Proportion of Patients in the United States Who Fill Their Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescriptions.

INTRODUCTION: Although real-world studies demonstrate that those prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (and particularly within 5 days of symptom onset) are less likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes, prior studies show that only a small fraction of patients with COVID-19 who are eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receive a prescription. Studies calculating the proportion of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions filled and identifying individual- and pharmacy-level correlates of filling nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included individuals aged ≥ 12 years with a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered at a large national retail pharmacy (December 22, 2021-August 12, 2023). Those taking contraindicated medications were excluded. For those with only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled (yes/no). In a subanalysis of these individuals, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled within 5 days of symptom onset (yes/no). For those with multiple prescriptions ordered, the outcome was whether > 1 (vs. 0 or 1) prescriptions were filled. A log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations was used to identify individual (clinical and demographic) and pharmacy-level (percentage of trade area that is non-Hispanic white, urbanicity, US Census region, and tract-level area deprivation index) correlates. RESULTS: A total of 2,103,570 unique nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions were ordered for 1,985,990 individuals. Among the 95% of individuals prescribed only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir course, 88% filled their prescription. Among those with > 1 prescription ordered, 77% (82,993/108,411) filled one and 13% (13,662/108,411) filled > 1. Patients ≥ 50 years of age and those with documented high-risk conditions were slightly more likely to fill prescriptions, regardless of whether one or multiple courses were ordered. Individuals with cancer, asthma, or taking corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications were more likely to fill multiple prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients filled their nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. Interventions to improve uptake should focus on increasing patient and provider awareness, reducing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing disparities, and ensuring treatment initiation within 5 days.

Comparative analysis of the safety and effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and Azvudine in older patients with COVID-19: a retrospective study from a tertiary hospital in China.

Introduction: Numerous studies have explored the treatment outcomes of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and Azvudine in older patients with COVID-19. However, direct comparisons between these two drugs are still relatively limited. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of these two drugs in Chinese older patients with early infection to provide strategies for clinical treatment. Methods: Older COVID-19 patients (age ≥65) hospitalized during the winter 2022 epidemic in China were included and divided into Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and Azvudine. Demographics, medication information, laboratory parameters, and treatment outcomes were collected. All-cause 28-day mortality, delta cycle threshold (ΔCt), nucleic acid negative conversion time, and incidence of adverse events were defined as outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards model, subgroup analysis, and nomograms were selected to evaluate the outcomes. Results: A total of 1,508 older COVID-19 patients were screened. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,075 patients were eligible for the study. After PSM, the final number of older COVID-19 patients included in the study was 375, and there were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the Azvudine group, the Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir group showed a higher incidence of multiple adverse events (12.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.009). The incidence of adverse events related to abnormal renal function was higher in the Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir group compared to the Azvudine group (13.6% vs 7.2%, p = 0.045). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of all-cause 28-day mortality (HR = 1.020, 95% CI: 0.542 - 1.921, p = 0.951), whereas there were significant differences in nucleic acid negative conversion time (HR = 1.659, 95% CI: 1.166 - 2.360, p = 0.005) and ΔCt values (HR = 1.442, 95% CI: 1.084 - 1.918, p = 0.012). Conclusion: Azvudine and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir have comparable effectiveness in reducing mortality risk. Azvudine may perform better in nucleic acid negative conversion time and virus clearance and shows slightly better safety in older patients. Further studies with a larger sample size were needed to validate the result.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment and the risk of post-COVID condition over 180 days in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: The effect of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on preventing post-COVID condition (PCC) in the BA4, BA5, and XBB Omicron predominant periods is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to assess how nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment affected both PCC and health-related quality of life. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 2,524 adults aged 18 years and older who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between July 14 to November 14, 2022. All outcomes were observed from the patient's first visit to the primary health clinic, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after testing positive for COVID-19. The primary outcome was the presence of PCC. Secondary outcomes included the effects on health-related quality of life, such as walking, bathing and dressing, activities, cause adverse emotions or signs that prevent individuals from leading normal lives over a 180-day observation period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences observed between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and those not administered (control group) in terms of PCC symptoms at 3 months (OR 0.71 95% CI 0.31, 1.64) and 6 months (OR 1.30 95% CI 0.76, 2.21). At 3 months, the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a 26% reduction in symptoms causing negative emotions (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.60, 0.92) and an increased likelihood of symptoms limiting walking (OR 1.58 95% CI 1.10, 2.27). However, there were no significant differences between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and the control group in terms of the impact of PCC on health-related quality of life at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir does not significantly reduce PCC after 3 months and 6 months in a population with high vaccination coverage.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: real world drug-drug interaction management experience.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, a regional vertical system for delivery of COVID-19 medicines has been in place. This enabled centralization of expertise in risk stratification of patients, and in understanding and mitigating drug-drug interactions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed real world drug-drug interactions in adult patients referred for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy across one such geographic area covering 2.2 million London citizens. RESULTS: Among 208 who received NMV/r therapy, we identified 184 potential DDIs, 8% precluded nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use, 53% required management, but 56% of these did not have documented advice to hold therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This highlights the need to maintain and develop pathways for clinical pharmacology expertise in COVID-19 management.

Curing of chronic hepatitis C combined with coronavirus disease 2019 in a couple over 85 years old: a case series study.

Introduction: Data on the management of patients aged more than 85 years with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequential infections are lacking. Methods: The current study described the management of an older couple aged more than 85 years with these above-mentioned two diseases treated with 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (Epclusa®) and 5 days of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) sequentially. The effectiveness and safety profiles were closely monitored during therapy and till 9 months posttreatment. Results: In late March 2023, the husband with the main complaint of repeated gingival bleeding and asymptomatic wife were 86 and 85 years old, and had HCV RNA levels of 91,800 and 6,630,000 IU/mL, respectively. On the fourth day of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment, the husband had a moderate headache, and the wife had severe headache and moderate fever and dizziness. We then found that their SARS-CoV-2 test results were positive. After careful consideration, the expert panel decided to treat the couple with oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (300 mg/100 mg, twice daily) beginning on the fifth day of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment for 5 days. During the 5 days of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment, the patient's symptoms and signs gradually improved, and the patient was negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on the fifth day of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy. Meanwhile, the husband's HCV RNA was not detectable after one week of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment till posttreatment month 9, and his ALT level was normal beginning at week 1 of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment. Moreover, the wife's HCV RNA was not detectable after week 4 of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment till posttreatment month 9. Notably, no other symptoms or signs occurred during the treatment or follow-up period, and other serum biochemical parameters remained stable until 9 months after the discontinuation of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir treatment. Conclusion: The older couple aged more than 85 years with chronic HCV and SARS-CoV-2 sequential infection were safely cured by the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir sequential treatment. Discussion: This study suggested that old age should not be a barrier to HCV/SARS-CoV-2 treatment. Given that the proportion of older HCV-infected patients is increasing, clinical trials of direct-acting antiviral agents should include older HCV-infected individuals.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) Use Among Individuals at Risk of Severe COVID-19: An Analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

PURPOSE: Paxlovid is effective in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. This study characterized Paxlovid use and evaluated racial/ethnic disparities over time among community-dwelling adults at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data and included individuals aged 18 years or older diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2022 and December 2023. The study cohort included nonhospitalized individuals who were at high risk of COVID-19 progression, and selected the first COVID-19 episode in each quarter, including reinfection episodes. Paxlovid use was defined as receiving Paxlovid within ±5 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics to characterize Paxlovid use overall and by calendar quarter and race/ethnicity. We used a generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to quantify the association of race/ethnicity with Paxlovid use controlling for age, gender, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1 264 215 individuals at high risk of disease progression (1 404 607 episodes), Paxlovid use increased from 1.2% in January-March 2022 to 35.1% in October-December 2023. Paxlovid use was more common among non-Hispanic White individuals (23.9%) than non-Hispanic Black (16.5%) and Latinx/e (16.7%) patients. After adjusting age, gender, and clinical characteristics, Paxlovid use was less likely among non-Hispanic Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.70) and Latinx/e (OR 0.72, CI 0.71-0.73) patients than non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large, diverse cohort of community-dwelling individuals with COVID-19, nearly two out of three eligible individuals did not receive Paxlovid, and minoritized racial/ethnic groups were less likely to use Paxlovid than their non-Hispanic White individuals.

COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NM/r) is a safe and effective oral antiviral therapeutic used for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Case reports described a clinical rebound syndrome whereby individuals experience a relapse of symptoms shortly after completing successful treatment. There is a lack of information on frequency of COVID-19 rebound after NM/r in routine clinical care, contributing factors, and clinical outcomes. Methods: We reviewed electronic medical records to verify COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment with NM/r from January-June 2022. We defined COVID-19 clinical rebound as clear improvement in symptoms followed by recurrence or worsening of symptoms within 30 days of a five-day course of NM/r. Results: We studied 268 adults with median age 57 (IQR 47, 68), 80% White race, 85% non-Hispanic ethnicity, 55% female, 80% vaccinated and boosted against SARS-CoV-2, and 68% with any co-morbidity. Sixteen (6.0%) of studied patients were determined to have COVID-19 clinical rebound. The median time from starting NM/r to rebound was 11 days (IQR 9, 13). Notable demographic and clinical factors with higher proportion (not statistically significant) among COVID-19 rebound patients were female sex (75% rebound vs 54.5% no rebound), Black race (12.5% rebound vs 4.9% no rebound), presence of at least one co-morbidity (81.3% rebound vs 67.5% no rebound), and lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (100% rebound vs 92.9% no rebound). Only one patient (6.25%) was hospitalized after COVID-19 rebound. Conclusions: COVID-19 clinical rebound after treatment with NM/r is mild with favorable outcomes and more common than previously reported from real-world clinical care studies.

Influence of ensitrelvir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on tacrolimus clearance in kidney transplant recipients: a single-center case series.

BACKGROUND: Among the oral antivirals used for treating patients with mild-to-moderate novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/RTV) and ensitrelvir (ESV) are inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A, and therefore, can cause drug-drug interactions with concomitant medications. Tacrolimus (TAC), a substrate of CYP3A4/5, is administered for a long period to prevent rejection after kidney transplantation. TAC should be discontinued while using NMV/RTV because blood TAC levels significantly increase when these drugs are concomitantly administered. However, the influence of ESV on blood TAC levels has not yet been reported, and the management of TAC doses during the use of ESV remains unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: We experienced three kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, whose blood trough levels of TAC increased by the concomitant use of NMV/RTV or ESV. In two patients administering NMV/RTV, blood trough levels of TAC increased more than tenfold after combination therapy, whereas in one patient administering ESV, TAC level increased approximately threefold. CONCLUSIONS: These cases suggest that TAC administration should be discontinued during NMV/RTV treatment to maintain blood TAC levels within the therapeutic range, and a reduced TAC dose is sufficient during ESV treatment.

Case report and literature review: management of Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir)-induced acute tacrolimus toxicity in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Despite the availability of effective vaccines and treatments for SARS-CoV-2, managing COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) remains challenging, particularly considering drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Here, we present a case of DDIs between Tacrolimus (Tac) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) in a 32-year-old male with SLE. Following self-administration of NMV/r and resumption of Tac after 5 days, the patient experienced acute nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, accompanied by supratherapeutic Tac levels, despite Tac being withheld during NMV/r. The primary cause of this acute toxicity is attributed to ritonavir's inhibitory effect on both CYP3A4 enzymes and P-glycoprotein. Upon admission, Tac was discontinued, and supportive therapies were initiated. Phenytoin, a CYP3A4 inducer, was administered to lower Tac levels under the guidance of clinical pharmacists, effectively alleviating the patient's acute toxic symptoms. The half-life of Tac during the treatment of phenytoin was calculated to be 55.87 h. And no adverse reactions to phenytoin were observed. This case underscores the persistence of enzyme inhibition effects and demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of utilizing CYP3A4 enzyme inducers to mitigate Tac concentrations. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of healthcare providers and patients being vigilant about DDIs in Tac recipients. Lastly, it highlights the indispensable role of pharmacist involvement in clinical decision-making and close monitoring in complex clinical scenarios. Although our findings are based on a single case, they align with current knowledge and suggest the potential of individualized combination therapy in managing challenging COVID-19 cases in immunocompromised patients.

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.

Abnormally Elevated Blood Tacrolimus Level Following the Concomitant Use of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir With Extended-Release Tacrolimus in a Post-lung Transplant Patient: A Case Report and a Literature Review.

Although nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) reportedly increases blood levels of tacrolimus (TAC) due to CYP3A4 inhibition and other factors, reports on the use of NMV/r in combination with tacrolimus hydrate extended-release capsules (TAC-ER) in lung transplant patients are limited. Herein, we present a case with post-lung transplantation of elevated blood trough levels of TAC after concomitant use of NMV/r. A woman in her 60s had undergone lung transplantation. She had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and was co-administered NMV/r and TAC-ER, with the trough level controlled at approximately 4 µg/mL. Upon the co-administration of NMV/r and TAC-ER, the patient developed diarrhea and vomiting and was hospitalized. TAC-ER was discontinued on day 6, and TAC level was measured on day 8 and had risen above 100 ng/mL. This level gradually decreased to 17.8 ng/mL on day 11 and 2.4 ng/mL on day 15; therefore, TAC-ER was resumed at 2.5 mg/day. On day 18, the TAC level was 5.2 ng/mL, which was within the target range, and the patient was discharged on day 19. This is the first report of a post-lung transplant patient co-administered TAC-ER with NMV/r, who showed abnormally high blood TAC levels above the detection limit. In patients using TAC-ER after lung transplantation, it may be useful to confirm that the TAC blood level is below the effective therapeutic range before resuming TAC-ER safely.

Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Acute COVID-19 in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: There is limited evidence of association of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV-r) and incidence of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the association of NMV-r in nonhospitalized, vaccinated patients with pre-existing CVD and occurrence of PASC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the TriNetX research network, including vaccinated patients with pre-existing CVD who developed COVID-19 between December 2021 and December 2022. Two cohorts were created based on NMV-r administration within 5 days of diagnosis: NMV-r and non-NMV-r cohort. The main outcome was presence of PASC, assessed between 30 to 90 days and 90 to 180 days after index COVID-19 infection. After propensity score matching, both cohorts were compared using t-test and chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: A total of 26,953 patients remained in each cohort after propensity score matching. Broadly defined PASC occurred in 6,925 patients (26%) in the NMV-r cohort vs 8,150 patients (30.6%) in the non-NMV-r cohort (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.76-0.82; P < 0.001) from 30 to 90 days and in 6,692 patients (25.1%) as compared to 8,910 patients (33.5%) (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.23-0.29; P < 0.001) from 90 to 180 days. Similarly, narrowly defined PASC occurred in 5,335 patients (20%) in the NMV-r cohort vs 6,271 patients (23.6%) in the non-NMV-r cohort between 30 and 90 days (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.78-0.84, P < 0.001) and in 5,121 patients (19.2%) as compared to 6,964 patients (26.1%) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.64-0.70, P < 0.001) between 90 and 180 days. Conclusions: NMV-r in nonhospitalized vaccinated patients with pre-existing CVD with COVID-19 was associated with a reduction in PASC and health care utilization.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Regimen for Mild/Moderately Severe COVID-19: A Rapid Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for treatment of laboratory-confirmed mild/moderately severe COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWS; observational studies) of the efficacy/effectiveness and/or safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for COVID-19. We pooled appropriate data (adjusted estimates for RWS) using an inverse variance, random-effects model. We calculated statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% CI. We further assessed risk of bias/study quality and conducted trial sequential analysis of the evidence from RCTs. RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs (4,070 persons) and 16 RWS (1,925,047 persons) of adults (aged ≥18 years). One and 3 RCTs were of low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. The RWS were of good quality. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization compared with placebo/no treatment (RR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.10-0.31; I 2 = 77.2%; 2 RCTs, 3,542 persons), but there was no significant difference for decrease of worsening severity (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.01; I 2 = 47.5%; 3 RCTs, 1,824 persons), viral clearance (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.51; I 2 = 82%; 2 RCTs, 528 persons), adverse events (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 0.92-2.14; I 2 = 70.6%; 4 RCTs, 4,070 persons), serious adverse events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62; I 2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.70; I 2 = 49.9%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), although trial sequential analysis suggested that the current total sample sizes for these outcomes were not large enough for conclusions to be drawn. Real-world studies also showed significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization (RR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; I 2 = 95.0%; 11 RWS, 1,421,398 persons) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; I 2 = 65%; 7 RWS, 286,131 persons) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir appears to be promising for preventing hospitalization and potentially decreasing all-cause mortality for persons with mild/moderately severe COVID-19, but the evidence is weak. More studies are needed.

Mismanagement of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Pre Hospitalisation during the Omicron Era: Antibiotics and Steroids Instead of Early Antivirals.

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of inappropriate treatment among hospitalised patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection before hospital admission during the Omicron era. This single-centre, retrospective observational study included all the patients hospitalised because of SARS-CoV-2 infection during three periods characterised by the Italian prevalence of an Omicron variant of concern: (1) January-May 2022 (BA.1-BA.2), (2) June-October 2022 (BA.5), and (3) November 2022-March 2023 (BQ.1-XBB). Inappropriate treatment was defined as pre-hospitalisation exposure to antibiotics and/or steroids in the absence of a documented bacterial infection or the need for steroid treatment of an underlying medical condition. A total of 931 subjects were hospitalised: 394 in period 1, 334 in period 2, and 203 in period 3. Of the 157 patients undergoing inappropriate treatment (16.9%), 142 (15.3%) received antibiotics and 52 (5.6%) steroids. The proportion of inappropriately treated patients significantly decreased over time, from 23.1% in period 1 to 11.7% in period 2 and 13.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001), and there was a parallel decrease in antibiotic (p < 0.001) and steroid treatment (p < 0.013). Only 13 subjects (1.4%) received early pre-hospitalisation treatment for SARS-CoV-2. A significant proportion of hospitalised COVID-19 patients were exposed to inappropriate treatment before hospital admission.

Low Prevalence of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Resistance-Associated Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Lineages From Botswana.

Background: We evaluated naturally occurring nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NTV/r) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains from Botswana, a country with no NTV/r use to date, in order to recommend the usage of the agent for high-risk patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using 5254 complete SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Botswana (September 2020-September 2023). We evaluated the mutational landscape of SARS-CoV-2 3-Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) relative to the highlighted list of RAMs granted Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization in 2023. Results: The sequenced 5254 samples included Beta variants of concerns (VOCs; n = 323), Delta VOCs (n = 1314), and Omicron VOCs (n = 3354). Overall, 77.8% of the sequences exhibited at least 1 polymorphism within 76/306 amino acid positions in the nsp5 gene. NTV/rRAMs were identified in 34/5254 (0.65%; 95% CI, 0.43%-0.87%) and occurred at 5 distinct positions. Among the NTV/r RAMS detected, A191V was the most prevalent (24/34; 70.6%). Notably, T21I mutation had a prevalence of 20.6% (7/34) and coexisted with either K90R (n = 3) polymorphism in Beta sequences with RAMs or P132H (n = 3) polymorphism for Omicron sequences with RAMs. Other NTV/r RAMs detected included P108S, with a prevalence of 5.88% (2/34), and L50F, with a prevalence of 2.94% (1/34). NTV/r RAMs were significantly higher (P < .001) in Delta (24/35) compared with Beta (4/34) and Omicron (6/34) sequences. Conclusions: The frequency of NTV/r RAMs in Botswana was low. Higher rates were observed in Delta VOCs compared to Omicron and Beta VOCs. As NTV/r use expands globally, continuous surveillance for drug-resistant variants is essential, given the RAMs identified in our study.

Effectiveness of the antiviral medications azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in treating COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Hematological Malignancies (HM) are at a high risk of mortality from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The available antivirals were different between China and other countries. In China, azvudine was obtained for emergency use to treat adult COVID-19 patients with moderate symptoms in July 2022. While nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was well-known and used in many countries. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether there was any difference in the efficacy and safety of the two drugs. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study of patients with HM who developed COVID-19. Patients were divided into three treatment groups: nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, azvudine, and observation. Treatment outcomes, first nucleic acid test negative time, hospitalization time, and the conversion rate of mild or moderate disease to severe disease were recorded. RESULTS: First nucleic acid test negative time (23.5 days vs. 34 days, p = 0.015), hospitalization time (p = 0.015), and conversion rate (31.8 % vs. 8 %, p = 0.046) were statistically different between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and observation groups. First nucleic acid test negative time (20 days vs. 34 days, p = 0.009) and hospitalization time (p = 0.026) were statistically different between the azvudine and observation groups. ECOG score and liver disease were significantly associated with the conversion rate from mild or moderate disease to severe disease using multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no significant differences existed in outcome measures between patients with HM and COVID-19 who were treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or azvudine.

Safety and Efficacy of Paxlovid in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) has received endorsement from several guidelines for treating COVID-19 in adults, but its use in children is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of paxlovid in pediatric patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on children with COVID-19. The children who received paxlovid comprised the paxlovid group; otherwise, they were referred to as the control group. RESULTS: A total of 31 children were enrolled, with 12 and 19 participants assigned to the paxlovid and control groups, respectively. Approximately 35% had received vaccination against the novel coronavirus. The control group exhibited a significantly lower mean age in comparison to the paxlovid group (p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of other baseline data and biochemical indexes at admission. However, on the fifth day of drug administration, the paxlovid group exhibited a statistically significant decrease in temperature compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Additionally, the paxlovid group exhibited a significantly shorter conversion time to negativity for novel coronary genes in the respiratory tract (9.5 days) compared to the control group (16 days, p < 0.05). The administration of paxlovid did not result in any observed adverse reactions. Merely two patients exhibited a transient elevation in liver enzyme levels. CONCLUSION: The application of paxlovid in critically ill pediatric patients with COVID-19 can effectively control symptoms and promote virus clearance, demonstrating efficacy and a relatively low-risk profile.

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.

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.