Epigenetic scars of CD8+ T cell exhaustion persist after cure of chronic infection in humans.

T cell exhaustion is an induced state of dysfunction that arises in response to chronic infection and cancer. Exhausted CD8+ T cells acquire a distinct epigenetic state, but it is not known whether that chromatin landscape is fixed or plastic following the resolution of a chronic infection. Here we show that the epigenetic state of exhaustion is largely irreversible, even after curative therapy. Analysis of chromatin accessibility in HCV- and HIV-specific responses identifies a core epigenetic program of exhaustion in CD8+ T cells, which undergoes only limited remodeling before and after resolution of infection. Moreover, canonical features of exhaustion, including super-enhancers near the genes TOX and HIF1A, remain 'epigenetically scarred.' T cell exhaustion is therefore a conserved epigenetic state that becomes fixed and persists independent of chronic antigen stimulation and inflammation. Therapeutic efforts to reverse T cell exhaustion may require new approaches that increase the epigenetic plasticity of exhausted T cells.

Oral Simnotrelvir for Adult Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Simnotrelvir is an oral 3-chymotrypsin-like protease inhibitor that has been found to have in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential efficacy in a phase 1B trial. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients who had mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and onset of symptoms within the past 3 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of simnotrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the time to sustained resolution of symptoms, defined as the absence of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms for 2 consecutive days. Safety and changes in viral load were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1208 patients were enrolled at 35 sites in China; 603 were assigned to receive simnotrelvir and 605 to receive placebo. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who received the first dose of trial drug or placebo within 72 hours after symptom onset, the time to sustained resolution of Covid-19 symptoms was significantly shorter in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (180.1 hours [95% confidence interval {CI}, 162.1 to 201.6] vs. 216.0 hours [95% CI, 203.4 to 228.1]; median difference, -35.8 hours [95% CI, -60.1 to -12.4]; P = 0.006 by Peto-Prentice test). On day 5, the decrease in viral load from baseline was greater in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (mean difference [±SE], -1.51±0.14 log10 copies per milliliter; 95% CI, -1.79 to -1.24). The incidence of adverse events during treatment was higher in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (29.0% vs. 21.6%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of simnotrelvir plus ritonavir shortened the time to the resolution of symptoms among adult patients with Covid-19, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05506176.).

VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir). RESULTS: A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).

Second-Line Switch to Dolutegravir for Treatment of HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data to inform the switch from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to dolutegravir in patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who do not have genotype information and who have viral suppression with second-line therapy containing a ritonavir-boosted PI have been limited. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, open-label trial conducted at four sites in Kenya, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, previously treated patients without genotype information who had viral suppression while receiving treatment containing a ritonavir-boosted PI to either switch to dolutegravir or continue the current regimen. The primary end point was a plasma HIV type 1 RNA level of at least 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, assessed on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in the percentage of participants who met the primary end point was 4 percentage points. Safety up to week 48 was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 795 participants were enrolled, with 398 assigned to switch to dolutegravir and 397 assigned to continue taking their ritonavir-boosted PI; 791 participants (397 in the dolutegravir group and 394 in the ritonavir-boosted PI group) were included in the intention-to-treat exposed population. At week 48, a total of 20 participants (5.0%) in the dolutegravir group and 20 (5.1%) in the ritonavir-boosted PI group met the primary end point (difference, -0.04 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.1 to 3.0), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority. No mutations conferring resistance to dolutegravir or the ritonavir-boosted PI were detected at the time of treatment failure. The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in the dolutegravir group and the ritonavir-boosted PI group (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with viral suppression for whom there were no data regarding the presence of drug-resistance mutations, dolutegravir treatment was noninferior to a regimen containing a ritonavir-boosted PI when the patients were switched from a ritonavir-boosted PI-based regimen. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; 2SD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04229290.).

Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor with potent pan-human-coronavirus activity in vitro. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.04 to -3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of -5.81 percentage points (95% CI, -7.78 to -3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.868 log10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202.).

Dolutegravir in Pregnancy as Compared with Current HIV Regimens in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in pregnancy as compared with other ART regimens commonly used in the United States and Europe, particularly when initiated before conception, are limited. METHODS: We conducted a study involving pregnancies in persons with HIV-1 infection in the Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study whose initial ART in pregnancy included dolutegravir, atazanavir-ritonavir, darunavir-ritonavir, oral rilpivirine, raltegravir, or elvitegravir-cobicistat. Viral suppression at delivery and the risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, and being small for gestational age were compared between each non-dolutegravir-based ART regimen and dolutegravir-based ART. Supplementary analyses that included participants in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study were conducted to improve the precision of our results. RESULTS: Of the pregnancies in the study, 120 were in participants who received dolutegravir, 464 in those who received atazanavir-ritonavir, 185 in those who received darunavir-ritonavir, 243 in those who received rilpivirine, 86 in those who received raltegravir, and 159 in those who received elvitegravir-cobicistat. The median age at conception was 29 years; 51% of the pregnancies were in participants who started ART before conception. Viral suppression was present at delivery in 96.7% of the pregnancies in participants who received dolutegravir; corresponding percentages were 84.0% for atazanavir-ritonavir, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 89.8% for elvitegravir-cobicistat (adjusted risk differences vs. dolutegravir, -13.0 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -17.0 to -6.1], -17.0 percentage points [95% CI, -27.0 to -2.4], and -7.0 percentage points [95% CI, -13.3 to -0.0], respectively). The observed risks of preterm birth were 13.6 to 17.6%. Adjusted risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, or being small for gestational age did not differ substantially between non-dolutegravir-based ART and dolutegravir. Results of supplementary analyses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Atazanavir-ritonavir and raltegravir were associated with less frequent viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir. No clear differences in adverse birth outcomes were observed with dolutegravir-based ART as compared with non-dolutegravir-based ART, although samples were small. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others.).

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia during the Omicron surge.

Patients with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL), even in the Omicron era and after vaccination, suffer from persistent COVID-19 infection, higher complications, and mortality compared with the general population. In this study, we evaluated retrospectively the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir + ritonavir among 1080 patients with CLL who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Nirmatrelvir administration was associated with a reduction in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death by day 35. Specifically, the rate of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in the treated group compared with the untreated group was 4.8% (14 out of 292) vs 10.2% (75 out of 733), respectively. Moreover, we report a 69% relative risk reduction in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in patients with CLL at the age of ≥65 years. Multivariate analysis indicates that patients aged >65 years, patients who received heavy treatment (>2 previous treatments), patients with recent hospitalizations, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment, and comorbidity had significant improvement outcomes after treatment with nirmatrelvir.

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.

In outpatients with COVID-19 during Omicron variant circulation, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved outcomes.

SOURCE CITATION: Sommer I, Ledinger D, Thaler K, et al. Outpatient treatment of confirmed COVID-19: a living, rapid evidence review for the American College of Physicians (version 2). Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1377-1385. 37722115.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Use and Hospitalizations or Death in a Previously Uninfected Nonhospitalized High-Risk Population With COVID-19: A Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) with hospitalization or death within 30 days as compared with untreated controls previously uninfected and nonhospitalized. METHODS: We used a matched cohort design using inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW). Individuals prescribed NMV/r within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with IPTW-based untreated controls. Variables for IPTW included age, race, sex, body mass index, geographic location, vaccination status, and multiple comorbidities. Additional analyses were conducted on NMV/r-treated and propensity score-matched untreated controls. RESULTS: Among 7615 individuals prescribed NMV/r and 62 077 controls identified between 1 January 2022 and 25 February 2023, the risk of hospitalization/death was lower among NMV/r-treated persons vs untreated controls (243 vs 3468 events; absolute risk difference [ARD], -2.36 [95% CI, -2.57 to -2.14]). The difference was significant for those >60 and ≤60 years old (ARD, -3.86 [95% CI, -4.19 to -3.54] vs -0.27 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.03]) and for persons asymptomatic and symptomatic (ARD, -7.09 [95% CI, -7.62 to -6.55] vs -1.46 [95% CI, -1.66 to -1.25]). Significant benefit was observed among individuals unvaccinated and vaccinated, with or without a booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is associated with a significant reduction in 30-day hospitalization or death among individuals previously uninfected and nonhospitalized.

Nirmatrelvir Resistance-de Novo E166V/L50V Mutations in an Immunocompromised Patient Treated With Prolonged Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Leading to Clinical and Virological Treatment Failure-a Case Report.

Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 to antivirals was shown to develop in immunocompromised individuals receiving remdesivir. We describe an immunocompromised patient who was treated with repeated and prolonged courses of nirmatrelvir and developed de-novo E166V/L50F mutations in the Mpro region. These mutations were associated with clinical and virological treatment failure.

Review: The Landscape of Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19 in the Era of Widespread Population Immunity and Omicron-Lineage Viruses.

The goals of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral therapy early in the pandemic were to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As these outcomes have become infrequent in the age of widespread population immunity, the objectives have shifted. For the general population, COVID-19-directed antiviral therapy should decrease symptom severity and duration and minimize infectiousness, and for immunocompromised individuals, antiviral therapy should reduce severe outcomes and persistent infection. The increased recognition of virologic rebound following ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NMV/r) and the lack of randomized controlled trial data showing benefit of antiviral therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for standard-risk, vaccinated individuals remain major knowledge gaps. Here, we review data for selected antiviral agents and immunomodulators currently available or in late-stage clinical trials for use in outpatients. We do not review antibody products, convalescent plasma, systemic corticosteroids, IL-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, or agents that lack Food and Drug Administration approval or emergency use authorization or are not appropriate for outpatients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of US Veterans With Immunocompromised Conditions at High Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection With or Without Receipt of Oral Antiviral Agents.

OBJECTIVES: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were the first oral antiviral agents to demonstrate reduced hospitalization or death in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but patients with immunocompromised conditions were not well-represented. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the clinical outcomes of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions prescribed oral antivirals with those who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, nationwide propensity-matched analysis of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions who developed documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the composite of any hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included 30-day comparative rates of (1) any hospitalization, (2) death, (3) intensive care requirement, and (4) subset analyses of outcomes by oral antiviral used and vaccination status. RESULTS: The composite primary outcome was significantly lower in patients receiving oral antiviral therapy compared with those who did not (23/390 [5.9%] vs 57/390 [14.6%]; odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, .22-.61). This difference was driven largely by fewer deaths in the oral antiviral group (1/390 [0.3%] vs 19/390 [4.9%]; odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .007-.38). There was no significant difference in rate of intensive care requirement. The composite outcome was improved in vaccinated patients (completing the first series or first booster dose) who received oral antiviral agents compared with those who did not receive oral antiviral agents. Compared with those prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, patients given molnupiravir were older, had a higher incidence of cautions/contraindications, greater prevalence of tobacco use, and more cardiovascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: Use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with lower incidences of hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis in US veterans with immunocompromised conditions, regardless of vaccination status. These findings support the use of either oral antiviral in this patient population.

SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Prescribing Gaps Among Nonhospitalized High-Risk Adults.

Within a multistate clinical cohort, SARS-CoV-2 antiviral prescribing patterns were evaluated from April 2022-June 2023 among nonhospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Among 3247 adults, only 31.9% were prescribed an antiviral agent (87.6% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 11.9% molnupiravir, 0.5% remdesivir), highlighting the need to identify and address treatment barriers.

Phase I study, and dosing regimen selection for a pivotal COVID-19 trial of GST-HG171.

This study is aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK), as well as to select an appropriate dosing regimen for the pivotal clinical trial of GST-HG171, an orally bioavailable, potent, and selective 3CL protease inhibitor by a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled phase I trial in healthy subjects. We conducted a Ph1 study involving 78 healthy subjects to assess the safety, tolerability, and PK of single ascending doses (150-900 mg) as well as multiple ascending doses (MADs) (150 and 300 mg) of GST-HG171. Additionally, we examined the food effect and drug-drug interaction of GST-HG171 in combination with ritonavir through a MAD regimen of GST-HG171/ritonavir (BID or TID) for 5 days. Throughout the course of these studies, no serious AEs or deaths occurred, and no AEs necessitated study discontinuation. We observed that food had no significant impact on the exposure of GST-HG171. However, the presence of ritonavir substantially increased the exposure of GST-HG171, which facilitated the selection of the GST-HG171/ritonavir dose and regimen (150/100 mg BID) for subsequent phase II/III trials. The selected dose regimen was achieved through concentrations continuously at 6.2-9.9-fold above the levels required for protein-binding adjusted 50% inhibition (IC50) of viral replication in vitro. The combination of 150 mg GST-HG171/100 mg ritonavir demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles. The PK data obtained from GST-HG171/ritonavir administration guided the selection of appropriate dose for a pivotal phase II/III trial currently in progress. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT05668897).

Simultaneous pharmacokinetic modeling of unbound and total darunavir with ritonavir in adolescents: a substudy of the SMILE trial.

Darunavir (DRV) is an HIV protease inhibitor commonly used as part of antiretroviral treatment regimens globally for children and adolescents. It requires a pharmacological booster, such as ritonavir (RTV) or cobicistat. To better understand the pharmacokinetics (PK) of DRV in this younger population and the importance of the RTV boosting effect, a population PK substudy was conducted within SMILE trial, where the maintenance of HIV suppression with once daily integrate inhibitor + darunavir/ritonavir in children and adolescents is evaluated. A joint population PK model that simultaneously used total DRV, unbound DRV, and total RTV concentrations was developed. Competitive and non-competitive models were examined to define RTV's influence on DRV pharmacokinetics. Linear and non-linear equations were tested to assess DRV protein binding. A total of 443 plasma samples from 152 adolescents were included in this analysis. Darunavir PK was best described by a one-compartment model first-order absorption and elimination. The influence of RTV on DRV pharmacokinetics was best characterized by ritonavir area under the curve on DRV clearance using a power function. The association of non-linear and linear equations was used to describe DRV protein binding to alpha-1 glycoprotein and albumin, respectively. In our population, simulations indicate that 86.8% of total and unbound DRV trough concentrations were above 0.55 mg/L [10 times protein binding-adjusted EC50 for wild-type (WT) HIV-1] and 0.0243 mg/L (10 times EC90 for WT HIV-1) targets, respectively. Predictions were also in agreement with observed outcomes from adults receiving 800/100 mg DRV/r once a day. Administration of 800/100 mg of DRV/r once daily provides satisfactory concentrations and exposures for adolescents aged 12 years and older.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) related to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixteen SRs with meta-analysis published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 108 overlapping reports, based on 43 individual primary studies [3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 40 non-RCTs]. In outpatient settings the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced overall mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease compared with controls (from moderate to low certainty of evidence); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease in both immunized and non-immunized patients. No differences in the occurrence of any adverse events between groups were observed in the large majority of SRs; serious adverse events, including adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, were reported with lower prevalence in nirmatrelvir recipients compared with controls (from low to moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate certainty of evidence from SRs that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces mortality, clinical progression and hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared with controls, without increasing the occurrence of overall and serious adverse events. Based on the overall methodological assessment, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.

COVID-19 hospitalization risk after outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, January to August 2022, North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is authorized for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients at least 12 years of age, at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on COVID-19 hospitalization risk in a US healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using electronic health records among outpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between January and August 2022. We evaluated the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy with time to hospitalization by estimating adjusted HRs and assessed the impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations using machine-learning methods. RESULTS: Among 44 671 patients, 4948 (11%) received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 201 (0.4%) were hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients were more likely to be older, white, vaccinated, have comorbidities and reside in areas with higher average socioeconomic status. The 28 day cumulative incidence of hospitalization was 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.17%) among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 0.52% (95% CI: 0.46%-0.60%) among non-recipients. For nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus no therapy, the age-adjusted HR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26); the fully adjusted HR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05-0.50). In the machine-learning model, the primary features reducing predicted hospitalization risk were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, younger age, vaccination, female gender and residence in a higher socioeconomic status area. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 hospitalization risk was reduced by 84% among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients in a large, diverse healthcare system during the Omicron wave. These results suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained highly effective in a setting substantially different than the original clinical trials.

A detailed characterization of drug resistance during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy highlights a high barrier to the emergence of resistance mutations in protease but identifies alternative pathways of resistance.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted darunavir has yielded variable outcomes and is not recommended. Trial samples offer valuable opportunities for detailed studies. We analysed samples from a 48 week trial in Cameroon to obtain a detailed characterization of drug resistance. METHODS: Following failure of NNRTI-based therapy and virological suppression on PI-based therapy, participants were randomized to ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 81) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/lamivudine +ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (n = 39). At study entry, PBMC-derived HIV-1 DNA underwent bulk Protease and Reverse Transcriptase (RT) sequencing. At virological rebound (confirmed or last available HIV-1 RNA ≥ 60 copies/mL), plasma HIV-1 RNA underwent ultradeep Protease and RT sequencing and bulk Gag-Protease sequencing. The site-directed mutant T375A (p2/p7) was characterized phenotypically using a single-cycle assay. RESULTS: NRTI and NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were detected in 52/90 (57.8%) and 53/90 (58.9%) HIV-1 DNA samples, respectively. Prevalence in rebound HIV-1 RNA (ritonavir-boosted darunavir, n = 21; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, n = 2) was 9/23 (39.1%) and 10/23 (43.5%), respectively, with most RAMs detected at frequencies ≥15%. The resistance patterns of paired HIV-1 DNA and RNA sequences were partially consistent. No darunavir RAMs were found. Among eight participants experiencing virological rebound on ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 12 samples), all had Gag mutations associated with PI exposure, including T375N, T375A (p2/p7), K436R (p7/p1) and substitutions in p17, p24, p2 and p6. T375A conferred 10-fold darunavir resistance and increased replication capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the high resistance barrier of ritonavir-boosted darunavir while identifying alternative pathways of resistance through Gag substitutions. During virological suppression, resistance patterns in HIV-1 DNA reflect treatment history, but due to technical and biological considerations, cautious interpretation is warranted.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.