Proof-of-concept studies with a computationally designed Mpro inhibitor as a synergistic combination regimen alternative to Paxlovid.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to spread and mutate, it remains important to focus not only on preventing spread through vaccination but also on treating infection with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). The approval of Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) DAA, has been significant for treatment of patients. A limitation of this DAA, however, is that the antiviral component, nirmatrelvir, is rapidly metabolized and requires inclusion of a CYP450 3A4 metabolic inhibitor, ritonavir, to boost levels of the active drug. Serious drug-drug interactions can occur with Paxlovid for patients who are also taking other medications metabolized by CYP4503A4, particularly transplant or otherwise immunocompromised patients who are most at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe symptoms. Developing an alternative antiviral with improved pharmacological properties is critical for treatment of these patients. By using a computational and structure-guided approach, we were able to optimize a 100 to 250 µM screening hit to a potent nanomolar inhibitor and lead compound, Mpro61. In this study, we further evaluate Mpro61 as a lead compound, starting with examination of its mode of binding to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. In vitro pharmacological profiling established a lack of off-target effects, particularly CYP450 3A4 inhibition, as well as potential for synergy with the currently approved alternate antiviral, molnupiravir. Development and subsequent testing of a capsule formulation for oral dosing of Mpro61 in B6-K18-hACE2 mice demonstrated favorable pharmacological properties, efficacy, and synergy with molnupiravir, and complete recovery from subsequent challenge by SARS-CoV-2, establishing Mpro61 as a promising potential preclinical candidate.

Adaptative Strategy of Immunosuppressive Drugs Dosage Adjustments When Combined With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is a promising option for preventing severe COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, concerns have arisen regarding potential drug interactions with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI). This two-phase multicentre retrospective study, involving 113 patients on tacrolimus and 13 on cyclosporine A, aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of recommendations issued by The French societies of transplantation (SFT) and pharmacology (SFPT) for CNI management in this context. The study first evaluated adherence to recommendations, CNI exposure, and clinical outcomes. Notably, 96.5% of patients on tacrolimus adhered to the recommendations, maintaining stable tacrolimus trough concentrations (C0) during nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment. After reintroduction, most patients experienced increased C0, with 42.9% surpassing 15 ng/mL, including three patients exceeding 40 ng/mL. Similar trends were observed in cyclosporine A patients, with no COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Moreover, data from 22 patients were used to refine the reintroduction strategy. Modelling analyses suggested reintroducing tacrolimus at 50% of the initial dose on day 8, and then at 100% from day 9 as the optimal approach. In conclusion, the current strategy effectively maintains consistent tacrolimus exposure during nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment, and a stepwise reintroduction of tacrolimus may be better suited to the low CYP3A recovery.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine for adult inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In China, both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) and azvudine have been granted approval to treat adult SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with moderate symptoms. Information about the clinical effect of the two available agents among inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19 is scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of Paxlovid and azvudine among adult inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in two large medical centres after the epidemic control measures were lifted in China. A new propensity score matched-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort was constructed to evaluate the in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and safety. RESULTS: A total of 955 individuals were in the cohort. The antiviral therapy strategies were decided by the senior physician and the supplies of the pharmacy. A total of 451 patients were in the Paxlovid group, and 504 patients were in the azvudine group. Compared with Paxlovid, the effects of azvudine on in-hospital all-cause mortality were not significantly different, and the OR (95% CI) was 1.084 (0.822 to 1.430), and the average hospital length of stay of patients discharged alive was also similar in the azvudine group, and the difference (day) and (95% CI) was 0.530 (-0.334 to 1.393). After 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in the SOFA score was greater in the Paxlovid group than in the azvudine group (p<0.001). The change in glomerular filtration rate was not significantly different (p=0.824). CONCLUSION: Paxlovid and azvudine had similar effectiveness on in-hospital all-cause mortality and hospital length of stay. Compared with the azvudine group, after 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in SOFA score was significantly higher in the Paxlovid group. These findings need to be verified in larger prospective studies or randomised controlled trials.

Perfil de seguridad de nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: evidencia de eventos adversos por interacciones farmacológicas / Safety profile of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: Evidence of adverse events due to drug-drug interactions

Objetivo: evaluar el perfil de seguridad de nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV-r) en la práctica clínica real y analizar la relevancia clínica de las interacciones farmacológicas en el desarrollo de eventos adversos. Material y métodos: estudio observacional, retrospectivo en el que se evaluaron los datos de seguridad de pacientes tratados con NMV-r entre abril y julio de 2022. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y analíticos antes de comenzar el tratamiento. La duración del seguimiento fue de 28 días y se evaluó el número reacciones adversas reportadas, así como si fueron manejadas de forma ambulatoria o precisaron de asistencia sanitaria especializada y la presencia de deterioro de la función renal y hepática. Se revisó el tratamiento concomitante, identificando interacciones farmacológicas teóricas (IFT) cuya gravedad fue definida mediante la clasificación Lexi-interact. Resultados: el estudio incluyó 146 pacientes, 82 (56,16 %) eran mujeres, cuya mediana de edad fue de 65 años (22-95). El número de IFT detectadas y mantenidas durante el tratamiento con NMV-r fue de 164, siendo el porcentaje de pacientes con al menos una interacción de 62,33%. La mediana de IFT por paciente fue de uno (0-5). En 18 pacientes (11,84%) se reportó al menos un evento adverso (EA). Once EA se relacionaron potencialmente con alguna IFT, 7 pacientes requirieron contacto con asistencia hospitalaria para el manejo del EA, 8 pacientes presentaron deterioro de la función renal y 2 de la función hepática a los 28 días. Los principales grupos de fármacos implicados en la aparición de algún EA fueron los anticoagulantes orales, así como los calcio-antagonistas. Conclusiones: nuestros resultados muestran un elevado número de IFT detectadas entre NMV-r y otros fármacos, aunque la frecuencia de EA asociados fue baja. Este estudio proporciona un mayor conocimiento de los fármacos implicados en dichas interacciones y su potencial relación con la aparición de EA.(AU)

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety profile of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV-r) in real clinical practice and to analyze the clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions in the development of adverse events. Methods: Observational, retrospective study in which safety data of patients treated with NMV-r between April and July 2022 in an outpatient setting were evaluated. The duration of follow-up was 28 days and the number of adverse reactions reported, as well as whether they were managed on an outpatient basis or required health care, and the presence of renal and hepatic function impairment were assessed. Concomitant treatment was reviewed, identifying theoretical drug-drug interactions (TDDIs) whose severity was defined using the Lexi-interact classification. Results: The study included 146 patients, 82 (56,16%) were women, whose median age was 65 years (22-95). The number of TDDIs detected and maintained during treatment with NMV-r was 164, with the percentage of patients with at least one interaction being 62,33%. The median number of TDDIs per patient was 1 (0-5). At least 1 adverse event (AE) was reported in 18 patients (11,84%). Eleven AEs were potentially related to any TDDI. Seven patients required contact with hospital assistance for AE management. Eight patients had impaired renal function and 2 had impaired liver function at 28 days. The main groups of drugs implicated in the occurrence of an AE were oral anticoagulants and calcium antagonists. Conclusions: Our results show a high number of TDDIs detected were detected between NMV-r and other drugs. This study provides greater knowledge of the drugs involved in such interactions and their potential relationship with the occurrence of adverse events.(AU)

Safety profile of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: Evidence of adverse events due to DDIs / Perfil de seguridad de nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: evidencia de eventos adversos por interacciones farmacológicas

Objetivo: evaluar el perfil de seguridad de nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV-r) en la práctica clínica real y analizar la relevancia clínica de las interacciones farmacológicas en el desarrollo de eventos adversos. Material y métodos: estudio observacional, retrospectivo en el que se evaluaron los datos de seguridad de pacientes tratados con NMV-r entre abril y julio de 2022. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y analíticos antes de comenzar el tratamiento. La duración del seguimiento fue de 28 días y se evaluó el número reacciones adversas reportadas, así como si fueron manejadas de forma ambulatoria o precisaron de asistencia sanitaria especializada y la presencia de deterioro de la función renal y hepática. Se revisó el tratamiento concomitante, identificando interacciones farmacológicas teóricas (IFT) cuya gravedad fue definida mediante la clasificación Lexi-interact. Resultados: el estudio incluyó 146 pacientes, 82 (56,16 %) eran mujeres, cuya mediana de edad fue de 65 años (22-95). El número de IFT detectadas y mantenidas durante el tratamiento con NMV-r fue de 164, siendo el porcentaje de pacientes con al menos una interacción de 62,33%. La mediana de IFT por paciente fue de uno (0-5). En 18 pacientes (11,84%) se reportó al menos un evento adverso (EA). Once EA se relacionaron potencialmente con alguna IFT, 7 pacientes requirieron contacto con asistencia hospitalaria para el manejo del EA, 8 pacientes presentaron deterioro de la función renal y 2 de la función hepática a los 28 días. Los principales grupos de fármacos implicados en la aparición de algún EA fueron los anticoagulantes orales, así como los calcio-antagonistas. Conclusiones: nuestros resultados muestran un elevado número de IFT detectadas entre NMV-r y otros fármacos, aunque la frecuencia de EA asociados fue baja. Este estudio proporciona un mayor conocimiento de los fármacos implicados en dichas interacciones y su potencial relación con la aparición de EA.(AU)

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety profile of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMV-r) in real clinical practice and to analyze the clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions in the development of adverse events. Methods: Observational, retrospective study in which safety data of patients treated with NMV-r between April and July 2022 in an outpatient setting were evaluated. The duration of follow-up was 28 days and the number of adverse reactions reported, as well as whether they were managed on an outpatient basis or required health care, and the presence of renal and hepatic function impairment were assessed. Concomitant treatment was reviewed, identifying theoretical drug-drug interactions (TDDIs) whose severity was defined using the Lexi-interact classification. Results: The study included 146 patients, 82 (56,16%) were women, whose median age was 65 years (22-95). The number of TDDIs detected and maintained during treatment with NMV-r was 164, with the percentage of patients with at least one interaction being 62,33%. The median number of TDDIs per patient was 1 (0-5). At least 1 adverse event (AE) was reported in 18 patients (11,84%). Eleven AEs were potentially related to any TDDI. Seven patients required contact with hospital assistance for AE management. Eight patients had impaired renal function and 2 had impaired liver function at 28 days. The main groups of drugs implicated in the occurrence of an AE were oral anticoagulants and calcium antagonists. Conclusions: Our results show a high number of TDDIs detected were detected between NMV-r and other drugs. This study provides greater knowledge of the drugs involved in such interactions and their potential relationship with the occurrence of adverse events.(AU)

Clinical assessment of momelotinib drug-drug interactions via CYP3A metabolism and transporters.

Momelotinib-approved for treatment of myelofibrosis in adults with anemia-and its major active metabolite, M21, were assessed as drug-drug interaction (DDI) victims with a strong cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor (multiple-dose ritonavir), an organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1/1B3 inhibitor (single-dose rifampin), and a strong CYP3A4 inducer (multiple-dose rifampin). Momelotinib DDI perpetrator potential (multiple-dose) was evaluated with CYP3A4 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) substrates (midazolam and rosuvastatin, respectively). DDI was assessed from changes in maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), time to reach Cmax, and half-life. The increase in momelotinib (23% Cmax, 14% AUC) or M21 (30% Cmax, 24% AUC) exposure with ritonavir coadministration was not clinically relevant. A moderate increase in momelotinib (40% Cmax, 57% AUC) and minimal change in M21 was observed with single-dose rifampin. A moderate decrease in momelotinib (29% Cmax, 46% AUC) and increase in M21 (31% Cmax, 15% AUC) were observed with multiple-dose rifampin compared with single-dose rifampin. Due to potentially counteracting effects of OATP1B1/1B3 inhibition and CYP3A4 induction, multiple-dose rifampin did not significantly change momelotinib pharmacokinetics compared with momelotinib alone (Cmax no change, 15% AUC decrease). Momelotinib did not alter the pharmacokinetics of midazolam (8% Cmax, 16% AUC decreases) or 1'-hydroxymidazolam (14% Cmax, 16% AUC decreases) but increased rosuvastatin Cmax by 220% and AUC by 170%. Safety findings were mild in this short-term study in healthy volunteers. This analysis suggests that momelotinib interactions with OATP1B1/1B3 inhibitors and BCRP substrates may warrant monitoring for adverse reactions or dose adjustments.

Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir combination against COVID-19 caused by omicron BA.2.2 in the elderly: A single-center large observational study.

BACKGROUND: Since coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) swept the world, a variety of novel therapeutic and prevention strategies have been developed, among which nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is highly recommended. We intended to assess the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the elderly mild-to-moderate COVID-19 population caused by the omicron BA.2.2 variant in real-world settings. METHODS: An observational study was conducted retrospectively to review the outcomes of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients admitted between April 26 and June 30, 2022. Patients' baseline characteristics were collected and assessed. Participants in the intervention group were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in addition to standard care, whereas those in the control group only received standard care. The primary outcome was the duration between the initial positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and the subsequent conversion to a negative result. RESULTS: The analysis included 324 patients who were administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and an equal number of control patients. The patient characteristics in both groups were evenly matched. The average duration from the initial positive RT-PCR to negative conversion was similar in both groups (16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 16.1 ± 6.3 days, p = .83). Control patients exhibited slower conversion in comparison to patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment within 10 days of symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that administering nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 10 days of symptom onset could potentially reduce the time it takes for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients to negative RT-PCR results, thereby expanding the current usage guidelines for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Early administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir leads to faster negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs than monoclonal antibodies in COVID 19 patients at high-risk for severe disease.

PURPOSE: Besides the well-established efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19, the impact of early treatments, namely antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), on the time length to negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different early treatments in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding, identifying a single drug that might potentially lead to a more rapid negativization of SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study conducted at Ospedale Luigi Sacco in Milan. Data of high-risk COVID-19 patients who received early treatments between 23 December 2021 and March 2023 were extracted. The comparison across treatments was conducted using the Kruskall-Wallis test for continuous variables. Dunn's test with Bonferroni adjustment was performed for post-hoc comparisons of days to negativization. Secondly, a negative binomial regression adjusted for age, sex, number of comorbidities, immunosuppression, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status was implemented. RESULTS: Data from 428 patients receiving early treatments were collected. The majority were treated with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and were affected by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection with BA.2 sublineage. The median length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization was 9 days [IQR 7-13 days]. We found that Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir determined a significant decrease of the length time to SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab negativization compared to mAbs (p = 0.003), but not compared to Remdesivir (p = 0.147) and Molnupiravir (p = 0.156). CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of promptly treating high-risk COVID-19 patients with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, as it also contributes to achieving a faster time to negative SARS-CoV-2 nasal swabs.

Predictors of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir receipt among COVID-19 patients in a large US health system.

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.

A case report of drug interaction between co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and tacrolimus causing hyponatremia in a lung transplant recipient.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in lung transplant recipients can be lethal owing to the use of immunosuppressants. Antiviral agents may be administered to these patients. Co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is a new agent currently being used in combination. CASE PRESENTATION: In this report, we present a case of a 64-year-old woman, a lung transplant recipient, who experienced hyponatremia and showed a high serum tacrolimus concentration following the administration of the co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination. CONCLUSION: Although the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and tacrolimus combination is not contraindicated, other treatment strategies should be considered first, if available, and the dose of tacrolimus should be reduced when using the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination. In cases where combination therapy is necessary, serum tacrolimus levels should be closely monitored in lung transplant recipients. Documentation of more such reports is important to identify drug interactions between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and other agents, with the aim of preventing severe adverse effects.

COVID-19 Rebound After VV116 vs Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: With the widespread use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, accumulating data have revealed potential viral load rebound after treatment. Objective: To compare COVID-19 rebound after a standard 5-day course of antiviral treatment with VV116 vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a single-center, investigator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Shanghai, China. Adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between December 20, 2022, and January 19, 2023, and randomly allocated to receive either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Interventions: Participants in the VV116 treatment group received oral 600-mg VV116 tablets every 12 hours on day 1 and 300 mg every 12 hours on days 2 through 5. Participants in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment group received oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir tablets with 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir every 12 hours for 5 days. Participants were followed up every other day until day 28 and every week until day 60. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was viral load rebound (VLR), defined as a half-log increase in viral RNA copies per milliliter compared with treatment completion. Secondary outcomes included a reduction in the cycle threshold value of 1.5 or more, time until VLR, and symptom rebound, defined as an increase of more than 2 points in symptom score compared with treatment completion. The primary outcome and secondary outcomes were analyzed using the full analysis set. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the per protocol set. Adverse events were analyzed using the safety analysis set. Results: The full analysis set included 345 participants (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.8] years; 175 [50.7%] were men) who received VV116 (n = 165) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 180). Viral load rebound occurred in 33 patients (20.0%) in the VV116 group and 39 patients (21.7%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .70). Symptom rebound occurred in 41 of 160 patients (25.6%) in the VV116 group and 40 of 163 patients (24.5%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (P = .82). Viral whole-genome sequencing of 24 rebound cases revealed the same lineage at baseline and at viral load rebound in each case. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, viral load rebound and symptom rebound were both common after a standard 5-day course of treatment with either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Prolongation of treatment duration might be investigated to reduce COVID-19 rebound. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200066811.

Paxlovid use is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular diseases in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Paxlovid has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is not known whether Paxlovid can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in COVID-19-surviving patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: TriNetX data from the US Collaborative Network were used in this study. A total of 5,671,395 patients with AIRDs were enrolled between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. People diagnosed with COVID-19 were included in the cohort (n = 238,142) from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. The Study population was divided into two groups based on Paxlovid use. Propensity score matching was used to generate groups with matched baseline characteristics. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals of cardiovascular outcomes, admission rate, mortality rate, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate were calculated between Paxlovid and non-Paxlovid groups. Subgroup analyses on sex, age, race, autoimmune diseases group, and sensitivity analyses for Paxlovid use within the first day or within 2-5 days of COVID-19 diagnosis were performed. RESULTS: Paxlovid use was associated with lower risks of cerebrovascular complications (HR = 0.65 [0.47-0.88]), arrhythmia outcomes (HR = 0.81 [0.68-0.94]), ischemic heart disease, other cardiac disorders (HR = 0.51 [0.35-0.74]) naming heart failure (HR = 0.41 [0.26-0.63]) and deep vein thrombosis (HR = 0.46 [0.24-0.87]) belonging to thrombotic disorders in AIRD patients with COVID-19. Compared with the Non-Paxlovid group, risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR = 0.56 [0.44-0.70]) and any cardiovascular outcome mentioned above (HR = 0.76 [0.66-0.86]) were lower in the Paxlovid group. Moreover, the mortality (HR = 0.21 [0.11-0.40]), admission (HR = 0.68 [0.60-0.76]), and ICU admission rates (HR = 0.52 [0.33-0.80]) were significantly lower in the Paxlovid group than in the non-Paxlovid group. Paxlovid appears to be more effective in male, older, and Black patients with AIRD. The risks of cardiovascular outcomes and severe conditions were reduced significantly with Paxlovid prescribed within the first day of COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Paxlovid use is associated with a lower risk of CVDs and severe conditions in COVID-19-surviving patients with AIRD.

Real-Life Comparison of Antivirals for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe a cohort of hematologic patients with COVID-19 treated with antivirals early. METHODS: Non-interventional chart review study. Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes in high-risk hematologic patients treated with remdesivir between December 2021 and April 2022 versus those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between May and August 2022. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were analyzed. Forty-two received remdesivir, and 41 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Patients with remdesivir were younger, vaccinated with lower number of doses, and received prior corticosteroids less frequently and sotrovimab, hyperimmune plasma and corticosteroids more often. Viral shedding median (IQR) duration was 18 (13-23) and 11 (8-21) days in the remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups, respectively (p = 0.004). Median (IQR) Ct values before treatment were similar in both groups. Within 5 days of treatment, median (IQR) Ct values were 26 (23-29) and 33 (30-37) in the remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). All patients were hospitalized for remdesivir administration and only four (9.8%) in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group. The overall outcomes in this cohort of COVID-19 patients with Omicron variant was good, as no patient needed oxygen or ICU admission. One patient in remdesivir group died from septic shock. No severe adverse event was recorded in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hematologic malignancies and non-severe COVID-19 who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir experienced faster decrease in viral load and shorter viral shedding. Furthermore, besides the advantage of oral administration, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration reduced the need of hospital admission.

Drugs and natural products for the treatment of COVID-19 during 2020, the first year of the pandemic.

This work aimed to show which treatments showed efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, the results of 37 clinical trials started in 2020 and completed in 2021 are reviewed and discussed here. These were selected from databases, excluding vaccines, computational studies, in silico, in vitro, and those with hyperimmune sera from recovered patients. We found 34 drugs, one vitamin, and one herbal remedy with pharmacological activity against symptomatic COVID-19. They reduced mortality, disease progression, or recovery time. For each treatment, the identifier and type of trial, the severity of the disease, the sponsor, the country where the trial was conducted, and the trial results are presented. The drugs were classified according to their mechanism of action. Several drugs that reduced mortality also reduced inflammation in the most severe cases. These include some that are not considered anti-inflammatory, such as Aviptadil, pyridostigmine bromide, anakinra, imatinib, baricitinib, and bevacizumab, as well as the combination of ivermectin, aspirin, dexamethasone, and enoxaparin. Nigella sativa seeds with honey have also been reported to have therapeutic activity. On the other hand, tofacitinib, novaferon with ritonavir, and lopinavir were also effective, as well as in combination with antiviral therapies such as danoprevir with ritonavir. The natural products colchicine and Vitamin D3 were only effective in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, as was hydroxychloroquine. Drug repositioning has been the main tool in the search for effective therapies by expanding the pharmacological options available to patients.

El objetivo del presente trabajo fue conocer qué tratamientos mostraron efectividad contra COVID-19, para lo cual se revisan y discuten los resultados de 37 estudios clínicos iniciados durante 2020 y concluidos en 2021. Estos fueron seleccionados de bases de datos, excluyendo vacunas, estudios computacionales, in silico, in vitro y con sueros hiperinmunes de pacientes recuperados. Se documentaron 34 fármacos, una vitamina y un remedio herbolario, con actividad farmacológica ante COVID-19 sintomático. Estos redujeron la mortalidad, el progreso de la enfermedad, o el tiempo de recuperación. Para cada tratamiento se presenta identificador y tipo de estudio, la gravedad de la enfermedad, patrocinador, país donde se realizó, así como sus resultados. Los fármacos se clasificaron de acuerdo con su mecanismo de acción. Varios fármacos que redujeron la mortalidad también disminuyeron la inflamación en los casos más graves. Esto incluyendo algunos no considerados antiinflamatorios, como el aviptadil, el bromuro de piridostigmina, el anakinra, el imatinib, el baricitinib y el bevacizumab, así como la combinación de ivermectina, aspirina, dexametasona y enoxaparina. También se reportaron con actividad terapéutica las semillas de Nigella sativa con miel. Además, resultaron efectivos el tofacitinib, el novaferón con ritonavir y lopinavir, así como los antivirales en terapias combinadas como el danoprevir con ritonavir. Los productos naturales colchicina y vitamina D3, solo tuvieron actividad en los pacientes en estado leve a moderado de la COVID-19, así como la hidroxicloroquina. El reposicionamiento de fármacos fue la principal herramienta para buscar terapias efectivas ampliando las opciones farmacológicas accesibles a los pacientes.

Physician characteristics associated with antiviral prescriptions for older adults with COVID-19 in Japan: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Although guidelines recommend antiviral therapy for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to severe conditions, such as older adults, many patients do not receive appropriate treatment. Little is known, however, about the physician factors associated with the prescription of guideline-recommended antiviral therapy for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Data including outpatient visits in primary care clinics in Japan from April to August 2023. PARTICIPANTS: We analysed 30 953 outpatients aged ≥65 years treated with COVID-19 (mean (SD) age, 75.0 (7.6) years; 17 652 women (57.0%)) in 1394 primary care clinics. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the prescription of guideline-recommended antivirals (ie, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir), adjusted for patient characteristics, months of visits and regions. RESULTS: Antiviral prescriptions were concentrated among a small proportion of physicians; for example, the top 10% of physicians that had the largest number of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions accounted for 92.4% of all nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions. After adjusting for potential confounders, physicians with higher patient volumes were more likely to prescribe guideline-recommended antivirals to their patients (adjusted OR (aOR) for high vs low volume, 1.76; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.38; adjusted p<0.001). We found no evidence that the likelihood of guideline-recommended antiviral prescription differed based on physicians' gender (aOR for women vs men, 1.24; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.74; adjusted p=0.48) or age (aOR for 45-59 vs <45 years, 1.16; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.54; adjusted p=0.48; aOR for ≥60 vs <45 years, 0.88; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16; adjusted p=0.48). These patterns were similar when examining nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir separately. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that provider-level factors, such as the clinical experience of treating the patients with COVID-19, play an important role in the appropriate prescription of antiviral medications for COVID-19 in the primary care setting.

A combination of nirmatrelvir and ombitasvir boosts inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication.

Antiviral therapeutics are highly effective countermeasures for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, development of resistance to antivirals undermines their effectiveness. Combining multiple antivirals during patient treatment has the potential to overcome the evolutionary selective pressure towards antiviral resistance, as well as provide a more robust and efficacious treatment option. The current evidence for effective antiviral combinations to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication is limited. Here, we demonstrate a combination of nirmatrelvir with ombitasvir, to jointly bring about potent inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication. We developed an in vitro 384- well plate cytopathic effect assay for the evaluation of antiviral combinations against Calu-3 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 and found, that a combination of ombitasvir and nirmatrelvir was synergistic; thereby decreasing the nirmatrelvir IC50 by approx. 16-fold. The increased potency of the nirmatrelvir-ombitasvir combination, over nirmatrelvir alone afforded a greater than 3 log10 reduction in viral titre, which is sufficient to fully prevent the detection of progeny SARS-CoV-2 viral particles at 48 h post infection. The mechanism of this potentiated effect was shown to be, in-part, due to joint inhibition of the 3-chymotrypsin-like protease via a positive allosteric modulation mechanism.

The host-targeted antiviral drug Zapnometinib exhibits a high barrier to the development of SARS-CoV-2 resistance.

Host targeting antiviral drugs (HTA) are directed against cellular mechanisms which can be exploited by viruses. These mechanisms are essential for viral replication, because missing functions cannot be compensated by the virus. However, this assumption needs experimental proof. Here we compared the HTA Zapnometinib (ZMN), with direct acting antivirals (DAA) (Remdesivir (RDV), Molnupiravir (MPV), Nirmatrelvir (NTV), Ritonavir (RTV), Paxlovid PAX)), in terms of their potency to induce reduced drug susceptibilities in SARS-CoV-2. During serial passage of δ-B1.617.2 adaptation to all DAAs occurred, while the inhibitory capacity of ZMN was not altered. Known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) responsible for partial resistances were found for RDV, NTV and PAX. Additionally, the high mutagenic potential of MPV was confirmed and decreased drug efficacies were found for the first time. Reduced DAA efficacy did not alter the inhibitory potential of ZMN. These results show that ZMN confers a high barrier towards the development of viral resistance and has the potential to act against partially DAA-insensitive viruses.

A global phase II randomized trial comparing oral taxane ModraDoc006/r to intravenous docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

STUDY AIM: ModraDoc006, an oral formulation of docetaxel, is co-administered with the cytochrome P450-3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor, ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. The preliminary efficacy and safety of oral ModraDoc006/r was evaluated in a global randomized phase II trial and compared to the current standard chemotherapy regimen of intravenous (i.v.) docetaxel and prednisone. METHODS: 103 mCRPC patients, chemotherapy-naïve with/without abiraterone and/or enzalutamide pretreated, with adequate organ function and evaluable disease per RECIST v1.1 and PCWG3 guidelines were randomized 1:1 into two cohorts. In Cohort 1, 49 patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (Q3W). In Cohort 2, 52 patients received ModraDoc006/r; 21 patients with a starting dose of ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 200 mg in the morning and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/200-100 mg) bi-daily-once-weekly (BIDW) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle. To alleviate tolerability, the starting dose was amended to ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg in another 31 patients. All patients received prednisone 10 mg daily. Primary endpoint was rPFS. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rPFS between the 2 arms (p = 0.1465). Median rPFS was 9.5 months and 11.1 months (95% CI) for ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. Partial response was noted in 44.1% and 38.7% measurable disease patients, and 50% decline of PSA was seen in 23 (50%) and 26 (56.5%) evaluable cases treated with ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. The safety profile of ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg dose was significantly better than i.v. docetaxel, with mild (mostly Grade 1) gastrointestinal toxicities, no hematologic adverse events, and neuropathy and alopecia incidence of 11.5% and 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ModraDoc006/r potentially represents a widely applicable, convenient, effective, and better tolerated oral taxane therapy option for mCRPC. Further investigation of ModraDoc006/r in a large randomized trial is warranted.