Comparison between available early antiviral treatments in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical impact of three available antivirals for early COVID-19 treatment in a large real-life cohort. METHODS: Between January and October 2022 all outpatients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 referring to IRCCS S. Orsola hospital treated with an early antiviral therapy were enrolled. A comparison between patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NTV/r), molnupiravir (MPV) and remdesivir (RDV) was conducted in term of indications and outcome. To account for differences between treatment groups a propensity score analysis was performed. After estimating the weights, we fitted a survey-weighted Cox regression model with inverse-probability weighting with hospital admission/death versus clinical recovery as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Overall 1342 patients were enrolled, 775 (57.8%), 360 (26.8%) and 207 (15.4%) in MPV, NTV/r and RDV group, respectively. Median age was 73 (59-82) years, male sex was 53.4%. Primary indication was immunosuppression (438, 32.6%), the median time from symptom onset to drug administration was 3 [2-4] days. Overall, clinical recovery was reached in 96.9% of patients, with hospital admission rate of 2.6%. No significant differences were found in clinical recovery nor hospitalization. Cox regression showed a decreased probability of hospital admission/ death among prior vaccinated patients compared with unvaccinated (HR 0.31 [95%CI 0.14-0.70], p = 0.005]). No difference in hospitalization rates in early treatment compared to late treatment were found. CONCLUSIONS: No differences among MPV, NTV/r and RDV in terms of clinical recovery or hospitalization were found. Patients not vaccinated had a significant increased risk of hospitalization.

Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Hepatitis C Increases Retention in Care among People Who Inject Drugs and Homeless Persons: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) and homeless people represent now a large reservoir of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, Hepatis C elimination programs can barely reach these subgroups of patients. We aimed to evaluate and compare the retention in care among these difficult-to-treat patients when managed for HCV in hospital or in an out-of-hospital setting. METHODS: In our retrospective study, we categorized the included patients (PWID and homeless persons) into two groups according to whether anti-HCV treatment was offered and provided in a hospital or an out-of-hospital setting. We run logistic regressions to evaluate factors associated with retention in care (defined as the completion of direct antiviral agents (DAAs) therapy). RESULTS: We included 56 patients in our study: 27 were in the out-of-hospital group. Overall, 33 patients completed DAAs therapy. A higher rate of retention in care was observed in the out-of-hospital group rather than in-hospital group (p = 0.001). At the univariate analysis, retention in care was associated with the out-of-hospital management (p = 0.002) and with a shorter time between the first visit and the scheduled start of DAAs (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of treatment models that can better adapt to difficult-to-treat populations, such as an out-of-hospital approach, will be important for achieving the eradication of HCV infection.