Clinical features and outcomes in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a single center retrospective cohort study.

Objective: This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the clinical features, treatment outcomes, and short-term prognosis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with concurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Methods: KTRs with COVID-19 pneumonia who were admitted to our hospital from December 28, 2022, to March 28, 2023 were included in the study. Their clinical symptoms, responses to antiviral medications, and short-term prognosis were analyzed. Results: A total of 64 KTRs with initial diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia were included in this study. The primary symptoms were fever, cough, and myalgia, with an incidence of 79.7%, 89.1%, and 46.9%, respectively. The administration of antiviral drugs (paxlovid or molnupiravir) within 1-5 days and for over 5 days demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in viral shedding time compared to the group without antiviral medication (P=0.002). Both the paxlovid and molnupiravir treatment groups exhibited a significantly shorter duration of viral shedding time in comparison to the group without antiviral drugs (P=0.002). After 6 months of recovery, there was no significantly negative impact on transplant kidney function (P=0.294). Conclusion: Fever, cough, and myalgia remain common initial symptoms of concurrent COVID-19 pneumonia in KTRs. Early use of antiviral drugs (paxlovid or molnupiravir) is associated with better therapeutic outcomes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had a limited impact on the short-term renal function of the KTRs with concurrent moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics reveals metabolism of molnupiravir may lead to metabolic disorders and hepatotoxicity.

Molnupiravir (MO) is a pyrimidine nucleoside anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug. MO treatment could cause mild liver injury. However, the underlying mechanism of MO-induced liver injury and the metabolic pathway of MO in vivo are unclear. In this study, metabolomics analysis and molecular biology methods were used to explore these issues. Through metabolomics analysis, it was found that the homeostasis of pyrimidine, purine, lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), and amino acids in mice was destroyed after MO treatment. A total of 80 changed metabolites were detected. Among these changed metabolites, 4-ethylphenyl sulfate, dihydrouracil, and LPC 20:0 was related to the elevation of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), interleukin-6 (IL6), and nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB). The levels of 4-ethylphenyl sulfate, dihydrouracil, and LPC 20:0 in plasma were positively correlated with their levels in the liver, suggesting that these metabolites were associated with MO-induced liver injury. MO treatment could increase NHC and cytidine levels, activate cytidine deaminase (CDA), and increase LPC levels. CDA and LPC could increase the mRNA expression level of toll-like receptor (TLR). The current study indicated that the elevation of hepatic TLR may be an important reason for MO leading to the liver injury.

Efficacy of molnupiravir and interferon for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in golden Syrian hamster.

The mortality and hospitalization rate by COVID-19 dropped significantly currently, but its seasonal outbreaks make antiviral treatment still vital. The mortality and hospitazation rate by COVID-19 dropped significantly currently, but its seasonal ourbreaks make antiviral treatment still vital. In our study, syrian golden hamsters were treated with molnupiravir and interferons (IFNs) after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their weight changes, pathological changes, virus replication and inflammation levels were evaluated. In the IFNs single treatment, only IFN-α group reduced viral load (p < 0.05) and virus titer in hamster lungs. The TNF-α expression decreased significantly in both IFNs treatment at 2dpi. Histological and immunofluorescence results showed lung damage in the IFNs groups were milder at 4dpi. In the molnupiravir/IFN-α combination treatment, weight loss and virus replication in lung were significantly decreased in the mono-molnupiravir group and combination group (p < 0.05), the expression of IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1ß and MIP-1α also decreased significantly (p < 0.05), but the combination treatment was not more effective than the mono-molnupiravir treatment. Histological and immunofluorescence results showed the lung damage and inflammation in mono-molnupiravir and combination groups were milder. In summary, IFNs treatment had anti-inflammatory effect against SARS-CoV-2, only IFN-α showed a weak antiviral effect. Molnupiravir/IFN-α combination treatment was effective against SARS-CoV-2 but was not superior to mono-molnupiravir treatment. IFN-α could be considered for immunocompromised patients to stimulate and activate early immune responses.

An ultrasensitive green synchronous factorized spectrofluorimetric approach for the simultaneous determination of Favipiravir and Molnupiravir: Application to pharmaceutical, environmental, and biological matrices.

During the pandemic, Favipiravir (FVP) and Molnupiravir (MPV) have been widely used for COVID-19 treatment, leading to their presence in the environment. A green synchronous spectrofluorimetric method was developed to simultaneously detect them in environmental water, human plasma, and binary mixtures. Maximum fluorescence intensity was achieved at pH 8, with MPV exhibiting two peaks at 300 and 430 nm, and FVP showing one peak at 430 nm. A fluorescence subtraction method effectively removed interference, enabling direct determination of MPV at 300 nm and FVP at 430 nm. The method showed linearity within 2-13 ng/mL for FVP and 50-600 ng/mL for MPV, with recoveries of 100.35% and 100.12%, respectively. Limits of detection and quantification were 0.19 and 0.57 ng/mL for FVP and 10.52 and 31.88 ng/mL for MPV. Validation according to ICH and FDA guidelines yielded acceptable results. The method demonstrated good recoveries of FVP and MPV in pharmaceuticals, tap water and Nile water (99.62% ± 0.96% and 99.69% ± 0.64%) as per ICH guidelines and spiked human plasma (94.87% ± 2.111% and 94.79% ± 1.605%) following FDA guidelines, respectively. Its environmental friendliness was assessed using Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI) and the Analytical Greenness Metric (AGREE) tools.

GS-441524 and molnupiravir are similarly effective for the treatment of cats with feline infectious peritonitis.

Although not registered for feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in Japan, nucleoside analogs have shown efficacy and we have been offering them to owners of cats with FIP at our clinic since January 2020. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in cats with FIP who received GS-441524 or molnupiravir. Diagnosis of FIP was based on clinical signs, laboratory test results, and the presence of feline coronavirus RNA in blood or effusion aspirate. After providing verbal and written information, owners of cats with a presumptive diagnosis of FIP with a were offered antiviral treatment with commercially sourced GS-441524 from June 2020, and either GS-441524 or compounded molnupiravir from January 2022. Dosing was 12.5-25 mg/kg/day for GS-441524 and 20-40 mg/kg/day for molnupiravir, depending on the presence of effusion and neurological and/or ocular signs, and continued for 84 days. Overall, 118 cats with FIP (effusive in 76) received treatment, 59 with GS-4421524 and 59 with molnupiravir. Twenty cats died, 12/59 (20.3%) in the GS-441524 group and 8/59 (13.6%) in the molnupiravir group (p = 0.326), with most deaths within the first 10 days of starting treatment. Among survivors, neurological and ocular signs resolved in all but one cat, who had persistent seizures. Of the cats completing treatment, 48/48 in the GS-441524 group and 51/52 in the molnupiravir group achieved remission. Laboratory parameters normalized within 6 to 7 weeks of starting drug administration. Adverse events, such as primarily hepatic function abnormalities, were transient and resolved without specific intervention. Our data indicate that GS-441524 and molnupiravir show similar effects and safety in cats with FIP.

ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine, a metabolite of molnupiravir, exhibits in vitro antiviral activity against rabies virus.

Rabies is a fatal neurological disorder caused by rabies virus (RABV) infection. Approximately 60,000 patients die from rabies annually, and there are no effective treatments for this disease. Nucleoside analogs are employed as antiviral drugs based on their broad antiviral spectrum, and certain nucleoside analogs have been reported to exhibit anti-RABV activity. The nucleoside analog ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) has antiviral effects against a range of RNA viruses. Molnupiravir (MPV), a prodrug of NHC, is clinically used as an oral antiviral drug for coronavirus infections. Despite its broad-spectrum activity, the antiviral activity of NHC against RABV remains unclear. In this study, we reveal that NHC exhibits comparable in vitro anti-RABV activity as ribavirin and favipiravir (also known as T-705) with a 90% effective concentration of 6 µM in mouse neuroblastoma cells. NHC reduced viral loads in neuronal and nonneuronal cells in a dose-dependent manner. Both laboratory and field RABVs (fixed and street strains, respectively) were susceptible to NHC. However, no increase in survival or reduction in viral titers in the brain was observed in RABV-infected mice treated prophylactically with MPV. These findings highlight the potential and challenges of NHC in the treatment of RABV infection.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments against new circulating variants remains unclear. We sought to describe characteristics and clinical outcomes of highest risk patients with COVID-19 receiving early COVID-19 treatments in Scotland. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 1, 2021-October 25, 2022, using Scottish administrative health data. We included adult patients who met ≥ 1 of the National Health Service highest risk criteria for early COVID-19 treatment and received outpatient treatment with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or no early COVID-19 treatment. Index date was defined as the earliest of COVID-19 diagnosis or early COVID-19 treatment. Baseline characteristics and acute clinical outcomes in the 28 days following index were reported. Values of ≤ 5 were suppressed. RESULTS: In total, 2548 patients were included (492: sotrovimab, 276: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 71: molnupiravir, and 1709: eligible highest risk untreated). Patients aged ≥ 75 years accounted for 6.9% (n = 34/492), 21.0% (n = 58/276), 16.9% (n = 12/71) and 13.2% (n = 225/1709) of the cohorts, respectively. Advanced renal disease was reported in 6.7% (n = 33/492) of sotrovimab-treated and 4.7% (n = 81/1709) of untreated patients, and ≤ 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated and molnupiravir-treated patients. All-cause hospitalizations were experienced by 5.3% (n = 25/476) of sotrovimab-treated patients, 6.9% (n = 12/175) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients, ≤ 5 (suppressed number) molnupiravir-treated patients and 13.3% (n = 216/1622) of untreated patients. There were no deaths in the treated cohorts; mortality was 4.3% (n = 70/1622) among untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was often used by patients who were aged < 75 years. Among patients receiving early COVID-19 treatment, proportions of 28-day all-cause hospitalization and death were low.

Effectiveness of molnupiravir for treating COVID-19 in patients with psychiatric disorders.

Objectives: This study investigated the clinical effectiveness of molnupiravir for treating non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorder. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX research network to identify patients with psychiatric disorder who experienced non-hospitalized COVID-19 between 1 January 2022, and 1 May 2023. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to match patients receiving molnupiravir (treated group) with those who did not (untreated group). The outcome included short-term outcomes - the composite of all-cause hospitalization or death within 30 days and the risk of post-COVID-19 conditions up to a year after COVID-19 diagnosis. Results: Two groups of 9,421 patients, each with balanced baseline characteristics, were identified using the PSM method. During the 30-day follow-up, treated group was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or mortality compared to untreated group (HR, 0.760; 95% CI, 0.665-0.869). Compared to untreated group, treated group also exhibited a decreased risk of experiencing post-COVID-19 conditions, including chest/throat pain (HR, 0.615; 95% CI, 0.543-0.696), abnormal breathing (HR, 0.761; 95% CI, 0.687-0.884), abdominal symptoms (HR, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.674-0.831), fatigue (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.638-0.808), headache (HR, 0.753; 95% CI, 0.665-0.852), cognitive symptoms (HR, 0.769; 95% CI, 0.630-0.940), myalgia (HR, 0.647; 95% CI, 0.530-0.789), cough (HR, 0.867; 95% CI, 0.770-0.978), and palpitation (HR, 0.641; 95% CI, 0.534-0.770) during the 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Molnupiravir could be associated with lower rates of all-cause hospitalization or death and also lower risk of post-COVID-19 condition among non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorder.

Remdesivir and molnupiravir had comparable efficacy in lung transplant recipients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a single center experience.

Introduction: Remdesivir (REM) and molnupiravir (MOL) are commonly used to treat lung transplant recipients (LTRs) with COVID-19; however, the clinical efficacy of these medications is yet to be compared. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the clinical outcomes between LTRs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with REM and those treated with MOL. Methods and Results: Between March 2020 and August 2022, 195 LTRs developed COVID-19 at our center. After excluding 82 who presented with severe disease requiring hospitalization, the remaining 113 were included in the analysis: 54 did not receive antiviral treatment, 30 were treated with REM, and 29 were treated with MOL. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed similar rates of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.169, [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.105-12.997, p = 0.899], ICU admission (aOR 0.822, 95% CI 0.042-16.220, p = 0.898), mechanical ventilation (aOR 0.903, 95% CI 0.015-55.124, p = 0.961), and COVID-19-related mortality (aOR 0.822, 95% CI 0.042-16.220, p = 0.898) between LTRs treated with REM and those treated with MOL for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 strain. Conclusion: MOL may be a suitable alternative to REM to treat LTRs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, and the choice of antiviral therapy can be driven by practical considerations such as route of administration and drug availability.

Combined Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reduces Molnupiravir-Induced Mutagenicity and Prevents Selection for Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Resistance Mutations.

We investigated the mutation profiles of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in samples collected from a molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir combination therapy in macaques. We found that molnupiravir induced several nirmatrelvir resistance mutations at low abundance that were not further selected in combination therapy. Coadministration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir lowered the magnitude of the mutagenetic effect of molnupiravir.

Clinical Outcome and 7-Day Virological Clearance in High-Risk Patients with Mild-Moderate COVID-19 Treated with Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Remdesivir.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the effectiveness and virological clearance (VC) at day 7 (T7) post-treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high risk (HR) for clinical progression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study enrolling HR patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Jan-Oct 2022) treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir or 3 days of remdesivir. We investigated clinical recovery at T7 (resolution of symptoms for ≥ 72 h or all-cause death), VC at T7 (PCR/antigenic negative nasopharyngeal swab), and median time to VC (days from symptom onset to the first negative swab). Factors associated with VC were investigated by logistic regression. RESULTS: In the study, 92/376 (43.8%) patients received molnupiravir, 150/376 (24.7%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 134/376 (31.5%) remdesivir. Forty-nine (13%) patients were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were younger and presented immunodeficiencies more frequently; remdesivir was used more commonly in patients hospitalized for other diseases. A high proportion of patients obtained clinical recovery without differences among the therapies (97.5% for molnupiravir, 98.3% for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 93.6% for remdesivir); 12 (3.7%) patients died. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher proportion of T7 VC and a shorter time to VC compared to molnupiravir/remdesivir, also after adjustment for age and immunodeficiency (AOR 0.445 RDV vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.240-0.826, p = 0.010; AOR 0.222 MNP vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.105-0.472, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-COV-2 antiviral treatments are an excellent therapeutic strategy in HR patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed a higher proportion of VC as early as 7 days after treatment, confirming its likely superiority in indirect comparisons.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and a 3-day course of remdesivir are antiviral therapies recommended in patients with a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease at high risk of clinical progression. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies have shown their efficacy in reducing all-cause mortality and clinical progression. Few data are available about a direct comparison among the three drugs; furthermore, the possible role of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in increasing viral clearance and in reducing the duration of viral shedding needs to be further elucidated. We thus investigated the effectiveness, safety, and virological clearance 7 days after treatment with these three antivirals in our retrospective cohort. We included in the analysis patients that have received these treatments from January 2022 and October 2022; we observed that patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir displayed a shorter median time from symptoms' onset to virological clearance and a higher proportion of virological clearance at day 7, also after adjustment for possible confounders, compared to molnupiravir and remdesivir. Our data might help in understanding which COVID-19 patients may benefit mostly from antiviral therapies and in the choice of antiviral therapy.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir in the intended-use population: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research reported inconsistent results on the efficacy of molnupiravir in treating COVID-19. Moreover, efficacy was not assessed in the intended-use population (IUP), as defined by the FDA. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 in the IUP. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all IUP in Israel's Clalit Health Services from January 16, 2022, to February 16, 2023. The effectiveness outcome was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19, and the safety outcome was the incidence of all-cause mortality within 35 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to analyse the data after 1:5 propensity-score matching. RESULTS: A total of 49 515 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of them, 3957 molnupiravir-treated patients were matched to 19 785 untreated patients. In molnupiravir-treated patients, 70 out of 3957 (5.1 per 10 000 person per day) experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death, compared with 699 out of 19 785 untreated patients (10.4 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.64). All-cause mortality was also lower in the treated group, with 41 out of 3957 (3.0 per 10 000 person per day) experiencing mortality compared with 414 out of 19 785 untreated patients (6.1 per 10 000 person per day); RR: 0.50 (0.36-0.68). DISCUSSION: In a real-world cohort of IUP, molnupiravir therapy was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalizations or deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

Antiviral combination regimens as rescue therapy in immunocompromised hosts with persistent COVID-19.

The management of severe/prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised hosts is still challenging. We describe nine patients with hematologic malignancies with a history of unsuccessful SARS-CoV-2 treatment receiving antiviral combination treatment for persistent infection at a tertiary hospital in central Italy (University Hospital of Careggi, Florence). Combination treatments consisted of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus molnupiravir (n = 4), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus remdesivir (n = 4) or remdesivir plus molnupiravir (n = 1) for 10 days, in some cases associated with sotrovimab. Combinations were generally well tolerated. One patient obtained viral clearance but died due to the underlying disease. In eight cases, clinical and virological success was confirmed by radiological follow-up. Antivirals combination is likely to become a mainstay in the future management of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients, but knowledge in this field is still very limited and prospective studies on larger cohorts are urgently warranted.

Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid against mortality and viral clearance among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection during the omicron wave in China: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess clinical effectiveness and viral clearance following the use of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China dominated by the omicron BA.5.2 and BF.7 subvariant of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Enrolled patients were assigned to the molnupiravir group or the azvudine group or the paxlovid group or the control group (not taking any antiviral drugs). The primary outcome of the cohort study was viral clearance and viral burden rebound after treatment and the secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The four groups were propensity score-matched (1:1). We plotted viral load trends for each antiviral drug intervention using locally weighted regression (LOWESS) smoothed data. Multivariate logistic regression (stepwise algorithm) models were used to determine any risk factors for 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1537 patients receiving any treatment, 886 (57.6 %) received molnupiravir, 390 (25.4 %) received azvudine, 94 (6.1 %) received paxlovid, and 167 (10.9 %) did not use any antiviral drugs. Our data analysis showed that age (OR = 1.05, 95 % CI: 1.03-1.07, P < 0.001), Charlson comorbidty index (OR = 1.32, 95 % CI: 1.18-1.48, P < 0.001), severity of COVID-19 (P < 0.001), gamma globulin (OR = 2.04, 95 % CI: 1.03-3.99, P = 0.039) and corticosteroids use (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI: 1.19-4.69, P = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors for 28-day mortality in COVID-19 patients. After propensity score matching (PSM), the paxlovid recipients (OR = 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.05-0.83, P = 0.036) or azvudine recipients (OR = 0.27, 95 % CI: 0.07-0.91, P = 0.046) had lower 28-day mortality compared to their matched controls. Viral rebound occurred in the control group around days 9-16, while no viral rebound was found in any of the three oral antiviral groups. We found that molnupiravir group performed comparably in terms of the rate of nucleic acid conversion negative compared with the paxlovid group, while azvudine group performed slightly worse compared with the paxlovid group or molnupiravir group. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the wave of omicron strain, the molnupiravir, paxlovid and azvudine recipients showed a faster and more stable decrease in viral load and rare virus rebound in response to antiviral treatments when compared to the controls. The study supported that initiation treatment with paxlovid and azvudine was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death within 28 days.

Molnupiravir Use Among Patients with COVID-19 in Real-World Settings: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Molnupiravir (MOV) is an oral antiviral for the treatment of individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progression to severe disease. Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of evidence on the effectiveness of MOV in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in real-world outpatient settings. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and using pre-determined population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time, and study design inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were published between January 1, 2021, and March 10, 2023, and evaluated the real-world effectiveness of MOV compared to no treatment in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes among outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Nine studies from five countries were included in the review. The size of the MOV-treated group ranged from 359 to 7818 individuals. Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 were dominant in all study periods. Most studies noted differences in the baseline characteristics of the MOV-treated and untreated control groups, with the treated groups generally being older and with more comorbidities. Eight studies reported that treatment with MOV was associated with a significantly reduced risk of at least one severe COVID-19 outcome in at least one age group, with greater benefits consistently observed among older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this SLR study, treatment with MOV was effective in reducing the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, especially for older individuals. Differences in the ages and baseline comorbidities of the MOV-treated and control groups may have led to underestimation of the effectiveness of MOV in many observational studies. Real-world studies published to date thus provide additional evidence supporting the continued benefits of MOV in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

COVID-19 continues to be a major source of morbidity and mortality. Throughout the pandemic, many countries authorized various therapies for the treatment of individuals presenting with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progression to severe disease. Some of these therapies have since been rendered ineffective due to the emergence of Omicron variants in late 2021. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic literature review to assess real-world evidence on the effectiveness of molnupiravir, including effectiveness against COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, to supplement the findings of the MOVe-OUT clinical trial and further inform on the potential clinical benefit and utility of this antiviral agent. Nine studies were included in the systematic literature review. We found that treatment with molnupiravir was effective in reducing the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, especially for older individuals. Differences in the ages and baseline comorbidities of the molnupiravir-treated and control groups may have led to underestimation of the effectiveness of molnupiravir in many observational studies. In summary, real-world effectiveness studies provide additional evidence supporting the continued benefits of molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Comparison of safety and efficacy between Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 infection in patients with advanced kidney disease: a retrospective observational study.

Background: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is used in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with normal or mild renal impairment (eGFR ≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). There is limited data regarding its use in advanced kidney disease (eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). We performed a retrospective territory-wide observational study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir when compared with molnupiravir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease. Methods: We adopted target trial emulation using data from a territory-wide electronic health record database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years with advanced kidney disease (history of eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2) who were infected with COVID-19 and were prescribed with either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection during the period from 16 March 2022 to 31 December 2022. A sequence trial approach and 1:4 propensity score matching was applied based on the baseline covariates including age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), hospitalisation, eGFR, renal replacement therapy, comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, diabetes, hypertension), and drug use (renin-angiotensin-system agents, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, nitrates, lipid lowering agents, insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, antiplatelets, immuno-suppressants, corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, histamine H2 receptor antagonists, monoclonal antibody infusion) within past 90 days. Individuals were followed up from the index date until the earliest outcome occurrence, death, 90 days from index date or the end of data availability. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with baseline covariates was used to compare the risk of outcomes between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and molnupiravir recipients which include (i) all-cause mortality, (ii) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, (iii) ventilatory support, (iv) hospitalisation, (v) hepatic impairment, (vi) ischaemic stroke, and (vii) myocardial infarction. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (≤5; >5), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses). Findings: A total of 4886 patients were included (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1462; molnupiravir: 3424). There were 347 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 74, 5.06%; molnupiravir: 273, 7.97%), 10 events of ICU admission (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 4, 0.27%; molnupiravir: 6, 0.18%), 48 events of ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 13, 0.89%; molnupiravir: 35, 1.02%), 836 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 218, 23.98%; molnupiravir: 618, 28.14%), 1 event of hepatic impairment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 0, 0%; molnupiravir: 1, 0.03%), 8 events of ischaemic stroke (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 3, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 5, 0.16%) and 9 events of myocardial infarction (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 2, 0.15%; molnupiravir: 7, 0.22%). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users had lower rates of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 90 days 2.91%, 95% CI: 1.47-4.36%) and hospitalisation (ARR at 90 days 4.16%, 95% CI: 0.81-7.51%) as compared with molnupiravir users. Similar rates of ICU admission (ARR at 90 days -0.09%, 95% CI: -0.4 to 0.2%), ventilatory support (ARR at 90 days 0.13%, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.72%), hepatic impairment (ARR at 90 days 0.03%, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.09%), ischaemic stroke (ARR at 90 days -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.22%), and myocardial infarction (ARR at 90 days 0.07%, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.33%) were found between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir users. Consistent results were observed in relative risk adjusted with baseline characteristics. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.624, 95% CI: 0.455-0.857) and hospitalisation (HR: 0.782, 95% CI: 0.64-0.954). Interpretation: Patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had a lower rate of all-cause mortality and hospital admission when compared with molnupiravir. Other adverse clinical outcomes were similar in both treatment groups. Funding: Health and Medical Research Fund (COVID1903010), Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.