BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are orally administered pharmacotherapies for mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs among very old (≥80 years), hospitalised patients remains unclear, limiting the risk-benefit assessment of these antivirals in this specific group. This study investigates the effectiveness of these antivirals in reducing mortality among this group of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: Using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong, a target trial emulation study was conducted with data from 13 642 eligible participants for the molnupiravir trial and 9553 for the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Immortal time and confounding bias was minimised using cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Mortality odds ratios were estimated by pooled logistic regression after adjusting confounding biases by stabilised inverse probability weights.
RESULTS: Both molnupiravir (HR: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.826-0.970) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (HR: 0.804, 95% CI: 0.678-0.955) demonstrated moderate mortality risk reduction among oldest-old hospitalised patients. No significant interaction was observed between oral antiviral treatment and vaccination status. The 28-day risk of mortality was lower in initiators than non-initiators for both molnupiravir (risk difference: -1.09%, 95% CI: -2.29, 0.11) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (risk difference: -1.71%, 95% CI: -3.30, -0.16) trials. The effectiveness of these medications was observed regardless of the patients\' prior vaccination status.
CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are moderately effective in reducing mortality risk among hospitalised oldest-old patients with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status.

Despite the potential of neutralizing antibodies in the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), clinical research on its efficacy in Chinese patients remains limited. This study is aimed at investigating the therapeutic effect of combination of antiviral therapy with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for recurrent persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in patients with lymphoma complicated by B cell depletion. A prospective study was conducted on Chinese patients who were treated with antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy and the neutralizing antibody tixagevimab-cilgavimab (tix-cil). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Five patients with lymphoma experienced recurrent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and received tix-cil treatment. All patients had a history of CD20 monoclonal antibody use within the year preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection, and two patients also had a history of Bruton\'s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor use. These patients had notably low lymphocyte counts and exhibited near depletion of B cells. All five patients tested negative for serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies. None of the patients developed reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia after antiviral and tix-cil treatment during the 6-month follow-up period. In conclusion, the administration of antiviral and SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies showed encouraging therapeutic efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in patients with lymphoma complicated by B cell depletion, along with the potential preventive effect of neutralizing antibodies for up to 6 months.

BACKGROUND: The effect of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on preventing post-COVID condition (PCC) in the BA4, BA5, and XBB Omicron predominant periods is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to assess how nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment affected both PCC and health-related quality of life.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 2,524 adults aged 18 years and older who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between July 14 to November 14, 2022. All outcomes were observed from the patient\'s first visit to the primary health clinic, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after testing positive for COVID-19. The primary outcome was the presence of PCC. Secondary outcomes included the effects on health-related quality of life, such as walking, bathing and dressing, activities, cause adverse emotions or signs that prevent individuals from leading normal lives over a 180-day observation period.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences observed between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and those not administered (control group) in terms of PCC symptoms at 3 months (OR 0.71 95% CI 0.31, 1.64) and 6 months (OR 1.30 95% CI 0.76, 2.21). At 3 months, the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a 26% reduction in symptoms causing negative emotions (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.60, 0.92) and an increased likelihood of symptoms limiting walking (OR 1.58 95% CI 1.10, 2.27). However, there were no significant differences between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and the control group in terms of the impact of PCC on health-related quality of life at 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir does not significantly reduce PCC after 3 months and 6 months in a population with high vaccination coverage.

OBJECTIVE: Paxlovid is effective in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. This study characterized Paxlovid use and evaluated racial/ethnic disparities over time among community-dwelling adults at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data and included individuals aged 18 years or older diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2022 and December 2023. The study cohort included nonhospitalized individuals who were at high risk of COVID-19 progression, and selected the first COVID-19 episode in each quarter, including reinfection episodes. Paxlovid use was defined as receiving Paxlovid within ±5 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics to characterize Paxlovid use overall and by calendar quarter and race/ethnicity. We used a generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to quantify the association of race/ethnicity with Paxlovid use controlling for age, gender, and clinical characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 1 264 215 individuals at high risk of disease progression (1 404 607 episodes), Paxlovid use increased from 1.2% in January-March 2022 to 35.1% in October-December 2023. Paxlovid use was more common among non-Hispanic White individuals (23.9%) than non-Hispanic Black (16.5%) and Latinx/e (16.7%) patients. After adjusting age, gender, and clinical characteristics, Paxlovid use was less likely among non-Hispanic Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.70) and Latinx/e (OR 0.72, CI 0.71-0.73) patients than non-Hispanic White patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Among a large, diverse cohort of community-dwelling individuals with COVID-19, nearly two out of three eligible individuals did not receive Paxlovid, and minoritized racial/ethnic groups were less likely to use Paxlovid than their non-Hispanic White individuals.

The human DNA repair enzyme AlkB homologue-2 (ALKBH2) repairs methyl adducts from genomic DNA and is overexpressed in several cancers. However, there are no known inhibitors available for this crucial DNA repair enzyme. The aim of this study was to examine whether the first-generation HIV protease inhibitors having strong anti-cancer activity can be repurposed as inhibitors of ALKBH2. We selected four such inhibitors and performed in vitro binding analysis against ALKBH2 based on alterations of its intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence and differential scanning fluorimetry. The effect of these HIV protease inhibitors on the DNA repair activity of ALKBH2 was also evaluated. Interestingly, we observed that one of the inhibitors, ritonavir, could inhibit ALKBH2-mediated DNA repair significantly via competitive inhibition and sensitized cancer cells to alkylating agent methylmethane sulfonate (MMS). This work may provide new insights into the possibilities of utilizing HIV protease inhibitor ritonavir as a DNA repair antagonist.

Cryptococcosis is a fungal infection that is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide, particularly among individuals with compromised immune systems, such as HIV patients. Amphotericin B (AmB) is the first-line treatment mainly combined with flucytosine. The scarcity and the prohibitive cost of this regimen urge the use of fluconazole as an alternative, leading to increased rates of treatment failure and relapses. Therefore, there is a critical need for efficient and cost-effective therapy to enhance the efficacy of AmB. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) to synergize the activity of AmB in the treatment of cryptococcosis. Five PIs (ritonavir, atazanavir, saquinavir, lopinavir, and nelfinavir) were found to synergistically potentiate the killing activity of AmB against Cryptococcus strains with ƩFICI ranging between 0.09 and 0.5 against 20 clinical isolates. This synergistic activity was further confirmed in a time-kill assay, where different AmB/PIs combinations exhibited fungicidal activity within 24 hrs. Additionally, PIs in combination with AmB exhibited an extended post-antifungal effect on treated cryptococcal cells for approximately 10 hrs compared to 4 hours with AmB alone. This promising activity against cryptococcal cells did not exhibit increased cytotoxicity towards treated kidney cells, ruling out the risk of drug combination-induced nephrotoxicity. Finally, we evaluated the efficacy of AmB/PIs combinations in the Caenorhabditis elegans model of cryptococcosis, where these combinations significantly reduced the fungal burden of the treated nematodes by approximately 2.44 Log10 CFU (92.4%) compared to the untreated worms and 1.40 Log10 ((39.4%) compared to AmB alone. The cost-effectiveness and accessibility of PIs in resource-limited geographical areas compared to other antifungal agents, such as flucytosine, make them an appealing choice for combination therapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to identify demographic and clinical factors prompting clinician prescribing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to pediatric patients for management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.
METHODS: Patients aged 12 to 17 years with a COVID-19 infection and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription during an outpatient clinical encounter within a PEDSnet-affiliated institution between January 2022 and August 2023 were identified using electronic health record data. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription after adjusting for various factors.
RESULTS: A total of 20 959 patients aged 12 to 17 years were diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection on the basis of an electronic health record-documented positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test or diagnosis during an outpatient clinical visit. Of these patients, 408 received a nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription within 5 days of diagnosis. Higher odds of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment were associated with having chronic or complex chronic disease (chronic: odds ratio [OR] 2.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-3.38]; complex chronic: OR 2.21 [95% CI 1.58-3.08]). Among patients with chronic disease, each additional body system conferred 1.18 times higher odds of treatment (95% CI 1.10-1.26). Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, Hispanic patients (OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.44-0.83]) had lower odds of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with chronic conditions are more likely than those without to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescriptions. However, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescribing to children with chronic conditions remains infrequent. Pediatric data concerning nirmatrelvir/ritonavir safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and hospitalization are critical optimizing clinical decision-making and use among children.

Despite emerging evidence indicating that molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests performed on saliva have diagnostic sensitivity and specificity comparable to those observed with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs), most in vivo follow-up studies on the efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2 have been performed on NPSs, not considering saliva as a possible alternative matrix. For this reason, in this study, we used, in parallel, saliva and NPS samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR in patients receiving Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab as a treatment against SARS-CoV-2. Our results showed a good correlation between the NPS and saliva samples for each drug; moreover, comparable changes in the cycle threshold (Ct) levels in saliva and NPSs were observed both 7 days and 30 days after treatment, thus confirming that the saliva represents a good matrix for in vivo follow-up studies verifying the effectiveness of treatments against SARS-CoV-2.

Patients with Hematological Malignancies (HM) are at a high risk of mortality from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The available antivirals were different between China and other countries. In China, azvudine was obtained for emergency use to treat adult COVID-19 patients with moderate symptoms in July 2022. While nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was well-known and used in many countries. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether there was any difference in the efficacy and safety of the two drugs.
This study was a prospective observational study of patients with HM who developed COVID-19. Patients were divided into three treatment groups: nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, azvudine, and observation. Treatment outcomes, first nucleic acid test negative time, hospitalization time, and the conversion rate of mild or moderate disease to severe disease were recorded.
First nucleic acid test negative time (23.5 days vs. 34 days, p = 0.015), hospitalization time (p = 0.015), and conversion rate (31.8 % vs. 8 %, p = 0.046) were statistically different between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and observation groups. First nucleic acid test negative time (20 days vs. 34 days, p = 0.009) and hospitalization time (p = 0.026) were statistically different between the azvudine and observation groups. ECOG score and liver disease were significantly associated with the conversion rate from mild or moderate disease to severe disease using multivariate analysis (p < 0.05).
The authors found no significant differences existed in outcome measures between patients with HM and COVID-19 who were treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or azvudine.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for treatment of laboratory-confirmed mild/moderately severe COVID-19 remains unclear.
METHODS: We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWS; observational studies) of the efficacy/effectiveness and/or safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for COVID-19. We pooled appropriate data (adjusted estimates for RWS) using an inverse variance, random-effects model. We calculated statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% CI. We further assessed risk of bias/study quality and conducted trial sequential analysis of the evidence from RCTs.
RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs (4,070 persons) and 16 RWS (1,925,047 persons) of adults (aged ≥18 years). One and 3 RCTs were of low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. The RWS were of good quality. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization compared with placebo/no treatment (RR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.10-0.31; I 2 = 77.2%; 2 RCTs, 3,542 persons), but there was no significant difference for decrease of worsening severity (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.01; I 2 = 47.5%; 3 RCTs, 1,824 persons), viral clearance (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.51; I 2 = 82%; 2 RCTs, 528 persons), adverse events (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 0.92-2.14; I 2 = 70.6%; 4 RCTs, 4,070 persons), serious adverse events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62; I 2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.70; I 2 = 49.9%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), although trial sequential analysis suggested that the current total sample sizes for these outcomes were not large enough for conclusions to be drawn. Real-world studies also showed significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization (RR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; I 2 = 95.0%; 11 RWS, 1,421,398 persons) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; I 2 = 65%; 7 RWS, 286,131 persons) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with no treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir appears to be promising for preventing hospitalization and potentially decreasing all-cause mortality for persons with mild/moderately severe COVID-19, but the evidence is weak. More studies are needed.