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.

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.

Combined protection of vaccination and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir against hospitalization in adults with COVID-19.

Among U.S. adults at risk for severe COVID-19 in Epic Cosmos, the lowest rate of hospitalization was among those receiving three or more mRNA vaccine doses and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (aHR 0.22, 95%CI: 0.19-0.24). Adults who are at high-risk of severe COVID-19 disease, including vaccinated persons, should be considered for antiviral treatment.

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.

Longitudinal outcomes of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients from 2020 to 2023.

Data regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTr) across severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) waves, including the impact of different measures, are lacking. This cohort study, conducted from March 2020 to May 2023 in Toronto, Canada, aimed to analyze COVID-19 outcomes in 1975 SOTr across various SARS-CoV-2 waves and assess the impact of preventive and treatment measures. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19, defined as requiring supplemental oxygen, with secondary outcomes including hospitalization, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. SARS-CoV-2 waves were categorized as Wildtype/Alpha/Delta (318 cases, 16.1%), Omicron BA.1 (268, 26.2%), Omicron BA.2 (268, 13.6%), Omicron BA.5 (561, 28.4%), Omicron BQ.1.1 (188, 9.5%), and Omicron XBB.1.5 (123, 6.2%). Severe COVID-19 rate was highest during the Wildtype/Alpha/Delta wave (44.6%), and lower in Omicron waves (5.7%-16.1%). Lung transplantation was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR: 4.62, 95% CI: 2.71-7.89), along with rituximab treatment (OR: 4.24, 95% CI: 1.04-17.3), long-term corticosteroid use (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.46-6.62), older age (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.30-1.76), chronic lung disease (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.36-3.30), chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.17-4.07), and diabetes (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37-2.83). Early treatment and ≥3 vaccine doses were associated with reduced severity (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.46, and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21-0.60, respectively). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab and bivalent boosters did not show a significant impact. The study concludes that COVID-19 severity decreased across different variants in SOTr. Lung transplantation was associated with worse outcomes and may benefit more from preventive and early therapeutic interventions.

Effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in kidney transplant recipients with severe kidney dysfunction infected with COVID-19.

Transplant patients face an elevated risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) morbidity and mortality and commonly encounter renal dysfunction. Nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted through the kidneys. The dosage of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) needs to be adjusted according to the degree of renal function impairment. Nevertheless, NR is not recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min) due to a dearth of associated research. In this study, we focus on kidney transplant patients and document and analyze the experiences of using NR in individuals with severe kidney dysfunction. This was a retrospective multicenter study that included transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 in five major tertiary hospitals in China from December 2022 to June 2023. The outcomes consisted of the disease progression rate by day 28, individual disease progression events, safety outcomes, information on adverse events (AEs), and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants. Data were presented with descriptive statistics. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22. In total, 40 patients were included in the analysis. Considering the potential interaction between drugs, all patients temporarily discontinued their immunosuppressants during the NR treatment. None of the 32 moderate patients experienced disease progression. However, among the eight patients with critical COVID-19, unfortunately, two of them died. During the medication period, four patients experienced a total of six AEs associated with NR. None of them experienced AEs with a maximum grade of ≥3. Blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants were monitored in 22 of 40 patients, and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants did not show a significant increase, but some patients experienced lower blood drug concentrations. Our findings supported the use of NR therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 in transplant patients with severe renal insufficiency. A modified dose of NR was well-tolerated.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.

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.

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling guided dose evaluations of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in renal impairment for the management of COVID-19.

We aimed to address factors contributing to the pharmacokinetic changes of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in renal impaired (RI) patients and recommend dosing adjustment via a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling approach. A PBPK model of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was developed via Simcyp® Simulator. Sensitivity analysis of the influence of hepatic CYP3A4 intrinsic clearance and abundance, as well as hepatic non-CYP3A4 metabolism (other human liver microsomes [HLM] CLint) was performed to evaluate the effects of RI on oral clearance of nirmatrelvir. Other HLM CLint, the most sensitive parameter, was adjusted, and the simulated plasma concentration profiles of nirmatrelvir in severe RI subjects were within the therapeutic index of 292-10 000 ng/mL for dosing regimens of loading doses of 300/100 mg followed by 150/100 mg or 75/100 mg twice daily of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Considering that nirmatrelvir is available as a 150 mg tablet, we recommend 300/100 mg followed by 150/100 mg twice daily as the dosing regimen to be investigated in severe RI.

Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Patients at High Risk for Progression to Severe COVID-19 in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results. RESULTS: NMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (-0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (-$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective.

Real-world application of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with onset of symptoms beyond 5 days: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Physicians may administer Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to patients who have been symptomatic for more than 5 days. There is currently no clear evidence to support this approach. METHODS: A real-world study was conducted to investigate the potential relationship between the administration of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and the rates of intubation or in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients who experienced symptoms for more than 5 days. The end point was a composite event of intubation or in-hospital mortality. The outcomes between those patients who received Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who did not were compared. RESULTS: A total of 847 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, 312 patients (36.84%) received Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Within the entire population, 86 patients (10.15%) experienced intubation or in-hospital mortality. The main analysis indicated that there was a significant association between the application of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and intubation or in-hospital mortality, with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.87; P = 0.0153) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The finding was consistent with multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The application of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who experienced symptoms for more than 5 days as compared to those who did not receive the treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in older adults with mild and moderate COVID-19: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Azvudine has clinical benefits and acceptable safety against COVID-19, including in patients with comorbidities, but there is a lack of available data for its use in older adult patients. This study explored the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in older adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged ≥80 diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Shaoyang between October and November 2022. According to the therapies they received, the eligible patients were divided into the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and standard-of-care (SOC) groups. The outcomes were the proportion of patients progressing to severe COVID-19, time to nucleic acid negative conversion (NANC), and the 5-, 7-, 10-, and 14-day NANC rates from admission. RESULTS: The study included 55 patients treated with azvudine (n = 14), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 18), and SOC (n = 23). The median time from symptom onset to NANC of the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and SOC groups was 14 (range, 6-25), 15 (range, 11-24), and 19 (range, 18-23) days, respectively. The median time from treatment initiation to NANC of the azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups was 8 (range, 4-20) and 9 (range, 5-16) days, respectively. The median length of hospital stay in the three groups was 10.5 (range, 5-23), 13.5 (range, 10-21), and 17 (range, 10-23) days, respectively. No treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Azvudine showed satisfactory effectiveness and acceptable safety in older adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. Therefore, azvudine could be a treatment option for this special patient population.

Azvudine versus paxlovid for oral treatment of COVID-19 in Chinese patients.

PURPOSE: To explore the effect of azvudine as compared to paxlovid for oral treatment of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shandong provincial hospital between February 15 and March 15, 2023. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery through Day 28 and secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants who died from any cause by Day 28, the average hospitilization time and expenses, the changes in liver and kidney function and adverse events. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between azvudine and paxlovid in terms of time to sustained clinical recovery (p = 0.429) and death rates (p = 0.687). As for hospitalization time and fee, no significant differences were observed between azvudine group and paxlovid group (Hospitalization time: p = 0.633; Hospitalization fee: p = 0.820). In addition, there were no significant differences in the effects of the two drugs on liver and kidney function (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among adults who were hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection, azvudine was noninferior to paxlovid in terms of time to sustained clinical recovery, death rates, hospitalization time and cost, with few safety concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300071309; Registered 11 May 2023. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective cohort study.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in Beijing: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Two oral antivirals (Nirmatrelvir- ritonavir and Azvudine) are widely used in China practice during the Omicron wave of the pandemic. However, little evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of these two oral antivirals in in-hospital patients. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine among adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from three Chinese PLA General Hospital medical centres. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir from Dec 10, 2022, to February 20, 2023, and did not require invasive ventilation support on admission were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: After exclusions and propensity-score matching, the final analysis included 486 azvudine recipients and 486 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients. By 28 days of initiation of the antivirus treatment, the crude incidence rate of all-cause death was similar in both types of antivirus treatment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group 2.8 events 1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.1-3.6] vs azvudine group 3.4 events/1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.6-4.3], P = 0.38). Landmark analysis showed that all-cause death was lower in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (3.5%) group than the azvudine (6.8%, P = 0.029) within the initial 10-day admission period, while no significant difference was observed for results between 10 and 28 days follow-up. There was no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and the azvudine group in cumulative incidence of the composite disease progression event (8.6% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir vs. 10.1% with azvudine, HR, 1.22; 95% CI 0.80-1.86, P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in Beijing, similar in-hospital clinical outcomes on 28 days were observed between patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and azvudine. However, it is worth noticing that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to hold an advantage over azvudine in reducing early mortality. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the efficacy of those two antivirus medications especially in early treatment.

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.

Adverse Events of SARS-CoV-2 Therapy: A Pharmacovigilance Study of the FAERS Database.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 years of the several strategies recommended to help fight COVID-19, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is a novel drug shown in the EPIC-HR phase 2 to 3 clinical trial to lower COVID-19-related death or hospitalization at day 28 when compared with placebo. OBJECTIVE: Our study's aim was to explore the reported adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use for COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for AEs, listing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir as the primary drug between January and June 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of reported AEs associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The OpenFDA database was queried using Python 3.10 to collect the AEs and Stata 17 was used to analyze the database. Adverse events were analyzed by associated medication, with "Covid-19" excluded. RESULTS: A total of 8098 reports were identified between January and June 2022. Most reported complaints in the AE system were COVID-19 and disease recurrence. The most common symptomatic AEs were dysgeusia, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, and headache. Event rates significantly rose between April and May. Disease recurrence and dysgeusia were the most commonly reported complaints for the top 8 concomitant drugs identified. Cardiac arrest, tremor, akathisia, and death were reported in 1, 3, 67, and 5 cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is the first retrospective study done on reported AEs associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use for COVID-19. COVID-19 and disease recurrence were the most reported AEs. Further monitoring of the FAERS database is warranted to periodically reassess the safety profile of this medication.

The Impacts of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir on Myocardial Injury and Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 amid the Omicron Wave of the Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Even though nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can improve the short-term morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, the effects of this treatment on long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), especially myocardial injury, remains undetermined. METHODS: This prospective cohort study identified hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 between April 19, 2022, and June 9, 2022, amid the omicron wave of the pandemic. Matched nirmatrelvir-ritonavir-treated and non-treated cohorts were formed using the propensity score matching method. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of MACEs (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, new-onset heart failure or heart failure hospitalization or ventricular arrhythmia) from 30 days to 16 months after the diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: Two 949-patient cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics were formed by propensity score matching. Patients with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, compared to those untreated, had a lower level of troponin I peak as well as the incidence of troponin I elevation. During the follow-up period, 59 patients in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 86 patients in the control group developed MACEs (P = 0.020). Regarding specific constituents of MACEs, the differences are mainly reflected in new-onset heart failure or heart failure hospitalization. COVID-19 clinical severity and troponin I peak were the independent predictors, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was the independent protective factor for the occurrence of MACEs in this population. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in reducing myocardial injury as well as long-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 amid the omicron wave of the pandemic.

Pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and the drug-drug interaction with calcineurin inhibitor in renal transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in renal transplant recipients and explore the potential factors that related to the PK variance of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and its interaction with calcineurin inhibitor (CNI). METHODS: Renal transplant recipients treated with CNI and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were prospectively enrolled. Steady-state plasma concentrations of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and the PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. Spearman correlation analysis was used for exploring influencing factors. RESULTS: A total of eight recipients were enrolled; for nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, AUC/dose was 0.24179 ± 0.14495 and 0.06196 ± 0.03767 µg·h·mL-1·mg-1. Red blood cell (RBC), hematocrit (Ht), hemoglobins (Hb), and creatinine clearance (Ccr) were negatively correlated with AUC/dose of nirmatrelvir, while Ccr, CYP3A5 genotype, and CYP3A4 genotype were related to the AUC/dose of ritonavir. Ccr was negatively correlated with the C0/dose of tacrolimus (TAC) after termination of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (rs = -0.943, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The PK characteristics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir vary greatly among renal transplant recipients. Factors including Ccr and CYP3A5 genotype were related to the in vivo exposure of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. During the whole process before and after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy, it is recommended to adjust the CNI basing on renal function to avoid CNI toxicity exposure.