Summary
Background Real-world evidence on the effectiveness of oral antivirals in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients is urgently needed. This retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the clinical and virologic outcomes associated with molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use in COVID-19 patients during a pandemic wave dominated by the Omicron BA.2 variant.
Methods We analyzed data from a territory-wide retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients with confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection from 26th February 2022 to 26th April 2022 in Hong Kong. Oral antiviral users were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of 1:4. Study outcomes were a composite outcome of disease progression (all-cause mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], or intensive care unit admission) and their individual outcomes, and lower viral load of cycle threshold (Ct) value ≥30 cycles. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models.
Results Among 40,776 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection over a mean follow-up of 41.3 days with 925,713 person-days, 2,359 and 1,000 patients not initially requiring oxygen therapy were initiated with molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, respectively. The crude incidence rates of all-cause mortality and IMV were 22.24 and 1.06 events per 10,000 person-days among molnupiravir users, 11.04 and 1.75 events per 10,000 person-days among nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users. Oral antiviral use was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome of disease progression (molnupiravir: HR=0.53, 95%CI=0.46-0.62, p<0.001; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: HR=0.33, 95%CI=0.24-0.46, p<0.001) than non-use, which was consistently observed for all-cause mortality (molnupiravir: HR=0.55, 95%CI=0.47-0.63, p<0.001; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: HR=0.32, 95%CI=0.23-0.45, p<0.001). Molnupiravir users had lower risks of IMV (HR=0.31, 95%CI=0.16-0.61, p<0.001). Time to achieving lower viral load was significantly shorter among oral antiviral users than matched controls (molnupiravir: HR=1.21, 95%CI=1.07-1.37, p=0.002; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: HR=1.25, 95%CI=1.04-1.50, p=0.015). Amongst survivors, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had shorter length of hospital stay (−0.70 days, 95%CI=-1.37 to -0.04, p=0.039) than matched controls. Head-to-head comparison of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reported higher risk of mortality (HR=1.53 95%CI=1.01-2.31, p=0.047) and longer length of hospital stay (0.83 days, 95%CI=0.07-1.58, p=0.032) for molnupiravir users.
Conclusions Against Omicron BA.2, initiation of novel oral antiviral treatment in hospitalized patients not requiring any oxygen therapy was associated with lower risks of disease progression and all-cause mortality, in addition to achieving low viral load faster.
Funding Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau
Evidence before this study The medical and research community are actively exploring the use of oral antivirals in COVID-19 patients to lower their risks of hospitalization and death, and to reduce the burden on healthcare systems. We searched Scopus and PubMed for studies until 13 May 2022 using the search terms “SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19” AND “molnupiravir OR Lagevrio OR EIDD-2801” OR “nirmatrelvir OR Paxlovid OR PF-07321332”. Major studies examining the safety and efficacy of molnupiravir include MOVe-IN and MOVe-OUT trials conducted in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, respectively. Clinical evidence for the use of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir came from the EPIC-HR trial conducted among non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19. While no clinical benefits have been observed with molnupiravir use in the inpatient setting among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, early initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within 5 days of symptom onset in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk factors for progression to severe disease has been associated with relative risk reduction of hospitalization or death by 30% and 88%, respectively. Notably, these clinical trials were conducted prior to the prevalence of Omicron variant, and the efficacy of oral antivirals against this current variant of concern can only be inferred from experimental evidence to date. Real-world evidence of oral antiviral use in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection of Omicron variant is lacking.
Added value of this study To the best of our knowledge, this is the first real-world study exploring the clinical use of oral antivirals during a pandemic wave dominated by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. We conducted a territory-wide, retrospective cohort study to examine the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients who did not require supplemental oxygen on admission in Hong Kong. Early initiation of oral antivirals within 2 days of admission was associated with significantly lower risks of disease progression and all-cause mortality, in addition to achieving low viral load faster than their respective matched controls. Molnupiravir use was also associated with a significantly lower risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation than non-use. Furthermore, our head-to-head comparison suggested a relatively larger reduction in mortality risk with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir than molnupiravir use.
Implications of all the available evidence Current guidelines are now prioritizing the distribution of oral antivirals to those who do not require supplemental oxygen, but who are at the highest risk of disease progression. Our study cohort reflected such prescription pattern in real-world clinical practice. The antiviral effect and mortality benefit observed in this patient cohort support the use of oral antivirals in COVID-19 patients who do not require supplemental oxygen on admission during a pandemic wave of Omicron variant. Our findings also support the prioritization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir use in COVID-19 patients whenever accessible and clinically appropriate, in view of the former’s substantial mortality benefit. Ongoing research will inform the safety and effectiveness of oral antivirals in specific patient populations (by vaccination status and viral variants), drug combinations, and different healthcare settings.
Competing Interest Statement
BJC reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Fosun Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Pasteur. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional review board of the University of Hong Kong / Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (reference no. UW 20-493) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Full professors
Data Availability
The clinical outcome data were extracted from the Hospital Authority database in Hong Kong and vaccination records were extracted from the eSARS data provided by the Centre for Health Protection. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study.
