UNASSIGNED: Remdesivir (REM) and molnupiravir (MOL) are commonly used to treat lung transplant recipients (LTRs) with COVID-19; however, the clinical efficacy of these medications is yet to be compared. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the clinical outcomes between LTRs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with REM and those treated with MOL.
UNASSIGNED: Between March 2020 and August 2022, 195 LTRs developed COVID-19 at our center. After excluding 82 who presented with severe disease requiring hospitalization, the remaining 113 were included in the analysis: 54 did not receive antiviral treatment, 30 were treated with REM, and 29 were treated with MOL. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed similar rates of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.169, [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.105-12.997, p = 0.899], ICU admission (aOR 0.822, 95% CI 0.042-16.220, p = 0.898), mechanical ventilation (aOR 0.903, 95% CI 0.015-55.124, p = 0.961), and COVID-19-related mortality (aOR 0.822, 95% CI 0.042-16.220, p = 0.898) between LTRs treated with REM and those treated with MOL for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 strain.
UNASSIGNED: MOL may be a suitable alternative to REM to treat LTRs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, and the choice of antiviral therapy can be driven by practical considerations such as route of administration and drug availability.

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.

BACKGROUND: We compared the effectiveness and virological clearance (VC) at day 7 (T7) post-treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high risk (HR) for clinical progression.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study enrolling HR patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Jan-Oct 2022) treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir or 3 days of remdesivir. We investigated clinical recovery at T7 (resolution of symptoms for ≥ 72 h or all-cause death), VC at T7 (PCR/antigenic negative nasopharyngeal swab), and median time to VC (days from symptom onset to the first negative swab). Factors associated with VC were investigated by logistic regression.
RESULTS: In the study, 92/376 (43.8%) patients received molnupiravir, 150/376 (24.7%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 134/376 (31.5%) remdesivir. Forty-nine (13%) patients were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were younger and presented immunodeficiencies more frequently; remdesivir was used more commonly in patients hospitalized for other diseases. A high proportion of patients obtained clinical recovery without differences among the therapies (97.5% for molnupiravir, 98.3% for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 93.6% for remdesivir); 12 (3.7%) patients died. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher proportion of T7 VC and a shorter time to VC compared to molnupiravir/remdesivir, also after adjustment for age and immunodeficiency (AOR 0.445 RDV vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.240-0.826, p = 0.010; AOR 0.222 MNP vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.105-0.472, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: SARS-COV-2 antiviral treatments are an excellent therapeutic strategy in HR patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed a higher proportion of VC as early as 7 days after treatment, confirming its likely superiority in indirect comparisons.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and a 3-day course of remdesivir are antiviral therapies recommended in patients with a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease at high risk of clinical progression. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies have shown their efficacy in reducing all-cause mortality and clinical progression. Few data are available about a direct comparison among the three drugs; furthermore, the possible role of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in increasing viral clearance and in reducing the duration of viral shedding needs to be further elucidated. We thus investigated the effectiveness, safety, and virological clearance 7 days after treatment with these three antivirals in our retrospective cohort. We included in the analysis patients that have received these treatments from January 2022 and October 2022; we observed that patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir displayed a shorter median time from symptoms’ onset to virological clearance and a higher proportion of virological clearance at day 7, also after adjustment for possible confounders, compared to molnupiravir and remdesivir. Our data might help in understanding which COVID-19 patients may benefit mostly from antiviral therapies and in the choice of antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir (MOV) is an oral antiviral for the treatment of individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progression to severe disease. Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of evidence on the effectiveness of MOV in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in real-world outpatient settings.
METHODS: The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and using pre-determined population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time, and study design inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were published between January 1, 2021, and March 10, 2023, and evaluated the real-world effectiveness of MOV compared to no treatment in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes among outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESULTS: Nine studies from five countries were included in the review. The size of the MOV-treated group ranged from 359 to 7818 individuals. Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 were dominant in all study periods. Most studies noted differences in the baseline characteristics of the MOV-treated and untreated control groups, with the treated groups generally being older and with more comorbidities. Eight studies reported that treatment with MOV was associated with a significantly reduced risk of at least one severe COVID-19 outcome in at least one age group, with greater benefits consistently observed among older age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this SLR study, treatment with MOV was effective in reducing the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, especially for older individuals. Differences in the ages and baseline comorbidities of the MOV-treated and control groups may have led to underestimation of the effectiveness of MOV in many observational studies. Real-world studies published to date thus provide additional evidence supporting the continued benefits of MOV in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.
COVID-19 continues to be a major source of morbidity and mortality. Throughout the pandemic, many countries authorized various therapies for the treatment of individuals presenting with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progression to severe disease. Some of these therapies have since been rendered ineffective due to the emergence of Omicron variants in late 2021. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic literature review to assess real-world evidence on the effectiveness of molnupiravir, including effectiveness against COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, to supplement the findings of the MOVe-OUT clinical trial and further inform on the potential clinical benefit and utility of this antiviral agent. Nine studies were included in the systematic literature review. We found that treatment with molnupiravir was effective in reducing the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 caused by Omicron variants, especially for older individuals. Differences in the ages and baseline comorbidities of the molnupiravir-treated and control groups may have led to underestimation of the effectiveness of molnupiravir in many observational studies. In summary, real-world effectiveness studies provide additional evidence supporting the continued benefits of molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

UNASSIGNED: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is used in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with normal or mild renal impairment (eGFR ≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). There is limited data regarding its use in advanced kidney disease (eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). We performed a retrospective territory-wide observational study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir when compared with molnupiravir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease.
UNASSIGNED: We adopted target trial emulation using data from a territory-wide electronic health record database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years with advanced kidney disease (history of eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2) who were infected with COVID-19 and were prescribed with either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection during the period from 16 March 2022 to 31 December 2022. A sequence trial approach and 1:4 propensity score matching was applied based on the baseline covariates including age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), hospitalisation, eGFR, renal replacement therapy, comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, diabetes, hypertension), and drug use (renin-angiotensin-system agents, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, nitrates, lipid lowering agents, insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, antiplatelets, immuno-suppressants, corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, histamine H2 receptor antagonists, monoclonal antibody infusion) within past 90 days. Individuals were followed up from the index date until the earliest outcome occurrence, death, 90 days from index date or the end of data availability. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with baseline covariates was used to compare the risk of outcomes between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and molnupiravir recipients which include (i) all-cause mortality, (ii) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, (iii) ventilatory support, (iv) hospitalisation, (v) hepatic impairment, (vi) ischaemic stroke, and (vii) myocardial infarction. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (≤5; >5), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 4886 patients were included (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1462; molnupiravir: 3424). There were 347 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 74, 5.06%; molnupiravir: 273, 7.97%), 10 events of ICU admission (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 4, 0.27%; molnupiravir: 6, 0.18%), 48 events of ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 13, 0.89%; molnupiravir: 35, 1.02%), 836 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 218, 23.98%; molnupiravir: 618, 28.14%), 1 event of hepatic impairment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 0, 0%; molnupiravir: 1, 0.03%), 8 events of ischaemic stroke (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 3, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 5, 0.16%) and 9 events of myocardial infarction (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 2, 0.15%; molnupiravir: 7, 0.22%). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users had lower rates of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 90 days 2.91%, 95% CI: 1.47-4.36%) and hospitalisation (ARR at 90 days 4.16%, 95% CI: 0.81-7.51%) as compared with molnupiravir users. Similar rates of ICU admission (ARR at 90 days -0.09%, 95% CI: -0.4 to 0.2%), ventilatory support (ARR at 90 days 0.13%, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.72%), hepatic impairment (ARR at 90 days 0.03%, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.09%), ischaemic stroke (ARR at 90 days -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.22%), and myocardial infarction (ARR at 90 days 0.07%, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.33%) were found between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir users. Consistent results were observed in relative risk adjusted with baseline characteristics. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.624, 95% CI: 0.455-0.857) and hospitalisation (HR: 0.782, 95% CI: 0.64-0.954).
UNASSIGNED: Patients with COVID-19 with advanced kidney disease receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had a lower rate of all-cause mortality and hospital admission when compared with molnupiravir. Other adverse clinical outcomes were similar in both treatment groups.
UNASSIGNED: Health and Medical Research Fund (COVID1903010), Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.

Background/Objectives: Molnupiravir (MOV), an oral antiviral COVID-19 treatment, was introduced in the Czech Republic in December 2021 for COVID-19 patients at a high risk of progression to severe disease requiring hospitalization. In this observational, retrospective study, we aimed to describe the characteristics and healthcare resource utilization in non-hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients prescribed MOV in the Czech Republic between 1 January and 30 April 2022. Methods: A total of 621 patients were included and followed up with for 28 days. Results: The median age was 68.0 (20-99) years, 77.8% were overweight or obese, 14.1% smoked, and 85.7% were vaccinated. The overall cumulative incidence (95% CI) of all-cause hospitalization was 0.71 (0.37; 1.24) per 1000 person years or 1.9%, with similar rates across sexes, age groups, BMI category, multimorbidity category, polypharmacy category, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients reported hospitalized, oxygen-based resources were not observed, and no deaths occurred. Conclusions: These data describe the characteristics and healthcare resource utilization in Czech MOV-treated patients whose clinical characteristics may put them at increased risk of severe disease.

OBJECTIVE: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

A comparative analysis of molecularly imprinted polymers based on different synthesis techniques was performed for the recognition of molnupiravir (MOL). The polymerizations were performed with 3-thienyl boronic acid (3-TBA) as a functional monomer by electropolymerization (EP) and with guanine methacrylate (GuaM) as a functional monomer by photopolymerization (PP). Morphological and electrochemical characterizations of the developed sensors were investigated to verify the constructed sensors. Moreover, quantum chemical calculations were used to evaluate changes on the electrode surface at the molecular and electronic levels. The dynamic linear range of both designed sensors under optimized experimental conditions was found to be 7.5 × 10-12-2.5 × 10-10 M and 7.5 × 10-13-2.5 × 10-11 M for EP and PP, respectively. The effect of various interfering agents on MOL peak current was assessed for the selectivity of the study. In the presence of 100 times more interfering agents, the RSD and recovery values were determined. The RSD values of GuaM/MOL@MIP/GCE and poly(Py-co-3-PBA)/MOL@MIP/GCE sensors were found to be 1.99% and 1.72%, respectively. Furthermore, the recovery values of the MIP-based sensors were 98.18-102.69% and 98.05-103.72%, respectively. In addition, the relative selectivity coefficient (k\') of the proposed sensor was evaluated, and it exhibited good selectivity for MOL with respect to the NIP sensor. The prepared sensor was successfully applied to determine MOL in commercial serum samples and capsule form. In conclusion, the developed sensors provided excellent reproducibility, repeatability, high sensitivity, and selectivity against the MOL molecule.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has lasted for three years. Coinfection with seasonal influenza may occur resulting in more severe diseases. The interaction between these two viruses for infection and the effect of antiviral treatment remains unclear.
METHODS: A SARS-CoV-2 and influenza H1N1 coinfection model on Calu-3 cell line was established, upon which the simultaneous and sequential coinfection was evaluated by comparing the viral load. The efficacy of molnupiravir and baloxavir against individual virus and coinfection were also studied.
RESULTS: The replication of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly interfered when the influenza virus was infected simultaneously or in advance (p < 0.05). On the contrary, the replication of the influenza virus was not affected by the SARS-CoV-2. Molnupiravir monotherapy had significant inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2 when the concentration reached to 6.25 μM but did not show any significant anti-influenza activity. Baloxavir was effective against influenza within the dosage range and showed significant effect of anti-SARS-CoV-2 at 16 μM. In the treatment of coinfection, molnupiravir had significant effect for SARS-CoV-2 from 6.25 μM to 100 μM and inhibited H1N1 at 100 μM (p < 0.05). The tested dosage range of baloxavir can inhibit H1N1 significantly (p < 0.05), while at the highest concentration of baloxavir did not further inhibit SARS-CoV-2, and the replication of SARS-CoV-2 significantly increased in lower concentrations. Combination treatment can effectively inhibit influenza H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 replication during coinfection. Compared with molnupiravir or baloxavir monotherapy, combination therapy was more effective in less dosage to inhibit the replication of both viruses.
CONCLUSIONS: In coinfection, the replication of SARS-CoV-2 would be interfered by influenza H1N1. Compared with molnupiravir or baloxavir monotherapy, treatment with a combination of molnupiravir and baloxavir should be considered for early treatment in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to spread and mutate, it remains important to focus not only on preventing spread through vaccination but also on treating infection with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). The approval of Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) DAA, has been significant for treatment of patients. A limitation of this DAA, however, is that the antiviral component, nirmatrelvir, is rapidly metabolized and requires inclusion of a CYP450 3A4 metabolic inhibitor, ritonavir, to boost levels of the active drug. Serious drug-drug interactions can occur with Paxlovid for patients who are also taking other medications metabolized by CYP4503A4, particularly transplant or otherwise immunocompromised patients who are most at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe symptoms. Developing an alternative antiviral with improved pharmacological properties is critical for treatment of these patients. By using a computational and structure-guided approach, we were able to optimize a 100 to 250 μM screening hit to a potent nanomolar inhibitor and lead compound, Mpro61. In this study, we further evaluate Mpro61 as a lead compound, starting with examination of its mode of binding to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. In vitro pharmacological profiling established a lack of off-target effects, particularly CYP450 3A4 inhibition, as well as potential for synergy with the currently approved alternate antiviral, molnupiravir. Development and subsequent testing of a capsule formulation for oral dosing of Mpro61 in B6-K18-hACE2 mice demonstrated favorable pharmacological properties, efficacy, and synergy with molnupiravir, and complete recovery from subsequent challenge by SARS-CoV-2, establishing Mpro61 as a promising potential preclinical candidate.