Efficacy of COVID-19 Oral antivirals in hospitalised oldest-old with high morbidity burden: a target trial emulation study.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are orally administered pharmacotherapies for mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs among very old (≥80 years), hospitalised patients remains unclear, limiting the risk-benefit assessment of these antivirals in this specific group. This study investigates the effectiveness of these antivirals in reducing mortality among this group of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong, a target trial emulation study was conducted with data from 13 642 eligible participants for the molnupiravir trial and 9553 for the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Immortal time and confounding bias was minimised using cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Mortality odds ratios were estimated by pooled logistic regression after adjusting confounding biases by stabilised inverse probability weights. RESULTS: Both molnupiravir (HR: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.826-0.970) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (HR: 0.804, 95% CI: 0.678-0.955) demonstrated moderate mortality risk reduction among oldest-old hospitalised patients. No significant interaction was observed between oral antiviral treatment and vaccination status. The 28-day risk of mortality was lower in initiators than non-initiators for both molnupiravir (risk difference: -1.09%, 95% CI: -2.29, 0.11) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (risk difference: -1.71%, 95% CI: -3.30, -0.16) trials. The effectiveness of these medications was observed regardless of the patients' prior vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are moderately effective in reducing mortality risk among hospitalised oldest-old patients with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status.

Oral antivirals for COVID-19 among patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Immunocompromised individuals, such as those diagnosed with cancer, are at a significantly higher risk for severe illness and mortality when infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) than the general population. Two oral antiviral treatments are approved for COVID-19: Paxlovid® (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) and Lagevrio® (molnupiravir). There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit from these antivirals among immunocompromised patients with cancer, and recent studies have questioned their efficacy among vaccinated patients, even those with risk factors for severe COVID-19. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in preventing severe illness and death using our database of 457 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from Brown University-affiliated hospitals. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir and were compared to 45 concurrent controls who received no antiviral treatment despite being eligible to receive it. Administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with improved survival and lower 90-day all-cause and COVID-19-attributed mortality (p < 0.05) and with lower peak O2 requirements (ordinal odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-2.56). CONCLUSION: Acknowledging the small size of our sample as a limitation, we concluded that early antiviral treatment might be beneficial to immunocompromised individuals, particularly those with cancer, when infected with SARS-CoV-2. Larger-scale, well-stratified studies are needed in this patient population.

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.

Early use of oral antiviral drugs and the risk of post COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the association of early use of oral antiviral drugs (including nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir) with the risk of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) and compare the possible efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, MedRxiv, and Psycinfo were searched from inception until November 1, 2023. We included studies that assessed the effect of oral antiviral drugs on the incidence of PCC. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Risk ratios (RRs) for oral antiviral drugs were calculated with a confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Nine observational studies containing 866,066 patients were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir were evaluated in eight and two studies respectively, with both drugs evaluated in one study. Pair-wise meta-analysis showed that early oral antiviral drugs reduced PCC risk (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88). Network meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may perform better than molnupiravir (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 95.5% vs. 31.6%) at reducing PCC risk. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of oral antiviral drugs may potentially protect against developing PCC in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These findings support the standardized administration of oral antiviral drugs in patients during the acute phase of COVID-19 according to the guidelines.

Molnupiravir's real-world effectiveness in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk of severe disease: a single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic started in March 2020. Since then, there has been an urgent need for effective therapeutic methods to manage the disease. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of molnupiravir in reducing the need for hospitalization in at-risk, non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODOLOGY: This was a single-center, non-randomized, observational retrospective study of non-hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, treated at the Clinic for Infectious and Tropical Diseases, University Clinical Center in Belgrade, Serbia. RESULTS: The study was conducted between 15 December 2021 and 15 February 2022 and included 320 patients. Of these, 165 (51.6%) received treatment with molnupiravir. The study and control groups were similar in gender and age distribution. The study group had a higher proportion of vaccination (75.2% vs. 51%, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in presence of comorbidity within the groups. Majority of the patients who received molnupiravir did not require hospitalization; and this was statistically significant in comparison to control group (92.7 vs. 24.5%, p < 0.001). Oxygen supplementation was less frequently required in the study group compared to the control group (0.6% vs. 31%, p < 0.001). During the follow-up period of 12.12 ± 3.5 days, significantly less patients from the study group were admitted to the intensive care unit (p < 0.001). Molnupiravir significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization by 97.9% (HR 0.021; 95% CI 0.005-0.089; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir is an effective therapy in preventing the development of severe forms of COVID-19 and hospitalization.

The effect of oral antiviral therapy for COVID-19 in managing non-hospitalized patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUNDS: The effectiveness of oral antiviral therapy including nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and molnupiravir in managing COVID-19 among individuals with pre-existing lung cancer was unclear. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of antiviral agents in the management of COVID-19 among patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Utilizing data from the TriNetX - a global health research network, a retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 2484 patients diagnosed with both lung cancer and COVID-19. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to create well-balanced cohorts. The study assessed the primary outcome of all-cause hospitalization or mortality within a 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: After PSM, the oral antiviral group exhibited a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome compared to the control group (6.1 % vs. 9.9 %; HR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.45-0.80). This association was consistent across various subgroups according to age, sex, vaccine status, type of oral antiviral agent, and lung cancer characteristics. Additionally, the oral antiviral group showed a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.54-0.99) and a significantly lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.16; 95 % CI: 0.06-0.41). CONCLUSION: The study suggests a favorable impact of oral antiviral therapy on the outcomes of COVID-19 in individuals with lung cancer and support the potential utility of oral antiviral agents in improving outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Evaluating the Base Excision Repair Inhibitor TRC102 and Temozolomide for Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma in the Phase 2 Adult Brain Tumor Consortium Trial BERT.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) have a dismal prognosis. Although the DNA alkylating agent temozolomide (TMZ) is the mainstay of chemotherapy, therapeutic resistance rapidly develops in patients. Base excision repair inhibitor TRC102 (methoxyamine) reverses TMZ resistance in preclinical glioma models. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral TRC102+TMZ in recurrent GBM (rGBM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A preregistered (NCT02395692), nonrandomized, multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial (BERT) was planned and conducted through the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC-1402). Arm 1 included patients with bevacizumab-naïve GBM at the first recurrence, with the primary endpoint of response rates. If sufficient activity was identified, a second arm was planned for the bevacizumab-refractory patients. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), PFS at 6 months (PFS6), and toxicity. RESULTS: Arm 1 enrolled 19 patients with a median of two treatment cycles. Objective responses were not observed; hence, arm 2 did not open. The median OS was 11.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.2-17.9]. The median PFS was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.7). The PFS6 was 10.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-33.1%). Most toxicities were grades 1 and 2, with two grade 3 lymphopenias and one grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Two patients with PFS ≥ 17 months and OS > 32 months were deemed "extended survivors." RNA sequencing of tumor tissue, obtained at diagnosis, demonstrated significantly enriched signatures of DNA damage response (DDR), chromosomal instability (CIN70, CIN25), and cellular proliferation (PCNA25) in "extended survivors." CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the safety and feasibility of TRC102+TMZ in patients with rGBM. They also warrant further evaluation of combination therapy in biomarker-enriched trials enrolling GBM patients with baseline hyperactivated DDR pathways.

Molnupiravir increases SARS-CoV-2 genome diversity and complexity: A case-control cohort study.

Molnupiravir, an oral direct-acting antiviral effective in vitro against SARS-CoV-2, has been largely employed during the COVID-19 pandemic, since December 2021. After marketing and widespread usage, a progressive increase in SARS-CoV-2 lineages characterized by a higher transition/transversion ratio, a characteristic signature of molnupiravir action, appeared in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) and International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC) databases. Here, we assessed the drug effects by SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing on 38 molnupiravir-treated persistently positive COVID-19 outpatients tested before and after treatment. Seventeen tixagevimab/cilgavimab-treated outpatients served as controls. Mutational analyses confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 exhibits an increased transition/transversion ratio seven days after initiation of molnupiravir. Moreover we observed an increased G->A ratio compared to controls, which was not related to apolipoprotein B mRNAediting enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBEC) activity. In addition, we demonstrated for the first time an increased diversity and complexity of the viral quasispecies.

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

Background: The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) inhibitors, molnupiravir and VV116, have the potential to maximize clinical benefits in the oral treatment of COVID-19. Subjects who consume these drugs may experience an increased incidence of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of molnupiravir and VV116. Methods: A comprehensive search of scientific and medical databases, such as PubMed Central/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted to find relevant articles in English from January 2020 to June 2023. Any kind of adverse events reported in the study were pooled and analyzed in the drug group versus the control group. Estimates of risk effects were summarized through the random effects model using Review Manager version 5.2, and sensitivity analysis was performed by Stata 17.0 software. Results: Fifteen studies involving 32,796 subjects were included. Eleven studies were placebo-controlled, and four were Paxlovid-controlled. Twelve studies reported adverse events for molnupiravir, and three studies described adverse events for VV116. The total odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the placebo-controlled group was 1.01 (95% CI=0.84-1.22; I2=26%), P=0.88. The total OR for adverse events in the RdRp inhibitor versus the Paxlovid-controlled group was 0.32 (95% CI=0.16-0.65; I2=87%), P=0.002. Individual drug subgroup analysis in the placebo-controlled study showed that compared with the placebo group, a total OR for adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.10; I2=0%) in the molnupiravir group and 3.77 (95% CI=0.08-175.77; I2=85%) in the VV116 group. Conclusion: The RdRp inhibitors molnupiravir and VV116 are safe for oral treatment of COVID-19. Further evidence is necessary that RdRp inhibitors have a higher safety profile than Paxlovid.

Safety and efficacy of arimoclomol in patients with early amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ORARIALS-01): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder leading to muscle weakness and respiratory failure. Arimoclomol, a heat-shock protein-70 (HSP70) co-inducer, is neuroprotective in animal models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with multiple mechanisms of action, including clearance of protein aggregates, a pathological hallmark of sporadic and familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of arimoclomol in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. METHODS: ORARIALS-01 was a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial done at 29 centres in 12 countries in Europe and North America. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older and met El Escorial criteria for clinically possible, probable, probable laboratory-supported, definite, or familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; had an ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised score of 35 or more; and had slow vital capacity at 70% or more of the value predicted on the basis of the participant's age, height, and sex. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of 6, stratified by use of a stable dose of riluzole or no riluzole use, to receive oral arimoclomol citrate 1200 mg/day (400 mg three times per day) or placebo. The Randomisation sequence was computer generated centrally. Investigators, study personnel, and study participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS) rank score over 76 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03491462, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 31, 2018, and July 17, 2019, 287 patients were screened, 245 of whom were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 239 patients (160 in the arimoclomol group and 79 in the placebo group): 151 (63%) were male and 88 (37%) were female; mean age was 57·6 years (SD 10·9). CAFS score over 76 weeks did not differ between groups (mean 0·51 [SD 0·29] in the arimoclomol group vs 0·49 [0·28] in the placebo group; p=0·62). Cliff's delta comparing the two groups was 0·039 (95% CI -0·116 to 0·194). Proportions of participants who died were similar between the treatment groups: 29 (18%) of 160 patients in the arimoclomol group and 18 (23%) of 79 patients in the placebo group. Most deaths were due to disease progression. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal. Adverse events were more often deemed treatment-related in the arimoclomol group (104 [65%]) than in the placebo group (41 [52%]) and more often led to treatment discontinuation in the arimoclomol group (26 [16%]) than in the placebo group (four [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Arimoclomol did not improve efficacy outcomes compared with placebo. Although available biomarker data are insufficient to preclude future strategies that target the HSP response, safety data suggest that a higher dose of arimoclomol would not have been tolerated. FUNDING: Orphazyme.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30). CONCLUSION: The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

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

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir and favipiravir in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial in Thailand, participants with moderate COVID-19 and at least one factor associated with severe COVID-19 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral molnupiravir or oral favipiravir (standard of care). Phone calls for remote symptom assessment were made on Days 6, 15, and 29. Participants with worsening symptoms were instructed to return to the hospital. The primary endpoint was pulmonary involvement by Day 29, as evidenced by ≥2 of the following: dyspnea, oxygen saturation <92% or imaging. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-seven participants (487 molnupiravir, 490 favipiravir) were enrolled from 8 July 2022 to 19 January 2023. 98% had received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 83% ≥3 doses. By Day 29, pulmonary involvement occurred in 0% (0/483) in molnupiravir arm versus 1% (5/482) in favipiravir arm (-1.0%; Newcombe 95.2% CI: -2.4% to -0.0%; P = 0.021); all-cause death in 0% (0/483) and <1% (1/482); COVID-19 related hospitalization in <1% (1/483) and 1% (3/482); treatment-related adverse event in 1% (5/483) and 1% (4/486); and serious adverse event in 1% (4/483) and 1% (4/486). CONCLUSIONS: Favipiravir and molnupiravir had a similar efficacy and safety profile. Whether either of the two reduced the risk of complications during the omicron era in this population with a low risk of pulmonary involvement and a high vaccine coverage remains unclear. There were no differences in any of the safety endpoints. THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY ID: TCTR20230111009.

A path from synthesis to emergency use authorization of molnupiravir as a COVID-19 therapy.

Coronaviruses are a group of enveloped viruses with non-segmented, single-stranded, and positive-sense RNA genomes. It belongs to the 'Coronaviridae family', responsible for various diseases, including the common cold, SARS, and MERS. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March 2020, has affected 209 countries, infected over a million people, and claimed over 50,000 lives. Significant efforts have been made by repurposing several approved drugs including antiviral, to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Molnupiravir is found to be the first orally acting efficacious drug to treat COVID-19 cases. It was approved for medical use in the UK in November 2021 and other countries, including USFDA, which granted approval an emergency use authorization (EUA) for treating adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. Considering the importance of molnupiravir, the present review deals with its various synthetic strategies, pharmacokinetics, bio-efficacy, toxicity, and safety profiles. The comprehensive information along with critical analysis will be very handy for a wide range of audience including medicinal chemists in the arena of antiviral drug discovery especially anti-viral drugs against any variant of COVID-19.

Interaction and antiviral treatment of coinfection between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in vitro.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has lasted for three years. Coinfection with seasonal influenza may occur resulting in more severe diseases. The interaction between these two viruses for infection and the effect of antiviral treatment remains unclear. METHODS: A SARS-CoV-2 and influenza H1N1 coinfection model on Calu-3 cell line was established, upon which the simultaneous and sequential coinfection was evaluated by comparing the viral load. The efficacy of molnupiravir and baloxavir against individual virus and coinfection were also studied. RESULTS: The replication of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly interfered when the influenza virus was infected simultaneously or in advance (p < 0.05). On the contrary, the replication of the influenza virus was not affected by the SARS-CoV-2. Molnupiravir monotherapy had significant inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2 when the concentration reached to 6.25 µM but did not show any significant anti-influenza activity. Baloxavir was effective against influenza within the dosage range and showed significant effect of anti-SARS-CoV-2 at 16 µM. In the treatment of coinfection, molnupiravir had significant effect for SARS-CoV-2 from 6.25 µM to 100 µM and inhibited H1N1 at 100 µM (p < 0.05). The tested dosage range of baloxavir can inhibit H1N1 significantly (p < 0.05), while at the highest concentration of baloxavir did not further inhibit SARS-CoV-2, and the replication of SARS-CoV-2 significantly increased in lower concentrations. Combination treatment can effectively inhibit influenza H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 replication during coinfection. Compared with molnupiravir or baloxavir monotherapy, combination therapy was more effective in less dosage to inhibit the replication of both viruses. CONCLUSIONS: In coinfection, the replication of SARS-CoV-2 would be interfered by influenza H1N1. Compared with molnupiravir or baloxavir monotherapy, treatment with a combination of molnupiravir and baloxavir should be considered for early treatment in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection.

Effect of molnupiravir on SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised patients: a retrospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Continued SARS-CoV-2 infection among immunocompromised individuals is likely to play a role in generating genomic diversity and the emergence of novel variants. Antiviral treatments such as molnupiravir are used to mitigate severe COVID-19 outcomes, but the extended effects of these drugs on viral evolution in patients with chronic infections remain uncertain. This study investigates how molnupiravir affects SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised patients with prolonged infections. METHODS: The study included five immunocompromised patients treated with molnupiravir and four patients not treated with molnupiravir (two immunocompromised and two non-immunocompromised). We selected patients who had been infected by similar SARS-CoV-2 variants and with high-quality genomes across timepoints to allow comparison between groups. Throat and nasopharyngeal samples were collected in patients up to 44 days post treatment and were sequenced using tiled amplicon sequencing followed by variant calling. The UShER pipeline and University of California Santa Cruz genome viewer provided insights into the global context of variants. Treated and untreated patients were compared, and mutation profiles were visualised to understand the impact of molnupiravir on viral evolution. FINDINGS: Patients treated with molnupiravir showed a large increase in low-to-mid-frequency variants in as little as 10 days after treatment, whereas no such change was observed in untreated patients. Some of these variants became fixed in the viral population, including non-synonymous mutations in the spike protein. The variants were distributed across the genome and included unique mutations not commonly found in global omicron genomes. Notably, G-to-A and C-to-T mutations dominated the mutational profile of treated patients, persisting up to 44 days post treatment. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir treatment in immunocompromised patients led to the accumulation of a distinctive pattern of mutations beyond the recommended 5 days of treatment. Treated patients maintained persistent PCR positivity for the duration of monitoring, indicating clear potential for transmission and subsequent emergence of novel variants. FUNDING: Australian Research Council.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of available data on molnupiravir come from an unvaccinated COVID-19 population. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to integrate evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies stratified by vaccination status to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure. RESULTS: We included 8 RCTs and 5 observational studies in our meta-analysis. Molnupiravir reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20-0.79, I2 = 0%) but did not decrease the hospitalization rate (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-1.00, I2 = 53%) in the overall population; in the immunized population, no benefits were observed. Molnupiravir lowered the rate of no recovery (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76-0.81, I2 = 0%) and increased virological clearance at day 5 (RR 2.68; 95% CI: 1.94-4.22, I2 = 85%). There was no increase in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir does not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in immunized patients with COVID-19. However, it does shorten the disease course and increases the recovery rate. The use of molnupiravir will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the prevailing social circumstances, the resource setting, drug costs, and the healthcare burden.

Virology and safety profile of Molnupiravir at three different doses for treatment of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Molnupiravir is incorporated into the viral genome, thereby increasing errors, mismatching, and misdirecting the viral polymerase thereby, halting viral RNA replication of SARS-CoV-2. Following PRISMA guidelines, a thorough literature search was performed on electronic and medical databases from December 2022 till January 2023. Molnupiravir 800 mg showed significance in creating viral RNA error rate at Day 5 (WMD: 4.91; 95% CI; [1.19, 8.63] p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Similarly, at 400 mg, Molnupiravir creates an RNA error rate (WMD: 2.27; 95% CI; 2.27 [0.50, 4.65] p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). Furthermore, exhibit a significant outcome for mean change in SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load from baseline in nasopharyngeal sample at 800 mg Molnupiravir on Day 3 (WMD: -0.22; 95% CI; [-0.35, -0.08] p = 0.002; I2 = 0%), Day 5 (WMD: -0.32; 95% CI; [-0.53, -0.11] p = 0.003; I2 = 24%) and overall pooled analysis (WMD: -0.17; 95% CI; [-0.29, 0.33] p = 0.003; I2 = 32%). Moreover, Molnupiravir 400 mg significantly reduced the incidence of death compared to the placebo group (RR: 0.17; 95% CI; [0.07, 0.43] p = 0.0002; I2 = 0%). Molnupiravir effectively treats SARS-CoV-2 patients by eliminating the virus from the host.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.