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.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals or no treatment in England: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics and acute clinical outcomes for patients with COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or untreated patients at highest risk per National Health Service (NHS) criteria. METHODS: Retrospective study of non-hospitalized patients between 1 December 2021 and 31 May 2022, using data from the Discover-NOW dataset (North-West London). Included patients were aged ≥12 years and treated with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or untreated but expected to be eligible for early treatment per NHS highest-risk criteria. COVID-19-related and all-cause hospitalizations were reported for 28 days from COVID-19 diagnosis (index). Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with advanced renal disease, those aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, and by period of Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 (post-hoc exploratory) predominance. RESULTS: Overall, 1503 treated and 4044 eligible high-risk untreated patients were included. A high proportion of patients on sotrovimab had advanced renal disease (29.3%), ≥3 high-risk comorbidities (47.6%) and were aged ≥65 years (36.9%). Five of 696 (0.7%) patients on sotrovimab, <5/337 (0.3-1.2%) on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 10/470 (2.1%) on molnupiravir and 114/4044 (2.8%) untreated patients were hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar results were observed across all subgroups. The proportion of patients dying within 28 days of the index period was similarly low across all cohorts (<2%). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving sotrovimab appeared to show evidence of multiple high-risk comorbidities. Low hospitalization rates were observed for all treated cohorts across subgroups and periods of predominant variants of concern. These results require confirmation with comparative effectiveness analyses adjusting for differences in underlying patient characteristics.

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.

Oral Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not shown a significant benefit of postexposure prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind trial to assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in asymptomatic, rapid antigen test-negative adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 within 96 hours before randomization. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg of nirmatrelvir and 100 mg of ritonavir) every 12 hours for 5 days or for 10 days or matching placebo for 5 or 10 days. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, confirmed on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen testing, through 14 days in participants who had a negative RT-PCR test at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2736 participants were randomly assigned to a trial group - 921 to the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 917 to the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 898 to the placebo group. Symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed by day 14 in 2.6% of the participants in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 2.4% of those in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 3.9% of those in the placebo group. In each nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the percentage of participants in whom symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed did not differ significantly from that in the placebo group, with risk reductions relative to placebo of 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.7 to 57.8; P = 0.17) in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 35.5% (95% CI, -11.5 to 62.7; P = 0.12) in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups, with dysgeusia being the most frequently reported adverse event (in 5.9% and 6.8% of the participants in the 5-day and 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir groups, respectively, and in 0.7% of those in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial, postexposure prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 or 10 days did not significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047601.).

Azvudine versus Paxlovid in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.

A unifying model to explain frequent SARS-CoV-2 rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment and limited prophylactic efficacy.

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 develop a mathematical model capturing viral-immune dynamics and nirmatrelvir pharmacokinetics that recapitulates 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.

Evaluation of Sources of Drug Interaction Information for Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

The Japanese package insert (J-PI) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/r) (specially approved pharmaceutical) includes numerous warnings about drug interactions. However, discrepancies in the information on drug interaction are reported between J-PI and foreign databases. This study aimed to evaluate various information sources on N/r drug interactions. We categorized and compared information on N/r drug interactions from the J-PI, prescribing information from foreign regulatory agencies, guidance from the National Institutes of Health and University Health Network, the Ontario coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Science Advisory Table, University of Liverpool, Lexicomp, and the Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences (JSPHCS). We assessed information quantity, missing data in J-PI, predicted change of the area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) for nirmatrelvir or co-administered drugs, and the information source consistency. From these information sources, we compiled a dataset with 115 contraindications and 203 precautions for N/r co-administration, and 51 contraindications are missing in J-PI. Among them, at least 12 drugs have large predicted AUC changes with N/r (AUC ≥5-fold or <1/5 of the baseline value). Nine of these 12 drugs are included as contraindications in Lexicomp and the JSPHCS. The consistency among the information sources is low. Information in the J-PI alone may be insufficient and Lexicomp or the JSPHCS guidelines should be useful because of their large amounts of information and wide coverage of drugs with large AUC changes. Due to low source consistency, multiple sources are needed for clinical management.

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.

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.

Effect of Carbamazepine on Darunavir Trough Concentrations: When the Dose Can Make the Difference-A Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine (CBZ) is an antiseizure medication known to induce the expression of cytochrome P4503A metabolic enzymes. Here, we describe a man living with HIV who underwent several changes in the daily dose of CBZ, which resulted in different induction effects on darunavir trough concentrations. METHODS: A 59-year-old man with HIV, successfully undergoing maintenance antiretroviral treatment with darunavir/cobicistat once daily (combined with raltegravir), was prescribed CBZ for recurrent trigeminal neuralgia. Over subsequent months, the patient underwent various changes in the doses (from 200 to 800 mg/d) and trough concentrations (from 3.6 to 18.0 mg/L) of CBZ, guided by clinical response to trigeminal neuralgia. RESULTS: A highly significant inverse association was observed between darunavir trough concentration and both CBZ dose or trough concentration (coefficient of determination >0.75, P < 0.0001). Ultimately, the darunavir dose was increased to 600 mg twice daily with ritonavir and dolutegravir to ensure optimal antiretroviral coverage, anticipating potential further uptitration of CBZ doses. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of CBZ on boosted darunavir exposure seemed to be dose- and concentration-dependent. The management of such drug-drug interactions in daily practice was facilitated through therapeutic drug monitoring. This case underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates both antiretroviral and nonantiretroviral comedications contributing to the optimal management of polypharmacy in individuals living with HIV.

Population pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir in Chinese patients with COVID-19: Therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing regimen selection in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a population pharmacokinetics (PopPK) model of nirmatrelvir in Chinese COVID-19 patients and provide reference for refining the dosing strategy of nirmatrelvir in patients confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A total of 80 blood samples were obtained from 35 mild to moderate COVID-19 patients who were orally administered nirmatrelvir/ritonavir tablets. The PopPK model of nirmatrelvir was developed using a nonlinear mixed effects modelling approach. The stability and prediction of the final model were assessed through a combination of goodness-of-fit and bootstrap method. The exposure of nirmatrelvir across various clinical scenarios was simulated using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir was well characterised by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption, and with creatinine clearance (Ccr) as the significant covariate. Typical population parameter estimates of apparent clearance and distribution volume for a patient with a Ccr of 95.5 mL·min-1were 3.45 L·h-1 and 48.71 L, respectively. The bootstrap and visual predictive check procedures demonstrated satisfactory predictive performance and robustness of the final model. CONCLUSION: The final model was capable of offering an early prediction of drug concentration ranges for different nirmatrelvir dosing regimens and optimise the dose regimen of nirmatrelvir in individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Efficacy and safety of three antiretroviral therapy regimens for treatment-naive African adults living with HIV-2 (FIT-2): a pilot, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Due to the low number of individuals with HIV-2, no randomised trials of HIV-2 treatment have ever been done. We hypothesised that a non-comparative study describing the outcomes of several antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in parallel groups would improve understanding of how differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2 might lead to different therapeutic approaches. METHODS: This pilot, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, and Togo. Adults with HIV-2 who were ART naive with CD4 counts of 200 cells per µL or greater were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups. A computer-generated sequentially numbered block randomisation list stratified by country was used for online allocation to the next available treatment group. In all groups, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (henceforth tenofovir) was dosed at 245 mg once daily with either emtricitabine at 200 mg once daily or lamivudine at 300 mg once daily. The triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) group received zidovudine at 250 mg twice daily. The ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group received lopinavir at 400 mg twice daily boosted with ritonavir at 100 mg twice daily. The raltegravir group received raltegravir at 400 mg twice daily. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment success at week 96, defined as an absence of serious morbidity event during follow-up, plasma HIV-2 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96, and a substantial increase in CD4 cells between baseline and week 96. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150993, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2016, and June 29, 2017, 210 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Five participants died during the 96 weeks of follow-up (triple NRTI group, n=2; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=2; and raltegravir group, n=1), eight had a serious morbidity event (triple NRTI group, n=4; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=3; and raltegravir group, n=1), 17 had plasma HIV-2 RNA of 50 copies per mL or greater at least once (triple NRTI group, n=11; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=4; and raltegravir group, n=2), 32 (all in the triple NRTI group) switched to another ART regimen, and 18 permanently discontinued ART (triple NRTI group, n=5; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=7; and raltegravir group, n=6). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended premature termination of the triple NRTI regimen for safety reasons. The overall treatment success rate was 57% (95% CI 47-66) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and 59% (49-68) in the raltegravir group. INTERPRETATION: The raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir regimens were efficient and safe in adults with HIV-2. Both regimens could be compared in future phase 3 trials. The results of this pilot study suggest a trend towards better virological and immunological efficacy in the raltegravir-based regimen. FUNDING: ANRS MIE.

Dolutegravir plus boosted darunavir versus recommended standard-of-care antiretroviral regimens in people with HIV-1 for whom recommended first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy has failed (D2EFT): an open-label, randomised, phase 3b/4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised comparative data on efficacy and safety of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) after failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) across diverse geographical settings are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate optimal second-line ART for people with HIV. METHODS: D2EFT is a completed international, randomised, open-label, phase 3b/4 trial evaluating three second-line ART strategies in adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 for whom first-line NNRTI therapy has failed. The study was done at 28 sites across 14 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It was originally designed to compare recommended standard of care (ritonavir-boosted darunavir [800 mg darunavir plus 100 mg ritonavir once daily] plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs; dosed once or twice daily]) with a novel nucleoside sparing regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) with ritonavir-boosted darunavir. The study was adapted during the first year to add a third arm of dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) with fixed tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg once daily) plus either lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or emtricitabine (200 mg once daily). Participants were randomly assigned with a computer-generated, blocked randomisation scheme (block size of two) stratified by site, previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate use, and HIV viral load. The trial was designed to evaluate non-inferiority of either interventional arm against standard of care for the primary outcome of virological suppression, as determined by HIV RNA load of less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 12%. Comparisons were made with a modified intention-to-treat population, including all participants randomly assigned but excluding administrative withdrawals. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03017872. FINDINGS: 1190 individuals were screened; 828 participants were enrolled between Nov 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2021. Two participants were unable to receive their assigned regimen for administrative reasons; and 826 participants were included in analyses. Median age was 39 years (IQR 33-46), and 450 (54%) participants were female. Baseline median CD4 count was 206 cells per µL (23-354) and median HIV RNA was 15 400 copies per mL (3600-65 986). The proportion of participants with HIV RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks was 194 (75%) of 257 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs group, 222 (84%) of 264 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus dolutegravir group, and 227 (78%) of 291 in the dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine group. Compared with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs, the difference in virological suppression was 8·6% (95% CI 1·7 to 15·5; p=0·016) for dolutegravir plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir and 6·7% (-1·2 to 14·4; p=0·093) for dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine. Six deaths occurred, none of which were related to treatment. 19 pregnancies (11 livebirths) occurred with no congenital defects. INTERPRETATION: In individuals experiencing failure of an NNRTI-based first-line ART, a switch to either dolutegravir plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir or dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine, without universal access to genotyping, was non-inferior in achieving viral suppression compared with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs. These global data support the most recent WHO treatment guidelines. FUNDING: UNITAID; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USA; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; ViiV Healthcare; and Janssen.

Joint analysis of vaccination effectiveness and antiviral drug effectiveness for COVID-19: a causal inference approach.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to estimate the causal effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations in the prevention of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 in an integrative setting with both antivirals and vaccinations considered as interventions. METHODS: We identified hospitalized adult patients (i.e. aged 18 or above) in Hong Kong with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 16, 2022, and December 31, 2022. An inverse probability-weighted (IPW) Andersen-Gill model with time-dependent predictors was used to address immortal time bias and produce causal estimates for the protection effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations against severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Given prescription is made within 5 days of confirmed infection, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is more effective in providing protection against all-cause mortality and development into severe COVID-19 than molnupiravir. There was no significant difference between CoronaVac and Comirnaty in the effectiveness of reducing all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The use of oral antivirals and vaccinations causes lower risks of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 for hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Impact of loperamide on the pharmacokinetics and tissue disposition of ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel therapy; a preclinical assessment.

PURPOSE: An oral docetaxel formulation boosted by the Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3 A inhibitor ritonavir, ModraDoc006/r, is currently under clinical investigation. Based on clinical data, the incidence of grade 1-2 diarrhea is increased with this oral docetaxel formulation compared to the conventional intravenous administration. Loperamide, a frequently used diarrhea inhibitor, could be added to the regimen as symptomatic treatment. However, loperamide is also a substrate of the CYP3A enzyme, which could result in competition between ritonavir and loperamide for this protein. Therefore, we were interested in the impact of coadministered loperamide on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel. METHODS: We administered loperamide simultaneously or with an 8-hour delay to humanized CYP3A4 mice (with expression in liver and intestine) receiving oral ritonavir and docetaxel. Concentrations of docetaxel, ritonavir, loperamide and two of its active metabolites were measured. RESULTS: The plasma exposure (AUC and Cmax) of docetaxel was not altered during loperamide treatment, nor were the ritonavir plasma pharmacokinetics. However, the hepatic and intestinal dispositions of ritonavir were somewhat changed in the simultaneous, but not 8-hour loperamide treatment groups, possibly due to loperamide-induced delayed drug absorption. The pharmacokinetics of loperamide itself did not seem to be influenced by ritonavir. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that delayed loperamide administration can be added to ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel treatment, without affecting the overall systemic exposure of docetaxel.

Time Course of the Interaction Between Oral Short-Term Ritonavir Therapy with Three Factor Xa Inhibitors and the Activity of CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of a 5-day low-dose ritonavir therapy, as it is used in the treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, on the pharmacokinetics of three factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI). Concurrently, the time course of the activities of the cytochromes P450 (CYP) 3A4, 2C19, and 2D6 was assessed. METHODS: In an open-label, fixed sequence clinical trial, the effect and duration of a 5-day oral ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) treatment on the pharmacokinetics of three oral microdosed FXaI (rivaroxaban 25 µg, apixaban 25 µg, and edoxaban 50 µg) and microdosed probe drugs (midazolam 25 µg, yohimbine 50 µg, and omeprazole 100 µg) was evaluated in eight healthy volunteers. The plasma concentrations of all drugs were quantified using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods and pharmacokinetics were analysed using non-compartmental analyses. RESULTS: Ritonavir increased the exposure of apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, but to a different extent the observed area under the plasma concentration-time curve (geometric mean ratio 1.29, 1.46, and 1.87, respectively). A strong CYP3A4 inhibition (geometric mean ratio > 10), a moderate CYP2C19 induction 2 days after ritonavir (0.64), and no alteration of CYP2D6 were observed. A CYP3A4 recovery half-life of 2.3 days was determined. CONCLUSION: This trial with three microdosed FXaI suggests that at most the rivaroxaban dose should be reduced during short-term ritonavir, and only in patients receiving high maintenance doses. Thorough time series analyses demonstrated differential effects on three different drug-metabolising enzymes over time with immediate profound inhibition of CYP3A4 and only slow recovery after discontinuation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2021-006643-39.

Physiologically based Pharmacokinetic Model Validated to Enable Predictions Of Multiple Drugs in a Long-acting Drug-combination Nano-Particles (DcNP): Confirmation with 3 HIV Drugs, Lopinavir, Ritonavir, and Tenofovir in DcNP Products.

Drug-Combination Nanoparticles (DcNP) are a novel drug delivery system designed for synchronized delivery of multiple drugs in a single, long-acting, and targeted dose. Unlike depot formulations, slowly releasing drug at the injection site into the blood, DcNP allows multiple-drug-in-combination to collectively distribute from the injection site into the lymphatic system. Two distinct classes of long-acting injectables products are proposed based on pharmacokinetic mechanisms. Class I involves sustained release at the injection site. Class II involves a drug-carrier complex composed of lopinavir, ritonavir, and tenofovir uptake and retention in the lymphatic system before systemic access as a part of the PBPK model validation. For clinical development, Class II long-acting drug-combination products, we leverage data from 3 nonhuman primate studies consisting of nine PK datasets: Study 1, varying fixed-dose ratios; Study 2, short multiple dosing with kinetic tails; Study 3, long multiple dosing (chronic). PBPK validation criteria were established to validate each scenario for all drugs. The models passed validation in 8 of 9 cases, specifically to predict Study 1 and 2, including PK tails, with ritonavir and tenofovir, fully passing Study 3 as well. PBPK model for lopinavir in Study 3 did not pass the validation due to an observable time-varying and delayed drug accumulation, which likely was due to ritonavir's CYP3A inhibitory effect building up during multiple dosing that triggered a mechanism-based drug-drug interaction (DDI). Subsequently, the final model enables us to account for this DDI scenario.

Simnotrelvir as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Simnotrelvir is a selective 3-chymotrypsin-like oral protease inhibitor with activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). AREAS COVERED: On 18 January 2024, results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of simnotrelvir as a treatment for mild-to moderate COVID-19-were published, indicating the drug, when given in combination with ritonavir, shortened the time to resolution of symptoms. EXPERT OPINION: Treatment options for most outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are limited. The protease inhibitor nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir has proven effective in patients who are high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, but there are no approved therapies for standard-risk patients, who now comprise the majority of the population. Simnotrelvir appears to be effective in standard-risk patients, including those who have completed primary vaccination against COVID-19 and have received a booster dose. This manuscript examines the rationale for the development of simnotrelvir and explores how this drug may be used in the future to treat COVID-19.

Phenytoin enzyme induction for management of supratherapeutic tacrolimus levels due to drug-drug interaction with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: Case series and discussion.

PURPOSE: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of few options for outpatient treatment of COVID-19, but its use has been limited in transplant recipients due to significant drug interactions with immunosuppressants. Tacrolimus toxicity is possible when the drug is coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and may require urgent reduction of tacrolimus levels. This case series describes the use of phenytoin for enzyme induction in 5 adult solid organ transplant recipients with supratherapeutic tacrolimus levels resulting from coadministration with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. SUMMARY: Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for complications related to COVID-19. Outpatient treatment options are limited, and therapeutic drug monitoring is complex in patients requiring quarantine. The 5 solid organ transplant recipients described herein were initiated on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in the outpatient setting and subsequently presented with supratherapeutic tacrolimus concentrations greater than 59 ng/mL and developed signs and symptoms of tacrolimus toxicity. In all patients, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and tacrolimus were discontinued, and oral phenytoin (200-400 mg/day) was given for 2 to 4 days. Tacrolimus was resumed once tacrolimus levels decreased to appropriate levels. CONCLUSION: These observations demonstrate that metabolism induction using phenytoin may be a useful strategy in the setting of supratherapeutic tacrolimus levels resulting from concomitant administration with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.