SARS-CoV-2 Virologic Rebound With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Therapy : An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Data are conflicting regarding an association between treatment of acute COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (N-R) and virologic rebound (VR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of VR in patients with and without N-R treatment for acute COVID-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter health care system in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory adults with acute COVID-19 with and without use of N-R. INTERVENTION: Receipt of 5 days of N-R treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was VR, defined as either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture result after a prior negative result or 2 consecutive viral loads above 4.0 log10 copies/mL that were also at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL higher than a prior viral load below 4.0 log10 copies/mL. RESULTS: Compared with untreated persons (n = 55), those taking N-R (n = 72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and more commonly had immunosuppression. Fifteen participants (20.8%) taking N-R had VR versus 1 (1.8%) who was untreated (absolute difference, 19.0 percentage points [95% CI, 9.0 to 29.0 percentage points]; P = 0.001). All persons with VR had a positive viral culture result after a prior negative result. In multivariable models, only N-R use was associated with VR (adjusted odds ratio, 10.02 [CI, 1.13 to 88.74]; P = 0.038). Virologic rebound was more common among those who started therapy within 2 days of symptom onset (26.3%) than among those who started 2 or more days after symptom onset (0%) (P = 0.030). Among participants receiving N-R, those who had VR had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared with those who did not have VR (median, 14 vs. 3 days). Eight of 16 participants (50% [CI, 25% to 75%]) with VR also reported symptom rebound; 2 were completely asymptomatic. No post-VR resistance mutations were detected. LIMITATIONS: Observational study design with differences between the treated and untreated groups; positive viral culture result was used as a surrogate marker for risk for ongoing viral transmission. CONCLUSION: Virologic rebound occurred in approximately 1 in 5 people taking N-R, often without symptom rebound, and was associated with shedding of replication-competent virus. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Modeling suggests SARS-CoV-2 rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment is driven by target cell preservation coupled with incomplete viral clearance.

In a subset of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals treated with the oral antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the virus rebounds following treatment. The mechanisms driving this rebound are not well understood. We used a mathematical model to describe the longitudinal viral load dynamics of 51 individuals treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, 20 of whom rebounded. Target cell preservation, either by a robust innate immune response or initiation of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir near the time of symptom onset, coupled with incomplete viral clearance, appear to be the main factors leading to viral rebound. Moreover, the occurrence of viral rebound is likely influenced by time of treatment initiation relative to the progression of the infection, with earlier treatments leading to a higher chance of rebound. Finally, our model demonstrates that extending the course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, in particular to a 10-day regimen, may greatly diminish the risk for rebound in people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. Altogether, our results suggest that in some individuals, a standard 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir starting around the time of symptom onset may not completely eliminate the virus. Thus, after treatment ends, the virus can rebound if an effective adaptive immune response has not fully developed. These findings on the role of target cell preservation and incomplete viral clearance also offer a possible explanation for viral rebounds following other antiviral treatments for SARS-CoV-2. Importance: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2. In a subset of individuals treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the initial reduction in viral load is followed by viral rebound once treatment is stopped. We show the timing of treatment initiation with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may influence the risk of viral rebound. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir stops viral growth and preserves target cells but may not lead to full clearance of the virus. Thus, once treatment ends, if an effective adaptive immune response has not adequately developed, the remaining virus can lead to rebound. Our results provide insights into the mechanisms of rebound and can help develop better treatment strategies to minimize this possibility.

SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and evolution varies by type and severity of immunodeficiency.

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but the immune defects that predispose an individual to persistent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain incompletely understood. In this study, we performed detailed viro-immunologic analyses of a prospective cohort of participants with COVID-19. The median times to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to hematologic malignancy or transplant (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, both of which were significantly longer than clearance rates in individuals with severe immunosuppression due to autoimmunity or B cell deficiency (S-A), individuals with nonsevere immunodeficiency, and nonimmunocompromised groups (P < 0.01). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing resistance against therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses, whereas only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across distinct immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.

SARS-CoV-2 virologic rebound with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy.

Objective: To compare the frequency of replication-competent virologic rebound with and without nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19. Secondary aims were to estimate the validity of symptoms to detect rebound and the incidence of emergent nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations after rebound. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Multicenter healthcare system in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants: We enrolled ambulatory adults with a positive COVID-19 test and/or a prescription for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Exposures: Receipt of 5 days of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment versus no COVID-19 therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was COVID-19 virologic rebound, defined as either (1) a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture following a prior negative culture or (2) two consecutive viral loads ≥4.0 log10 copies/milliliter after a prior reduction in viral load to <4.0 log10 copies/milliliter. Results: Compared with untreated individuals (n=55), those taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n=72) were older, received more COVID-19 vaccinations, and were more commonly immunosuppressed. Fifteen individuals (20.8%) taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir experienced virologic rebound versus one (1.8%) of the untreated (absolute difference 19.0% [95%CI 9.0-29.0%], P=0.001). In multivariable models, only N-R was associated with VR (AOR 10.02, 95%CI 1.13-88.74). VR occurred more commonly among those with earlier nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiation (29.0%, 16.7% and 0% when initiated days 0, 1, and ≥2 after diagnosis, respectively, P=0.089). Among participants on N-R, those experiencing rebound had prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus compared to those that did not rebound (median: 14 vs 3 days). Only 8/16 with virologic rebound reported worsening symptoms (50%, 95%CI 25%-75%); 2 were completely asymptomatic. We detected no post-rebound nirmatrelvir-resistance mutations in the NSP5 protease gene. Conclusions and Relevance: Virologic rebound occurred in approximately one in five people taking nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and often occurred without worsening symptoms. Because it is associated with replication-competent viral shedding, close monitoring and potential isolation of those who rebound should be considered.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Clearance and Evolution Varies by Extent of Immunodeficiency.

Despite vaccination and antiviral therapies, immunocompromised individuals are at risk for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the immune defects that predispose to persistent COVID-19 remain incompletely understood. In this study, we performed detailed viro-immunologic analyses of a prospective cohort of participants with COVID-19. The median time to nasal viral RNA and culture clearance in the severe hematologic malignancy/transplant group (S-HT) were 72 and 40 days, respectively, which were significantly longer than clearance rates in the severe autoimmune/B-cell deficient (S-A), non-severe, and non-immunocompromised groups (P<0.001). Participants who were severely immunocompromised had greater SARS-CoV-2 evolution and a higher risk of developing antiviral treatment resistance. Both S-HT and S-A participants had diminished SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral, while only the S-HT group had reduced T cell-mediated responses. This highlights the varied risk of persistent COVID-19 across immunosuppressive conditions and suggests that suppression of both B and T cell responses results in the highest contributing risk of persistent infection.