Molnupiravir for treatment of adults with mild or moderate COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effectiveness of molnupiravir as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent mortality and hospitalisation in high-risk adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials and real-world studies involving 1,612,082 patients

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of molnupiravir for COVID-19 treatment remains controversial due to substantial heterogeneity in dosage and study settings across randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHOD

We systematically searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials up to February 3, 2025, for RCTs and real-world studies evaluating molnupiravir 800 mg twice daily as an early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent mortality and hospitalisation in high-risk adult outpatients. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalisation. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled effect sizes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included, comprising 30,345 participants from 11 RCTs and 1,581,737 participants from 23 cohort studies. Molnupiravir reduced mortality risk by 55 %-65 % at 28 days (RCTs: risk ratio [RR] 0.35; 95 % CI 0.12-0.98, I2 0 %; cohort studies: RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.27-0.73, I2 91 %). This benefit persisted at 3 months (RR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.23-0.95, I2 93 %) and 6 months (RR 0.62; 95 % CI 0.52-0.74, I2 0 %). The effectiveness in preventing 28-day hospitalisation varied by participants' mean age in both RCTs (35-45 vs. 45-57 years: RR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.36-0.84 vs. 1.06; 95 % CI 0.81-1.39, subgroup difference P = 0.01) and cohort studies (62-74 vs. 75-85 years: RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.77-1.01 vs. 0.56; 95 % CI 0.44-0.72, subgroup difference P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir significantly reduces the risk of mortality. It also lowers the risk of hospitalisation in the oldest group (mean age ≥75 years) but not in younger groups (mean age 45-74 years).

The development of therapeutics and vaccines against COVID-19

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, it has caused a great threat to the global economy and public health, initiatives have been launched to control the spread of the virus. To explore the efficacy of drugs, a large number of clinical trials have been carried out, with the purpose of providing guidelines based on high-quality evidence for clinicians. We mainly discuss therapeutic agents for COVID-19 and explain the mechanism, including antiviral agents, tocilizumab, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, neutralizing antibody therapies and corticosteroids. In addition, the COVID-19 vaccine has been proven to be efficacious in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We systematically analyzed four mainstream vaccine platforms: messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, viral vector vaccines, inactivated vaccines and protein subunit vaccines. We evaluated the therapeutic effects of drugs and vaccines through enumerating the most typical clinical trials. However, the emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of the available clinical data, especially vaccines and antibody therapies. In the post-epidemic era, therapeutic agents are still the first choice for controlling the progression of disease, whereas the protective effect of vaccines against different strains should be assessed comprehensively.

Real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: a population-based, retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The real-world effectiveness of the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant remains uncertain. We aimed to estimate their effectiveness in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Municipal Department for Public Health Services of Vienna, Austria, to identify non-hospitalized adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 2022 and May 2023. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users were compared with untreated controls and molnupiravir users with untreated controls by calculating adjusted risk differences (aRDs) using a covariate-adjusted logistic regression model with inverse probability weighting. Outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause death within 28 days.

RESULTS

We identified 113 399 eligible cases (90 481 untreated controls, 12 166 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users, and 10 752 molnupiravir users). Over 96% of the patients were immunized by previous infection or vaccination. In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir analysis, the estimated risk of hospitalization was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.35-0.78) in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users and 1.09% (95% CI, 0.86-1.32) in untreated controls (aRD, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.28). The estimated risk of death was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-0.0) in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users and 0.13% (95% CI, 0.08-0.18) in untreated controls (aRD, -0.13%, 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.08). The number needed to treat to prevent hospitalization and death was 190 (95% CI, 130-356) and 792 (95% CI, 571-1289), respectively. These statistically significant aRDs were restricted to the subgroup of patients ≥60 years. In the molnupiravir analysis, the estimated risk of hospitalization was 1.36% (95% CI, 0.95-1.77) in molnupiravir users and 1.16% (95% CI, 0.93-1.39) in untreated controls (aRD, 0.2%; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.49). The estimated risk of death was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.01-0.23) in molnupiravir users and 0.14% (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) in untreated controls (aRD, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.06).

DISCUSSION

Among outpatients aged ≥60 years with COVID-19 in an Omicron-dominated era, treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and all-cause death within 28 days, albeit with wide CIs and high numbers needed to treat. This finding was not observed in molnupiravir users and younger nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation.

METHODS

This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The efficacy of antivirals, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies as acute COVID-19 treatments in reducing the incidence of long COVID: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether treatment during acute COVID-19 results in protective efficacy against long COVID incidence remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between acute COVID-19 treatments of antivirals, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and long COVID incidence, and their effects in different populations and individual symptoms.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted up to January 29, 2024 in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Articles that reported long COVID incidence post-acute COVID with a follow-up of at least 30 days with no language restrictions.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis history.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients treated with antivirals, corticosteroids or mAbs.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Quality assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions-I and Cochrane risk of bias tool.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Basic characteristics were documented for each study. Random forest model and meta-regression were used to evaluate the correlation between treatments and long COVID.

RESULTS

Our search identified 2363 records, 32 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis and 25 included into the meta-analysis. Effect size from 14 papers investigating acute COVID-19 antiviral treatment concluded its protective efficacy against long COVID (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79; p 0.0002); however, corticosteroid (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.80-3.09; p 0.1913), and mAbs treatments (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.56-1.56; p 0.8012) did not generate such effect. Subsequent subgroup analysis revealed that antivirals provided stronger protection in the aged, male, unvaccinated and nondiabetic populations. Furthermore, antivirals effectively reduced 8 out of the 22 analysed long COVID symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis determined that antivirals reduced long COVID incidence across populations and should thus be recommended for acute COVID-19 treatment. There was no relationship between mAbs treatment and long COVID, but studies should be conducted to clarify acute COVID-19 corticosteroids' potential harmful effects on the post-acute phase of COVID-19.

Remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0.

Results

The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10-4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44-2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75-18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.57).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir among vaccinated and unvaccinated non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

Observational studies of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir compared to no antiviral drug treatment for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults with data on vaccination status were included. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Research Database and medRxiv for reports published between 1 January 2022 and 8 November 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization or mortality up to 35 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and risk differences (RD) were separately estimated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 30 cohort studies on adults treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 462 279) and molnupiravir (n = 48 008). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduced the composite outcome (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.55-0.70; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) with no evidence of effect modification by vaccination status (RR Psubgroup = 0.47). In five studies, RD estimates against the composite outcome for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were 1.21% (95%CI 0.57% to 1.84%) in vaccinated and 1.72% (95%CI 0.59% to 2.85%) in unvaccinated subgroups.Molnupiravir may slightly reduce the composite outcome (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.67-0.85; I2 = 32%; low certainty). Evidence of effect modification by vaccination status was inconsistent among studies reporting different effect measures (RR Psubgroup = 0.78; HR Psubgroup = 0.08). In two studies, RD against the composite outcome for molnupiravir were -0.01% (95%CI -1.13% to 1.10%) in vaccinated and 1.73% (95%CI -2.08% to 5.53%) in unvaccinated subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among cohort studies of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is effective against the composite outcome of severe COVID-19 independent of vaccination status. Further research and a reassessment of molnupiravir use among vaccinated adults are warranted.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023429232.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to explore relevant studies from January 2021 to November 2023. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.0).

RESULTS

Fifteen retrospective studies involving 13, 306 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 1.38), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.10), and intensive unit care admission (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 10.07). In terms of safety, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.29 to 9.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab have similar effectiveness in treating COVID-19 patients. However, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is low. High-quality research is needed to better compare these interventions in COVID-19.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).

RESULTS

Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).

CONCLUSION

The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Small-molecule antiviral treatments for COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.

Case report: Enhancing prognosis in severe COVID-19 through human herpes virus coinfection treatment strategies

Background

In the context of increasing reports of co-infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly with human herpes viruses (HHVs), it is important to consider the appropriate treatment options for HHVs that have been reactivated by COVID-19.

Case presentation

This study presents two cases of severe COVID-19 with HHV co-infection. The first case involved a critically ill patient with COVID-19 co-infected with herpes simplex virus type 1, confirmed using metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and another patient with severe COVID-19 experiencing Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation, as evidenced by elevated EBV-DNA levels in the serum. Treatment included high-dose glucocorticoids and sivelestat sodium, with notable improvements observed after initiating ganciclovir anti-herpesvirus therapy.

Conclusion

This study underscores the significance of recognizing HHV co-infections in severe COVID-19 cases and highlights the potential of combining anti-HHV treatment, increased glucocorticoid dosages, and anti-cytokine storm therapy to enhance prognosis.

Adverse events associated with molnupiravir: a real-world disproportionality analysis in food and drug administration adverse event reporting system

Molnupiravir, an urgently approved drug during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, serves as the basis for our study, which relies on the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The objective is to extract adverse event (AE) signals associated with molnupiravir from the FAERS database, thereby providing a reference for post-marketing monitoring of adverse events. Specifically, we extracted individual case safety reports (ICSRs) from the database, focusing on cases with COVID-19 indications and molnupiravir identified as the primary suspect drug. Descriptive analysis of the extracted data was performed, followed by four disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method. These analyses were conducted across four levels, encompassing overall data, reports by health professionals, as well as age and gender differentiations, ensuring the robustness of the analysis results. In total, 116,576 ICSRs with COVID-19 indications and 2,285 ICSRs with molnupiravir as the primary suspect were extracted. Notably, after excluding cases with unknown age or gender, a higher proportion of molnupiravir-related ICSRs were observed among individuals aged 65 years and older (70.07%) and women (54.06%). The most frequently reported adverse events and AE signals were associated with gastrointestinal disorders, as well as skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. Moreover, individuals aged 65 years and older exhibited a higher risk of cardiac disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, and vascular disorders. In conclusion, this study found molnupiravir demonstrated a lower risk of serious adverse events compared to other RNA antiviral drugs like remdesivir in patients under 65 years old. However, close monitoring of its safety is still necessary for elderly patients aged 65 years and above. Further studies are warranted to continuously assess the safety profile of molnupiravir as its usage increases, especially in high risk populations.

Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab for High-Risk COVID-19 Patients Infected by the Omicron Variant: Hospitalization, Mortality, and Time until Negative Swab Test in Real Life

Background. Several drugs which are easy to administer in outpatient settings have been authorized and endorsed for high-risk COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate disease to prevent hospital admission and death, complementing COVID-19 vaccines. However, the evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 antivirals during the Omicron wave is scanty or conflicting. Methods. This retrospective controlled study investigated the efficacy of Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid®) or Sotrovimab against standard of care (controls) on three different endpoints among 386 high-risk COVID-19 outpatients: hospital admission at 30 days; death at 30 days; and time between COVID-19 diagnosis and first negative swab test result. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to investigate the determinants of hospitalization due to COVID-19-associated pneumonia, whereas time to first negative swab test result was investigated by means of multinomial logistic analysis as well as Cox regression analysis. Results. Only 11 patients (overall rate of 2.8%) developed severe COVID-19-associated pneumonia requiring admission to hospital: 8 controls (7.2%); 2 patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (2.0%); and 1 on Sotrovimab (1.8%). No patient on Molnupiravir was institutionalized. Compared to controls, hospitalization was less likely for patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03; 0.89) or Molnupiravir (omitted estimate); drug efficacy was 84% for Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir against 100% for Molnupiravir. Only two patients died of COVID-19 (rate of 0.5%), both were controls, one (a woman aged 96 years) was unvaccinated and the other (a woman aged 72 years) had adequate vaccination status. At Cox regression analysis, the negativization rate was significantly higher in patients treated with both antivirals-Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.25; 2.26) or Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.08; 1.94). However, COVID-19 vaccination with three (aHR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.51; 2.73) or four (aHR = 2.48; 95% CI: 1.32; 4.68) doses had a slightly stronger effect size on viral clearance. In contrast, the negativization rate reduced significantly in patients who were immune-depressed (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52; 0.93) or those with a Charlson index ≥5 (aHR = 0.63; 0.41; 0.95) or those who had started the respective treatment course 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38; 0.82). Likewise, at internal analysis (excluding patients on standard of care), patients on Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21; 2.50) or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.32; 2.93) were more likely to turn negative earlier than those on Sotrovimab (reference category). Nonetheless, three (aHR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.33; 2.74) or four (aHR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.06; 4.59) doses of COVID-19 vaccine were again associated with a faster negativization rate. Again, the negativization rate was significantly lower if treatment started 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32; 0.92). Conclusions. Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, and Sotrovimab were all effective in preventing hospital admission and/or mortality attributable to COVID-19. However, hospitalizations also decreased with higher number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Although they are effective against severe disease and mortality, the prescription of COVID-19 antivirals should be carefully scrutinized by double opinion, not only to contain health care costs but also to reduce the risk of generating resistant SARS-CoV-2 strains. Only 64.7% of patients were in fact immunized with 3+ doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the present study. High-risk patients should prioritize COVID-19 vaccination, which is a more cost-effective approach than antivirals against severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Likewise, although both antivirals, especially Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, were more likely than standard of care and Sotrovimab to reduce viral shedding time (VST) in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 patients, vaccination had an independent and stronger effect on viral clearance. However, the effect of antivirals or COVID-19 vaccination on VST should be considered a secondary benefit. Indeed, recommending Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in order to control VST in high-risk COVID-19 patients is rather questionable since other cheap, large spectrum and harmless nasal disinfectants such as hypertonic saline solutions are available on the market with proven efficacy in containing VST.