Epigenetic scars of CD8+ T cell exhaustion persist after cure of chronic infection in humans.

T cell exhaustion is an induced state of dysfunction that arises in response to chronic infection and cancer. Exhausted CD8+ T cells acquire a distinct epigenetic state, but it is not known whether that chromatin landscape is fixed or plastic following the resolution of a chronic infection. Here we show that the epigenetic state of exhaustion is largely irreversible, even after curative therapy. Analysis of chromatin accessibility in HCV- and HIV-specific responses identifies a core epigenetic program of exhaustion in CD8+ T cells, which undergoes only limited remodeling before and after resolution of infection. Moreover, canonical features of exhaustion, including super-enhancers near the genes TOX and HIF1A, remain 'epigenetically scarred.' T cell exhaustion is therefore a conserved epigenetic state that becomes fixed and persists independent of chronic antigen stimulation and inflammation. Therapeutic efforts to reverse T cell exhaustion may require new approaches that increase the epigenetic plasticity of exhausted T cells.

Oral Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not shown a significant benefit of postexposure prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind trial to assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in asymptomatic, rapid antigen test-negative adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 within 96 hours before randomization. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg of nirmatrelvir and 100 mg of ritonavir) every 12 hours for 5 days or for 10 days or matching placebo for 5 or 10 days. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, confirmed on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen testing, through 14 days in participants who had a negative RT-PCR test at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2736 participants were randomly assigned to a trial group - 921 to the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 917 to the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 898 to the placebo group. Symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed by day 14 in 2.6% of the participants in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 2.4% of those in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 3.9% of those in the placebo group. In each nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the percentage of participants in whom symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed did not differ significantly from that in the placebo group, with risk reductions relative to placebo of 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.7 to 57.8; P = 0.17) in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 35.5% (95% CI, -11.5 to 62.7; P = 0.12) in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups, with dysgeusia being the most frequently reported adverse event (in 5.9% and 6.8% of the participants in the 5-day and 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir groups, respectively, and in 0.7% of those in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial, postexposure prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 or 10 days did not significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047601.).

Oral Simnotrelvir for Adult Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Simnotrelvir is an oral 3-chymotrypsin-like protease inhibitor that has been found to have in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential efficacy in a phase 1B trial. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients who had mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and onset of symptoms within the past 3 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of simnotrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the time to sustained resolution of symptoms, defined as the absence of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms for 2 consecutive days. Safety and changes in viral load were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1208 patients were enrolled at 35 sites in China; 603 were assigned to receive simnotrelvir and 605 to receive placebo. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who received the first dose of trial drug or placebo within 72 hours after symptom onset, the time to sustained resolution of Covid-19 symptoms was significantly shorter in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (180.1 hours [95% confidence interval {CI}, 162.1 to 201.6] vs. 216.0 hours [95% CI, 203.4 to 228.1]; median difference, -35.8 hours [95% CI, -60.1 to -12.4]; P = 0.006 by Peto-Prentice test). On day 5, the decrease in viral load from baseline was greater in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (mean difference [±SE], -1.51±0.14 log10 copies per milliliter; 95% CI, -1.79 to -1.24). The incidence of adverse events during treatment was higher in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (29.0% vs. 21.6%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of simnotrelvir plus ritonavir shortened the time to the resolution of symptoms among adult patients with Covid-19, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05506176.).

VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir). RESULTS: A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).

Second-Line Switch to Dolutegravir for Treatment of HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data to inform the switch from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to dolutegravir in patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who do not have genotype information and who have viral suppression with second-line therapy containing a ritonavir-boosted PI have been limited. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, open-label trial conducted at four sites in Kenya, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, previously treated patients without genotype information who had viral suppression while receiving treatment containing a ritonavir-boosted PI to either switch to dolutegravir or continue the current regimen. The primary end point was a plasma HIV type 1 RNA level of at least 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, assessed on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in the percentage of participants who met the primary end point was 4 percentage points. Safety up to week 48 was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 795 participants were enrolled, with 398 assigned to switch to dolutegravir and 397 assigned to continue taking their ritonavir-boosted PI; 791 participants (397 in the dolutegravir group and 394 in the ritonavir-boosted PI group) were included in the intention-to-treat exposed population. At week 48, a total of 20 participants (5.0%) in the dolutegravir group and 20 (5.1%) in the ritonavir-boosted PI group met the primary end point (difference, -0.04 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.1 to 3.0), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority. No mutations conferring resistance to dolutegravir or the ritonavir-boosted PI were detected at the time of treatment failure. The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in the dolutegravir group and the ritonavir-boosted PI group (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with viral suppression for whom there were no data regarding the presence of drug-resistance mutations, dolutegravir treatment was noninferior to a regimen containing a ritonavir-boosted PI when the patients were switched from a ritonavir-boosted PI-based regimen. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; 2SD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04229290.).

Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor with potent pan-human-coronavirus activity in vitro. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.04 to -3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of -5.81 percentage points (95% CI, -7.78 to -3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.868 log10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202.).

Dolutegravir in Pregnancy as Compared with Current HIV Regimens in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in pregnancy as compared with other ART regimens commonly used in the United States and Europe, particularly when initiated before conception, are limited. METHODS: We conducted a study involving pregnancies in persons with HIV-1 infection in the Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study whose initial ART in pregnancy included dolutegravir, atazanavir-ritonavir, darunavir-ritonavir, oral rilpivirine, raltegravir, or elvitegravir-cobicistat. Viral suppression at delivery and the risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, and being small for gestational age were compared between each non-dolutegravir-based ART regimen and dolutegravir-based ART. Supplementary analyses that included participants in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study were conducted to improve the precision of our results. RESULTS: Of the pregnancies in the study, 120 were in participants who received dolutegravir, 464 in those who received atazanavir-ritonavir, 185 in those who received darunavir-ritonavir, 243 in those who received rilpivirine, 86 in those who received raltegravir, and 159 in those who received elvitegravir-cobicistat. The median age at conception was 29 years; 51% of the pregnancies were in participants who started ART before conception. Viral suppression was present at delivery in 96.7% of the pregnancies in participants who received dolutegravir; corresponding percentages were 84.0% for atazanavir-ritonavir, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 89.8% for elvitegravir-cobicistat (adjusted risk differences vs. dolutegravir, -13.0 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -17.0 to -6.1], -17.0 percentage points [95% CI, -27.0 to -2.4], and -7.0 percentage points [95% CI, -13.3 to -0.0], respectively). The observed risks of preterm birth were 13.6 to 17.6%. Adjusted risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, or being small for gestational age did not differ substantially between non-dolutegravir-based ART and dolutegravir. Results of supplementary analyses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Atazanavir-ritonavir and raltegravir were associated with less frequent viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir. No clear differences in adverse birth outcomes were observed with dolutegravir-based ART as compared with non-dolutegravir-based ART, although samples were small. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others.).

Efficacy of late-onset antiviral treatment in immunocompromised hosts with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Immunocompromised people are at high risk of prolonged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy of late-onset direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy with therapeutics in clinical use and experimental drugs to mitigate persistent viral replication is unclear. In this study, we employed an immunocompromised mouse model, which supports prolonged replication of SARS-CoV-2 to explore late-onset treatment options. Tandem immuno-depletion of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in C57BL/6 mice followed by infection with SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) beta B.1.351 resulted in prolonged infection with virus replication for 5 weeks after inoculation. Early-onset treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid) or molnupiravir was only moderately efficacious, whereas the experimental therapeutic 4'-fluorouridine (4'-FlU, EIDD-2749) significantly reduced virus load in the upper and lower respiratory compartments 4 days postinfection (dpi). All antivirals significantly lowered virus burden in a 7-day treatment regimen initiated 14 dpi, but paxlovid-treated animals experienced rebound virus replication in the upper respiratory tract 7 days after treatment end. Viral RNA was detectable 28 dpi in paxlovid-treated animals, albeit not in the molnupiravir or 4'-FlU groups, when treatment was initiated 14 dpi and continued for 14 days. Low-level virus replication continued 35 dpi in animals receiving vehicle but had ceased in all treatment groups. These data indicate that late-onset DAA therapy significantly shortens the duration of persistent virus replication in an immunocompromised host, which may have implications for clinical use of antiviral therapeutics to alleviate the risk of progression to severe disease in highly vulnerable patients. IMPORTANCE: Four years after the onset of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the immunocompromised are at greatest risk of developing life-threatening severe disease. However, specific treatment plans for this most vulnerable patient group have not yet been developed. Employing a CD4+ and CD8+ T cell-depleted immunocompromised mouse model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we explored therapeutic options of persistent infections with standard-of-care paxlovid, molnupiravir, and the experimental therapeutic 4'-fluorouridine (4'-FlU). Late-onset treatment initiated 14 days after infection was efficacious, but only 4'-FlU was rapidly sterilizing. No treatment-experienced viral variants with reduced susceptibility to the drugs emerged, albeit virus replication rebounded in animals of the paxlovid group after treatment end. This study supports the use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for late-onset management of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised hosts. However, treatment courses likely require to be extended for maximal therapeutic benefit, calling for appropriately powered clinical trials to meet the specific needs of this patient group.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia during the Omicron surge.

Patients with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL), even in the Omicron era and after vaccination, suffer from persistent COVID-19 infection, higher complications, and mortality compared with the general population. In this study, we evaluated retrospectively the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir + ritonavir among 1080 patients with CLL who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Nirmatrelvir administration was associated with a reduction in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death by day 35. Specifically, the rate of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in the treated group compared with the untreated group was 4.8% (14 out of 292) vs 10.2% (75 out of 733), respectively. Moreover, we report a 69% relative risk reduction in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in patients with CLL at the age of ≥65 years. Multivariate analysis indicates that patients aged >65 years, patients who received heavy treatment (>2 previous treatments), patients with recent hospitalizations, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment, and comorbidity had significant improvement outcomes after treatment with nirmatrelvir.

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.

In outpatients with COVID-19 during Omicron variant circulation, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved outcomes.

SOURCE CITATION: Sommer I, Ledinger D, Thaler K, et al. Outpatient treatment of confirmed COVID-19: a living, rapid evidence review for the American College of Physicians (version 2). Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1377-1385. 37722115.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Use and Hospitalizations or Death in a Previously Uninfected Nonhospitalized High-Risk Population With COVID-19: A Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) with hospitalization or death within 30 days as compared with untreated controls previously uninfected and nonhospitalized. METHODS: We used a matched cohort design using inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW). Individuals prescribed NMV/r within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with IPTW-based untreated controls. Variables for IPTW included age, race, sex, body mass index, geographic location, vaccination status, and multiple comorbidities. Additional analyses were conducted on NMV/r-treated and propensity score-matched untreated controls. RESULTS: Among 7615 individuals prescribed NMV/r and 62 077 controls identified between 1 January 2022 and 25 February 2023, the risk of hospitalization/death was lower among NMV/r-treated persons vs untreated controls (243 vs 3468 events; absolute risk difference [ARD], -2.36 [95% CI, -2.57 to -2.14]). The difference was significant for those >60 and ≤60 years old (ARD, -3.86 [95% CI, -4.19 to -3.54] vs -0.27 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.03]) and for persons asymptomatic and symptomatic (ARD, -7.09 [95% CI, -7.62 to -6.55] vs -1.46 [95% CI, -1.66 to -1.25]). Significant benefit was observed among individuals unvaccinated and vaccinated, with or without a booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is associated with a significant reduction in 30-day hospitalization or death among individuals previously uninfected and nonhospitalized.

Nirmatrelvir Resistance-de Novo E166V/L50V Mutations in an Immunocompromised Patient Treated With Prolonged Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Leading to Clinical and Virological Treatment Failure-a Case Report.

Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 to antivirals was shown to develop in immunocompromised individuals receiving remdesivir. We describe an immunocompromised patient who was treated with repeated and prolonged courses of nirmatrelvir and developed de-novo E166V/L50F mutations in the Mpro region. These mutations were associated with clinical and virological treatment failure.

Review: The Landscape of Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19 in the Era of Widespread Population Immunity and Omicron-Lineage Viruses.

The goals of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral therapy early in the pandemic were to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As these outcomes have become infrequent in the age of widespread population immunity, the objectives have shifted. For the general population, COVID-19-directed antiviral therapy should decrease symptom severity and duration and minimize infectiousness, and for immunocompromised individuals, antiviral therapy should reduce severe outcomes and persistent infection. The increased recognition of virologic rebound following ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NMV/r) and the lack of randomized controlled trial data showing benefit of antiviral therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for standard-risk, vaccinated individuals remain major knowledge gaps. Here, we review data for selected antiviral agents and immunomodulators currently available or in late-stage clinical trials for use in outpatients. We do not review antibody products, convalescent plasma, systemic corticosteroids, IL-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, or agents that lack Food and Drug Administration approval or emergency use authorization or are not appropriate for outpatients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of US Veterans With Immunocompromised Conditions at High Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection With or Without Receipt of Oral Antiviral Agents.

OBJECTIVES: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were the first oral antiviral agents to demonstrate reduced hospitalization or death in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but patients with immunocompromised conditions were not well-represented. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the clinical outcomes of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions prescribed oral antivirals with those who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, nationwide propensity-matched analysis of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions who developed documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the composite of any hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included 30-day comparative rates of (1) any hospitalization, (2) death, (3) intensive care requirement, and (4) subset analyses of outcomes by oral antiviral used and vaccination status. RESULTS: The composite primary outcome was significantly lower in patients receiving oral antiviral therapy compared with those who did not (23/390 [5.9%] vs 57/390 [14.6%]; odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, .22-.61). This difference was driven largely by fewer deaths in the oral antiviral group (1/390 [0.3%] vs 19/390 [4.9%]; odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .007-.38). There was no significant difference in rate of intensive care requirement. The composite outcome was improved in vaccinated patients (completing the first series or first booster dose) who received oral antiviral agents compared with those who did not receive oral antiviral agents. Compared with those prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, patients given molnupiravir were older, had a higher incidence of cautions/contraindications, greater prevalence of tobacco use, and more cardiovascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: Use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with lower incidences of hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis in US veterans with immunocompromised conditions, regardless of vaccination status. These findings support the use of either oral antiviral in this patient population.

Identifying Veterans Who Benefit From Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir: A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is recommended for persons at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but remains underutilized. Information on which eligible groups are likely to benefit from treatment is needed. METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation study in the Veterans Health Administration comparing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treated versus matched untreated veterans at risk for severe COVID-19 who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from April 2022 through March 2023. We measured incidence of any hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 30 days. Outcomes were measured for the entire cohort, as well as among subgroups defined by 30-day risk of death or hospitalization, estimated using an ensemble risk prediction model. RESULTS: Participants were 87% male with median age 66 years and 16% unvaccinated. Compared with matched untreated participants, those treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 24 205) had a lower 30-day risk for hospitalization (1.80% vs 2.30%; risk difference [RD], -0.50% points [95% confidence interval {CI}: -.69 to -.35]) and death (0.11% vs 0.30%; RD, -0.20 [95% CI: -.24 to -.13]). The greatest reductions in combined hospitalization or death were observed in the highest risk quartile (RD -2.85 [95% CI: -3.94 to -1.76]), immunocompromised persons (RD -1.91 [95% CI: -3.09 to -.74]), and persons aged ≥75 years (RD -1.16 [95% CI: -1.73 to -.59]). No reductions were observed in the 2 lowest risk quartiles or persons younger than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing 30-day hospitalization and death in older veterans, those at highest predicted risk for severe outcomes, and immunocompromised groups. Benefit was not observed in younger veterans or groups at lower predicted risk for hospitalization and death.

SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Prescribing Gaps Among Nonhospitalized High-Risk Adults.

Within a multistate clinical cohort, SARS-CoV-2 antiviral prescribing patterns were evaluated from April 2022-June 2023 among nonhospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Among 3247 adults, only 31.9% were prescribed an antiviral agent (87.6% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 11.9% molnupiravir, 0.5% remdesivir), highlighting the need to identify and address treatment barriers.

Combined Protection of Vaccination and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Against Hospitalization in Adults With COVID-19.

Among adults at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the lowest hospitalization rate was among those who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir after 3 or more messenger RNA vaccine doses (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, .19-.24). Eligible adults, including those previously vaccinated, should be considered for COVID-19 antiviral treatment.

Phase I study, and dosing regimen selection for a pivotal COVID-19 trial of GST-HG171.

This study is aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK), as well as to select an appropriate dosing regimen for the pivotal clinical trial of GST-HG171, an orally bioavailable, potent, and selective 3CL protease inhibitor by a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled phase I trial in healthy subjects. We conducted a Ph1 study involving 78 healthy subjects to assess the safety, tolerability, and PK of single ascending doses (150-900 mg) as well as multiple ascending doses (MADs) (150 and 300 mg) of GST-HG171. Additionally, we examined the food effect and drug-drug interaction of GST-HG171 in combination with ritonavir through a MAD regimen of GST-HG171/ritonavir (BID or TID) for 5 days. Throughout the course of these studies, no serious AEs or deaths occurred, and no AEs necessitated study discontinuation. We observed that food had no significant impact on the exposure of GST-HG171. However, the presence of ritonavir substantially increased the exposure of GST-HG171, which facilitated the selection of the GST-HG171/ritonavir dose and regimen (150/100 mg BID) for subsequent phase II/III trials. The selected dose regimen was achieved through concentrations continuously at 6.2-9.9-fold above the levels required for protein-binding adjusted 50% inhibition (IC50) of viral replication in vitro. The combination of 150 mg GST-HG171/100 mg ritonavir demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles. The PK data obtained from GST-HG171/ritonavir administration guided the selection of appropriate dose for a pivotal phase II/III trial currently in progress. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT05668897).

Simultaneous pharmacokinetic modeling of unbound and total darunavir with ritonavir in adolescents: a substudy of the SMILE trial.

Darunavir (DRV) is an HIV protease inhibitor commonly used as part of antiretroviral treatment regimens globally for children and adolescents. It requires a pharmacological booster, such as ritonavir (RTV) or cobicistat. To better understand the pharmacokinetics (PK) of DRV in this younger population and the importance of the RTV boosting effect, a population PK substudy was conducted within SMILE trial, where the maintenance of HIV suppression with once daily integrate inhibitor + darunavir/ritonavir in children and adolescents is evaluated. A joint population PK model that simultaneously used total DRV, unbound DRV, and total RTV concentrations was developed. Competitive and non-competitive models were examined to define RTV's influence on DRV pharmacokinetics. Linear and non-linear equations were tested to assess DRV protein binding. A total of 443 plasma samples from 152 adolescents were included in this analysis. Darunavir PK was best described by a one-compartment model first-order absorption and elimination. The influence of RTV on DRV pharmacokinetics was best characterized by ritonavir area under the curve on DRV clearance using a power function. The association of non-linear and linear equations was used to describe DRV protein binding to alpha-1 glycoprotein and albumin, respectively. In our population, simulations indicate that 86.8% of total and unbound DRV trough concentrations were above 0.55 mg/L [10 times protein binding-adjusted EC50 for wild-type (WT) HIV-1] and 0.0243 mg/L (10 times EC90 for WT HIV-1) targets, respectively. Predictions were also in agreement with observed outcomes from adults receiving 800/100 mg DRV/r once a day. Administration of 800/100 mg of DRV/r once daily provides satisfactory concentrations and exposures for adolescents aged 12 years and older.