Nirmatrelvir and risk of hospital admission or death in adults with covid-19: emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records

Adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in people with SARS-CoV-2 treated with SGLT2 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Whether use of SGLT2 inhibitors reduces the risk of cardiovascular and kidney events in people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection is not clear.

METHODS

We used the healthcare databases of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 107,776 participants on antihyperglycemic therapy and had SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 01, 2020 and June 10, 2023. Within them, 11,588 used SGLT2 inhibitors and 96,188 used other antihyperglycemics. We examined the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-a composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke, and major adverse kidney events (MAKE)-a composite of death, eGFR decline > 50%, and end stage kidney disease after balancing baseline characteristics between groups through inverse probability weighting. Survival analyses were conducted to generate hazard ratio (HR) and absolute risk reduction per 100 person-years (ARR).

RESULTS

Over a median follow up of 1.57 (IQR: 1.05-2.49) years, compared to the control group, SGLT2 inhibitors use is associated with reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.82 (0.77, 0.88), ARR 1.73 (1.21, 2.25)) and reduced risk of MAKE (HR 0.75 (0.71, 0.80), ARR 2.62 (2.13, 3.11)). Compared to the control group, SGLT2 inhibitors use is associated with reduced risk of the secondary outcomes of hospitalization (HR 0.94 (0.90, 0.98), ARR 1.06 (1.36, 1.76)), anemia (HR 0.71 (0.65, 0.76), ARR 2.43 (1.95, 2.90)), and acute kidney injury (HR 0.84 (0.79, 0.89), ARR 1.86 (1.29, 2.42)).

CONCLUSIONS

Among people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on antihyperglycemic therapy, compared to those on other antihyperglycemics, those on SGLT2 inhibitors have less risk of adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Although real-world studies demonstrate that those prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (and particularly within 5 days of symptom onset) are less likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes, prior studies show that only a small fraction of patients with COVID-19 who are eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receive a prescription. Studies calculating the proportion of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions filled and identifying individual- and pharmacy-level correlates of filling nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included individuals aged ≥ 12 years with a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered at a large national retail pharmacy (December 22, 2021-August 12, 2023). Those taking contraindicated medications were excluded. For those with only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription ordered, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled (yes/no). In a subanalysis of these individuals, the outcome was whether the prescription was filled within 5 days of symptom onset (yes/no). For those with multiple prescriptions ordered, the outcome was whether > 1 (vs. 0 or 1) prescriptions were filled. A log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations was used to identify individual (clinical and demographic) and pharmacy-level (percentage of trade area that is non-Hispanic white, urbanicity, US Census region, and tract-level area deprivation index) correlates.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103,570 unique nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions were ordered for 1,985,990 individuals. Among the 95% of individuals prescribed only one nirmatrelvir/ritonavir course, 88% filled their prescription. Among those with > 1 prescription ordered, 77% (82,993/108,411) filled one and 13% (13,662/108,411) filled > 1. Patients ≥ 50 years of age and those with documented high-risk conditions were slightly more likely to fill prescriptions, regardless of whether one or multiple courses were ordered. Individuals with cancer, asthma, or taking corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications were more likely to fill multiple prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients filled their nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. Interventions to improve uptake should focus on increasing patient and provider awareness, reducing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing disparities, and ensuring treatment initiation within 5 days.

Long COVID science, research and policy

Long COVID represents the constellation of post-acute and long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection; it is a complex, multisystem disorder that can affect nearly every organ system and can be severely disabling. The cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion-equivalent to about 1% of the global economy. Several mechanistic pathways are implicated in long COVID, including viral persistence, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, complement dysregulation, endothelial inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis. Long COVID can have devastating impacts on individual lives and, due to its complexity and prevalence, it also has major ramifications for health systems and economies, even threatening progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Addressing the challenge of long COVID requires an ambitious and coordinated-but so far absent-global research and policy response strategy. In this interdisciplinary review, we provide a synthesis of the state of scientific evidence on long COVID, assess the impacts of long COVID on human health, health systems, the economy and global health metrics, and provide a forward-looking research and policy roadmap.

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

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

Pathogenic mechanisms of cardiovascular damage in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a new infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2). Since the outbreak in December 2019, it has caused an unprecedented world pandemic, leading to a global human health crisis. Although SARS CoV-2 mainly affects the lungs, causing interstitial pneumonia and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, a number of patients often have extensive clinical manifestations, such as gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular damage and renal dysfunction.

PURPOSE

This review article discusses the pathogenic mechanisms of cardiovascular damage in COVID-19 patients and provides some useful suggestions for future clinical diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

METHODS

An English-language literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 12th April, 2024 for the terms "COVID-19", "SARS CoV-2", "cardiovascular damage", "myocardial injury", "myocarditis", "hypertension", "arrhythmia", "heart failure" and "coronary heart disease", especially update articles in 2023 and 2024. Salient medical literatures regarding the cardiovascular damage of COVID-19 were selected, extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

The most common cardiovascular damage was myocarditis and pericarditis, hypertension, arrhythmia, myocardial injury and heart failure, coronary heart disease, stress cardiomyopathy, ischemic stroke, blood coagulation abnormalities, and dyslipidemia. Two important pathogenic mechanisms of the cardiovascular damage may be direct viral cytotoxicity as well as indirect hyperimmune responses of the body to SARS CoV-2 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular damage in COVID-19 patients is common and portends a worse prognosis. Although the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiovascular damage related to COVID-19 are not completely clear, two important pathogenic mechanisms of cardiovascular damage may be the direct damage of the SARSCoV-2 infection and the indirect hyperimmune responses.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

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.

Making causal inferences from transactional data: A narrative review of opportunities and challenges when implementing the target trial framework

The target trial framework has emerged as a powerful tool for addressing causal questions in clinical practice and in public health. In the healthcare sector, where decision-making is increasingly data-driven, transactional databases, such as electronic health records (EHR) and insurance claims, present an untapped potential for answering complex causal questions. This narrative review explores the potential of the integration of the target trial framework with real-world data to enhance healthcare decision-making processes. We outline essential elements of the target trial framework, and identify pertinent challenges in data quality, privacy concerns, and methodological limitations, proposing solutions to overcome these obstacles and optimize the framework's application.

Risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 despite vaccination in patients requiring treatment with immune-suppressive drugs: A nationwide cohort study of US Veterans

BACKGROUND

Patients taking immune-suppressive drugs are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), not fully ameliorated by vaccination. We assessed the contributions of clinical and demographic factors to the risk of severe disease despite vaccination in patients taking immune-suppressive medications for solid organ transplantation (SOT), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or psoriasis.

METHODS

Veterans Health Administration electronic health records were used to identify patients diagnosed with RA, IBD, psoriasis, or SOT who had been vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were subsequently infected, and had received immune-suppressive drugs within 3 months before infection. The association of severe (defined as hypoxemia, mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone use, or death) versus non-severe COVID-19 with the use of immune-suppressive and antiviral drugs and clinical covariates was assessed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Severe COVID-19 was more common in patients with SOT (230/1011, 22.7%) than RA (173/1355, 12.8%), IBD (51/742, 6.9%), or psoriasis (82/1125, 7.3%). Age was strongly associated with severe COVID-19, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.04 (CI 1.03-1.05) per year. Comorbidities indicating chronic brain, heart, lung, or kidney damage were also associated with severity, aOR 1.35-2.38. The use of glucocorticoids was associated with increased risk (aOR 1.66, CI 1.39-2.18). Treatment with antivirals was associated with reduced severity, for example, aOR 0.28 (CI 0.13-0.62) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

CONCLUSION

The risk of severe COVID-19 despite vaccination is substantial in patients taking immune-suppressive drugs, more so in patients with SOT than in patients with inflammatory diseases. Age and severe comorbidities contribute to risk, as in the general population. Oral antivirals were very beneficial but not widely used.

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.

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.

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.

Optimal timing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment after COVID-19 symptom onset or diagnosis: target trial emulation

Reports of symptomatic rebound and/or test re-positivity among COVID-19 patients following the standard five-day treatment course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir have sparked debates regarding optimal treatment timing and dosage. It is unclear whether initiating nirmatrelvir/ritonavir immediately after symptom onset would improve clinical outcomes and/or lead to post-treatment viral burden rebound due to inadequate viral clearance during treatment. Here we show that, by emulating a randomized target trial using real-world electronic medical record data from all 87,070 adult users of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in Hong Kong between 16th March 2022 and 15th January 2023, early initiation of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment (0 to 1 days after symptom onset or diagnosis) significantly reduced the incidence of 28-day all-cause mortality and hospitalization compared to delayed initiation (2 or more days) (absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 1.50% (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.80%); relative risk [RR]: 0.77 (0.73, 0.82)), but may be associated with a significant elevated risk of viral burden rebound (ARR: -1.08% (-1.55%, -0.46%)), although the latter estimates were associated with high uncertainty due to limited sample sizes. As such, patients should continue to initiate nirmatrelvir/ritonavir early after symptom onset or diagnosis to better protect against the more serious outcomes of hospitalization and mortality.

Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: Emulation of a randomized target trial

To examine the effectiveness of azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in treating hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We emulated a target trial with a multicenter retrospective cohort of hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 without contraindications for azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir between December 01, 2022 and January 19, 2023 (during the Omicron BA.5.2 variant wave). Exposures included treatment with azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 days versus no antiviral treatment during hospitalization. Primary composite outcome (all-cause death and initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation), and their separate events were evaluated. Of the 1154 patients, 27.2% were severe cases. In the intent-to-treat analyses, azvudine reduced all-cause death (Hazard ratio [HR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.12-0.78), and its composite with invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24-0.92). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.17-1.05), and its composite with all-cause death (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18-0.81). The study did not identify credible subgroup effects. The per-protocol analyses and all sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. Both azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved the prognosis of hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Postacute sequelae of COVID-19 at 2 years

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can lead to postacute sequelae in multiple organ systems, but evidence is mostly limited to the first year postinfection. We built a cohort of 138,818 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5,985,227 noninfected control group from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and followed them for 2 years to estimate the risks of death and 80 prespecified postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) according to care setting during the acute phase of infection. The increased risk of death was not significant beyond 6 months after infection among nonhospitalized but remained significantly elevated through the 2 years in hospitalized individuals. Within the 80 prespecified sequelae, 69% and 35% of them became not significant at 2 years after infection among nonhospitalized and hospitalized individuals, respectively. Cumulatively at 2 years, PASC contributed 80.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 71.6-89.6) and 642.8 (95% CI: 596.9-689.3) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1,000 persons among nonhospitalized and hospitalized individuals; 25.3% (18.9-31.0%) and 21.3% (18.2-24.5%) of the cumulative 2-year DALYs in nonhospitalized and hospitalized were from the second year. In sum, while risks of many sequelae declined 2 years after infection, the substantial cumulative burden of health loss due to PASC calls for attention to the care needs of people with long-term health effects due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of immunocompromised adult patients with early-stage symptomatic COVID-19: A real-life experience

Regardless of vaccination status, progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a relevant cause of morbidity among immunocompromised patients. Despite the proven efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), concerns remain regarding the potential for drug-to-drug interactions (DDIs) and the safety in this at-risk population. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of immunocompromised patients treated with NMV/r, as well as the occurrence of DDIs and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). This retrospective observational study included all the patients with some form of immunosuppression and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that received NMV/r at our center from April to August 2022. The main outcome was worsening of the clinical status (increase of ≥1 point from baseline in a validated clinical progression scale) by Days +7 and +28 after the initiation of therapy. Safety outcomes included the rates of any TEAE and potentially severe DDIs. We included 110 patients. Main causes of immunosuppression were hematological malignancy (58.2%) (mainly multiple myeloma [22.7%] and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [13.6%]), active chemotherapy (30.0%) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (14.5%). Clinical worsening by Days +7 and +28 was observed in four (3.6%) and five patients (4.5%), respectively. Only one patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test at Day +28. At least one potentially severe DDI was observed in 56.4% of the patients. The rate of attributable TEAEs was 10.9%, although only two patients (1.8%) required premature discontinuation of NMV/r. Early initiation of NMV/r therapy should be considered in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19, with particular attention to interacting medications.

The impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on the economic burden of Covid-19 in the United States omicron era: a systematic literature review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters.

LIMITATIONS

The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.