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.

Preexposure Prophylaxis Acceptability Among Pregnant Individuals and Implications for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To understand perspectives on and preferences for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for pregnant individuals who are at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we purposively sampled and conducted in-depth interviews with pregnant participants at risk of HIV infection (indicated by a recent sexually transmitted infection [STI]) from a U.S. urban obstetrics clinic. Interview questions focused on perceived HIV risk, knowledge and perceptions of PrEP, and preferences for different PrEP formulations. We coded data using deductive and inductive codes, created matrices to explore patterns in findings, and wrote memos to interpret emergent themes. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled. Median age of the participants was 24 years (interquartile range 19-26 years), 95.0% were African American, 65.0% were high school graduates, and 70.0% had unplanned pregnancies. Participants had low knowledge of PrEP and most saw themselves at low to no risk of HIV acquisition, despite their recent STI. Further, participants' low HIV risk perception and medication safety concerns reduced PrEP acceptability. Moreover, very few had discussed PrEP with their obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) during antenatal care, which further affected perceived acceptability. However, participants who did discuss PrEP with their ob-gyns had favorable perceptions of it. These participants indicated that they would choose a formulation based on individual preferences, which were largely shaped by perceived ease of use, acceptability, and prior experience with other medication regimens. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists may play an important role in increasing pregnant individuals' knowledge of and access to PrEP during pregnancy among those who are at risk of HIV acquisition. To maximize uptake and adherence during this time, PrEP formulations should be tailored to individual preferences. Prevention of HIV during this critical life transition is important not only for the long-term health and well-being of pregnant individuals and their infants, but to the plan to end the HIV epidemic in the United States by 2030.

Racial Differences in Perceptions of Psoriasis Therapies: Implications for Racial Disparities in Psoriasis Treatment.

In the United States, black patients are less likely than white patients to receive biologic treatment for their psoriasis. We conducted a qualitative free-listing study to identify patient-generated factors that may explain this apparent racial disparity in psoriasis treatment by comparing the perceptions of biologics and other psoriasis therapies between white and black adults with psoriasis. Participants included 68 white and black adults with moderate to severe psoriasis who had and had not received biologic treatment. Each participant was asked to list words in response to verbal probes querying five psoriasis treatments: self-injectable biologics, infliximab, methotrexate, apremilast, and phototherapy. Salience scores indicating the relative importance of each word were calculated, and salient words were compared across each race/treatment group. Participants who had experience with biologics generally associated positive words with self-injectable biologics. Among biologic-naïve participants, "apprehension," "side effects," and "immune suppression" were most salient. "Unfamiliar" and "dislike needles" were salient only among black participants who were biologic naïve. Participants were generally unfamiliar with the other psoriasis therapies except phototherapy. Unfamiliarity with biologics, particularly among black, biologic-naïve patients, may partly explain the existing racial disparity in biologic treatment for psoriasis and might stem from lack of exposure to or poor understanding of biologics.