EPIC-HR), a 5-day course of oral ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, given early during symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (within three days of symptoms onset), decreased hospitalization and death by 89.1% and nasal viral load by 0.87 log relative to placebo in high-risk individuals. Yet, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir failed as post-exposure prophylaxis in a trial, and frequent viral rebound has been observed in subsequent cohorts. We developed a mathematical model capturing viral-immune dynamics and nirmatrelvir pharmacokinetics that recapitulated viral loads from this and another clinical trial (PLATCOV). Our results suggest that nirmatrelvir's in vivo potency is significantly lower than in vitro assays predict. According to our model, a maximally potent agent would reduce the viral load by approximately 3.5 logs relative to placebo at 5 days. The model identifies that earlier initiation and shorter treatment duration are key predictors of post-treatment rebound. Extension of treatment to 10 days for Omicron variant infection in vaccinated individuals, rather than increasing dose or dosing frequency, is predicted to lower the incidence of viral rebound significantly.

Stuck in pandemic uncertainty: a review of the persistent effects of COVID-19 infection in immune-deficient people

BACKGROUND

People who are immune-deficient/disordered (IDP) are underrepresented in COVID-19 studies. Specifically, there is limited research on post-SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, including viral persistence and long-term sequelae in these populations.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the published literature on the occurrence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 positivity, relapse, reinfections, variant coinfection, and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 in IDP. Although the available literature largely centred on those with secondary immunodeficiencies, studies on people with inborn errors of immunity are also included.

SOURCES

PubMed was searched using medical subject headings terms to identify relevant articles from the last 4 years. Articles on primary and secondary immunodeficiencies were chosen, and a special emphasis was placed on including articles that studied people with inborn errors of immunity. The absence of extensive cohort studies including these individuals has limited most articles in this review to case reports, whereas the articles focusing on secondary immunodeficiencies include larger cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. Articles focusing solely on HIV/AIDS were excluded.

CONTENT

Scientific literature suggests that IDP of any age are more likely to experience persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although adult IDP exhibits a higher rate of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, milder COVID-19 infections in children may reduce their risk of experiencing post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. Reinfections and coinfections may occur at a slightly higher rate in IDP than in the general population.

IMPLICATIONS

Although IDP experience increased viral persistence and inter-host evolution, it is unlikely that enough evidence can be generated at the population-level to support or refute the hypothesis that infections in IDP are significantly more likely to result in variants of concern than infections in the general population. Additional research on the relationship between viral persistence and the rate of long-term sequelae in IDP could inform the understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in IDP and the general population.

An orally bioavailable SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitor exhibits improved affinity and reduced sensitivity to mutations

Inhibitors of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease (Mpro) such as nirmatrelvir (NTV) and ensitrelvir (ETV) have proven effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19, but the presence of resistance-conferring mutations in sequenced viral genomes raises concerns about future drug resistance. Second-generation oral drugs that retain function against these mutants are thus urgently needed. We hypothesized that the covalent hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor boceprevir (BPV) could serve as the basis for orally bioavailable drugs that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Mpro more efficiently than existing drugs. Performing structure-guided modifications of BPV, we developed a picomolar-affinity inhibitor, ML2006a4, with antiviral activity, oral pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic efficacy similar or superior to those of NTV. A crucial feature of ML2006a4 is a derivatization of the ketoamide reactive group that improves cell permeability and oral bioavailability. Last, ML2006a4 was found to be less sensitive to several mutations that cause resistance to NTV or ETV and occur in the natural SARS-CoV-2 population. Thus, anticipatory design can preemptively address potential resistance mechanisms to expand future treatment options against coronavirus variants.

COVID-19 Rebound After VV116 vs Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

With the widespread use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, accumulating data have revealed potential viral load rebound after treatment.

Objective

To compare COVID-19 rebound after a standard 5-day course of antiviral treatment with VV116 vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a single-center, investigator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Shanghai, China. Adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between December 20, 2022, and January 19, 2023, and randomly allocated to receive either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Interventions

Participants in the VV116 treatment group received oral 600-mg VV116 tablets every 12 hours on day 1 and 300 mg every 12 hours on days 2 through 5. Participants in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment group received oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir tablets with 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir every 12 hours for 5 days. Participants were followed up every other day until day 28 and every week until day 60.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was viral load rebound (VLR), defined as a half-log increase in viral RNA copies per milliliter compared with treatment completion. Secondary outcomes included a reduction in the cycle threshold value of 1.5 or more, time until VLR, and symptom rebound, defined as an increase of more than 2 points in symptom score compared with treatment completion. The primary outcome and secondary outcomes were analyzed using the full analysis set. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the per protocol set. Adverse events were analyzed using the safety analysis set.

Results

The full analysis set included 345 participants (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.8] years; 175 [50.7%] were men) who received VV116 (n = 165) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 180). Viral load rebound occurred in 33 patients (20.0%) in the VV116 group and 39 patients (21.7%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .70). Symptom rebound occurred in 41 of 160 patients (25.6%) in the VV116 group and 40 of 163 patients (24.5%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .82). Viral whole-genome sequencing of 24 rebound cases revealed the same lineage at baseline and at viral load rebound in each case.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, viral load rebound and symptom rebound were both common after a standard 5-day course of treatment with either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Prolongation of treatment duration might be investigated to reduce COVID-19 rebound.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200066811.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Rebound With and Without Use of COVID-19 Oral Antivirals

Early treatment with a first-line therapy (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir [Paxlovid] or remdesivir) or second-line therapy (molnupiravir) prevents hospitalization and death among patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease and is recommended by the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. On May 25, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treatment of adults at high risk for severe disease. Although antiviral therapies are widely available, they are underutilized, possibly because of reports of SARS-CoV-2 rebound after treatment. To enhance current understanding of rebound, CDC reviewed SARS-CoV-2 rebound studies published during February 1, 2020- November 29, 2023. Overall, seven of 23 studies that met inclusion criteria, one randomized trial and six observational studies, compared rebound for persons who received antiviral treatment with that for persons who did not receive antiviral treatment. In four studies, including the randomized trial, no statistically significant difference in rebound rates was identified among persons receiving treatment and those not receiving treatment. Depending on the definition used, the prevalence of rebound varied. No hospitalizations or deaths were reported among outpatients who experienced rebound, because COVID-19 signs and symptoms were mild. Persons receiving antiviral treatment might be at higher risk for rebound compared with persons not receiving treatment because of host factors or treatment-induced viral suppression early in the course of illness. The potential for rebound should not deter clinicians from prescribing lifesaving antiviral treatments when indicated to prevent morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Rebound After Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Treatment in Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials - United States and International Sites, 2021-2022

Rebound of SARS-CoV-2 shedding or COVID-19 signs and symptoms has been described after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). The direct association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to COVID-19 rebound remains unclear because most reports are based on individual cases or nonrandomized studies. Viral RNA shedding data from two phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients [EPIC-HR] and Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in Standard-Risk Patients [EPIC-SR]) were analyzed to investigate the role of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 rebound. Rates of rebound of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding, identified based on an increase in nasopharyngeal viral RNA levels from day 5 (end-of-treatment) to day 10 or day 14, were similar between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and placebo recipients. Among subjects with a virologic response through day 5, viral RNA rebound occurred in 6.4%-8.4% of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 5.9%-6.5% of placebo recipients across EPIC-HR and the 2021/pre-Omicron and 2022/Omicron enrollment periods of EPIC-SR. Viral RNA rebound after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was not associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or death. Data from randomized trials demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 rebound can occur with or without antiviral treatment, supporting the Food and Drug Administration's determination of safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in eligible patients at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Persistence of an infectious form of SARS-CoV-2 post protease inhibitor treatment of permissive cells in vitro

Reports have described SARS-CoV-2 rebound in COVID-19 patients treated with nirmatrelvir, a 3CL protease inhibitor. The cause remains a mystery, although drug resistance, re-infection, and lack of adequate immune responses have been excluded. We now present virologic findings that provide a clue to the cause of viral rebound, which occurs in ~20% of the treated cases. The persistence of an intermediary form of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was experimentally documented in vitro after treatment with nirmatrelvir or another 3CL protease inhibitor, but not with a polymerase inhibitor, remdesivir. This infectious intermediate decayed slowly with a half-life of ~1 day, suggesting that its persistence could outlive the treatment course to re-ignited SARS-CoV-2 infection as the drug is eliminated. Additional studies are needed to define the nature of this viral intermediate, but our findings point to a particular direction for future investigation and offer a specific treatment recommendation that should be tested clinically.

Rebound of COVID-19 With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Antiviral Therapy

In their article, Edelstein and colleagues provide the results of an observational study of virologic response in patients who received treatment with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (N-R) versus those who received no COVID-19 therapy. The editorialists discuss the findings and emphasize the need for further consideration of the dosage, timing, and duration of treatment to inform optimal use of N-R.