Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves.

Methods

With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups.

Findings

A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033).

Interpretation

In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant.

Funding

UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

SUBMITTER: Zheng B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10624988 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Zheng Bang B Tazare John J Nab Linda L Green Amelia Ca AC Curtis Helen J HJ Mahalingasivam Viyaasan V Herrett Emily L EL Costello Ruth E RE Eggo Rosalind M RM Speed Victoria V Bacon Sebastian Cj SC Bates Christopher C Parry John J Cockburn Jonathan J Hester Frank F Harper Sam S Schaffer Andrea L AL Hulme William J WJ Mehrkar Amir A Evans Stephen Jw SJ MacKenna Brian B Goldacre Ben B Douglas Ian J IJ Tomlinson Laurie A LA

The Lancet regional health. Europe 20231008

<h4>Background</h4>Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves.<h4>Methods</h4>With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Pa ...[more]

PMID: 37927438

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab with no treatment in preventing hospital admission or death in higher-risk patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community.DesignRetrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank.SettingA real-world cohort study was conducted within the SAIL Databank (a secure trusted research environment containing anonymised, individual, population-scale electronic health record (EHR) data) for the population of Wales, UK.ParticipantsAdult patients with COVID-19 in the community, at higher risk of hospitalization and death, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 16th December 2021 and 22nd April 2022.InterventionsMolnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab given in the community by local health boards and the National Antiviral Service in Wales.Main outcome measuresAll-cause admission to hospital or death within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2.Statistical analysisCox proportional hazard model with treatment status (treated/untreated) as a time-dependent covariate and adjusted for age, sex, number of comorbidities, Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, and vaccination status. Secondary subgroup analyses were by treatment type, number of comorbidities, and before and on or after 20th February 2022, when omicron BA.1 and omicron BA.2 were the dominant subvariants in Wales.ResultsBetween 16th December 2021 and 22nd April 2022, 7013 higher-risk patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Of these, 2040 received treatment with molnupiravir (359, 17.6%), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (602, 29.5%), or sotrovimab (1079, 52.9%). Patients in the treatment group were younger (mean age 53 vs 57 years), had fewer comorbidities, and a higher proportion had received four or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine (36.3% vs 17.6%). Within 28 days of a positive test, 628 (9.0%) patients were admitted to hospital or died (84 treated and 544 untreated). The primary analysis indicated a lower risk of hospitalization or death at any point within 28 days in treated participants compared to those not receiving treatment. The adjusted hazard rate was 35% (95% CI: 18-49%) lower in treated than untreated participants. There was no indication of the superiority of one treatment over another and no evidence of a reduction in risk of hospitalization or death within 28 days for patients with no or only one comorbidity. In patients treated with sotrovimab, the event rates before and on or after 20th February 2022 were similar (5.0% vs 4.9%) with no significant difference in the hazard ratios for sotrovimab between the time periods.ConclusionsIn higher-risk adult patients in the community with COVID-19, those who received treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, or sotrovimab were at lower risk of hospitalization or death than those not receiving treatment.

Project description:BackgroundMolnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients' characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4; ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses).FindingsA total of 63,522 non-hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 31,761; molnupiravir: 31,761) and 11,784 hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 5892; molnupiravir: 5892) patients were included. In non-hospitalised setting, 336 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 265, 0.83%), 162 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 91, 0.29%), and 4890 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1853, 5.83%; molnupiravir: 3037, 9.56%) were observed. Lower risks of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 28 days: 0.61%, 95% CI: 0.50-0.72; HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) and hospital admission (ARR at 28 days: 3.73%, 95% CI: 3.31-4.14; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) were observed in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users compared to molnupiravir users. In hospitalised setting, 509 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 176, 2.99%; molnupiravir: 333, 5.65%), and 50 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 26, 0.44%; molnupiravir: 24, 0.41%) were observed. Risk of all-cause mortality was lower for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users than for molnupiravir users (ARR at 28 days: 2.66%, 95% CI: 1.93-3.40; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In both settings, there was no difference in the risk of intensive care unit admission or ventilatory support between groups. The findings were consistent across all subgroup's analyses.InterpretationOur analyses suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality in both non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients. When neither drug is contraindicated, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be considered the more effective option.FundingHMRF Research on COVID-19, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government; Collaborative Research Fund, University Grants Committee, the HKSAR Government; and Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, the HKSAR Government; the Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H) funded by the AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

Project description:This study evaluates the association between antivirals (Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir) and all-cause and respiratory mortality and organ dysfunction among high-risk COVID-19 patients during an Omicron outbreak. Two cohorts, Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir versus control and Molnupiravir versus control, were constructed with inverse probability treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of their use with all-cause mortality, respiratory mortality, and all-cause sepsis (a composite of circulatory shock, respiratory failure, acute liver injury, coagulopathy, and acute liver impairment). Patients recruited were hospitalized and diagnosed with the COVID-19 Omicron variant between February 22, 2022 and April 15, 2022, and followed up until May 15, 2022. The study included 17,704 patients. There were 4.67 and 22.7 total mortalities per 1000 person-days in the Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and control groups respectively before adjustment (weighted incidence rate ratio, - 18.1 [95% CI - 23.0 to - 13.2]; hazard ratio, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11-0.29]). There were 6.64 and 25.9 total mortalities per 1000 person-days in the Molnupiravir and control groups respectively before adjustment (weighted incidence rate ratio per 1000 person-days, - 19.3 [95% CI - 22.6 to - 15.9]; hazard ratio, 0.23 [95% CI 0.18-0.30]). In all-cause sepsis, there were 13.7 and 35.4 organ dysfunction events per 1000 person-days in the Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and control groups respectively before adjustment (weighted incidence rate ratio per 1000 person-days, - 21.7 [95% CI - 26.3 to - 17.1]; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI 0.38-0.52]). There were 23.7 and 40.8 organ dysfunction events in the Molnupiravir and control groups respectively before adjustment (weighted incidence ratio per 1000 person-days, - 17.1 [95% CI, - 20.6 to - 13.6]; hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI 0.58-0.69]). Among COVID-19 hospitalized patients, use of either Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir or Molnupiravir compared with no antiviral use was associated with a significantly lower incidence of 28-days all-cause and respiratory mortality and sepsis.

Project description:ImportanceSome patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have experienced rebound of COVID-19 infections and symptoms; however, data are scarce on whether viral rebound also occurs in patients with COVID-19 receiving or not receiving molnupiravir.ObjectiveTo examine the incidence of viral rebound in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with the oral antiviral agents nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study identified 41 255 patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalized from January 1, 2022, to March 31, 2022, in Hong Kong and assessed 12 629 patients with serial cycle threshold (Ct) values measured. Patients were followed up until the occurrence of the clinical end point of interest, death, date of data retrieval (July 31, 2022), or up to 30 days of follow-up, whichever came first.ExposuresMolnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment.Main outcomes and measuresViral rebound, defined as a Ct value greater than 40 that decreased to 40 or less.ResultsOf 12 629 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.4 [20.9] years; 6624 [52.5%] male), 11 688 (92.5%) were oral antiviral nonusers, 746 (5.9%) were molnupiravir users, and 195 (1.5%) were nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users. Compared with nonusers, oral antiviral users were older, had more comorbidities, and had lower complete vaccination rates. The mean (SD) baseline Ct value was slightly higher in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users (22.2 [6.0]) than nonusers (21.0 [5.4]) and molnupiravir users (20.9 [5.4]) (P = .04). Viral rebound occurred in 68 nonusers (0.6%), 2 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users (1.0%), and 6 molnupiravir users (0.8%). Among 76 patients with viral rebound, 12 of 68 nonusers, 1 of 6 molnupiravir users, and neither of the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users died of COVID-19.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, viral rebound was uncommon in patients taking molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and was not associated with increased risk of mortality. Given these findings, novel oral antivirals should be considered as a treatment for more patients with COVID-19 in the early phase of the infection.

Project description:ImportanceRitonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir are currently used in the US and in other countries to treat nonhospitalized patients who have mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. The associations of these 2 oral antiviral drugs with hospitalization and death resulting from infection with new SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants, particularly BQ.1.1 and XBB.1.5, are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of nirmatrelvir or molnupiravir use with the risks of hospitalization and death among patients infected with new Omicron subvariants.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cohort study of patients who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 at Cleveland Clinic from April 1, 2022, to February 20, 2023 (during which the Omicron variant evolved from BA.2 to BA.4/BA.5, then to BQ.1/BQ.1.1, and finally to XBB/XBB.1.5) and who were at high risk of progressing to severe disease, with follow-up through 90 days after diagnosis. The final date for follow-up data collection was February 27, 2023.ExposuresTreatment with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir or molnupiravir.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to death. The secondary outcome was time to either hospitalization or death. The association of either nirmatrelvir or molnupiravir use with each outcome was measured by the hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for demographic factors, socioeconomic status, date of COVID-19 diagnosis, coexisting medical conditions, COVID-19 vaccination status, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsThere were 68 867 patients (29 386 [42.7%] aged ≥65 years; 26 755 [38.9%] male patients; 51 452 [74.7%] non-Hispanic White patients). Thirty of 22 594 patients treated with nirmatrelvir, 27 of 5311 patients treated with molnupiravir, and 588 of 40 962 patients who received no treatment died within 90 days of Omicron infection. The adjusted HRs of death were 0.16 (95% CI, 0.11-0.23) for nirmatrelvir and 0.23 (95% CI, 0.16-0.34) for molnupiravir. The adjusted HRs of hospitalization or death were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.59-0.68) for nirmatrelvir and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66) for molnupiravir. The associations of both drugs with both outcomes were observed across subgroups defined by age, race and ethnicity, date of COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccination status, previous infection status, and coexisting conditions.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir or molnupiravir is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions. Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundData on the effectiveness of oral antivirals in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are urgently needed. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical and virological outcomes associated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use in hospitalised patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during a pandemic wave dominated by the omicron BA.2 subvariant.MethodsWe analysed data from a territory-wide retrospective cohort of patients in Hong Kong who were hospitalised with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 26 and April 26, 2022. Data were extracted from the Hospital Authority, the Department of Health, and the Hong Kong Death Registry. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their admission date was within 3 days before or after confirmation of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Those who were admitted to hospital more than 5 days after symptom onset, were younger than 18 years, had a history of oral antiviral use before admission, required supplemental oxygen on admission, had drug-related contraindications to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use, or had severe renal or severe liver impairment were excluded. Patients who received the oral antivirals molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of disease progression (all-cause mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or the need for oxygen therapy) and each of these individual disease progression outcomes, and time to reaching a low viral burden (RT-PCR cycle threshold value ≥30). For each event outcome, crude incidence rates were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox regression models.FindingsWe identified 40 776 patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, with a mean follow-up of 41·3 days (total 925 713 person-days). After exclusions and propensity-score matching, we included 1856 molnupiravir recipients and 1856 matched controls, and 890 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 890 matched controls. A lower risk of all-cause mortality was observed in molnupiravir recipients (crude incidence rate per 10 000 person-days 19·98 events [95% CI 16·91-23·45]) versus matched controls (38·07 events [33·85-42·67]; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·40-0·59], p<0·0001) and in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients (10·28 events [7·03-14·51]) versus matched controls (26·47 events [21·34-32·46]; HR 0·34 [0·23-0·50], p<0·0001). Oral antiviral recipients also had lower risks of the composite disease progression outcome (molnupiravir HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·52-0·69], p<0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·57 [0·45-0·72], p<0·0001) and need for oxygen therapy (molnupiravir 0·69 [0·57-0·83], p=0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·73 [0·54-0·97], p=0·032) compared with controls. Time to achieving a low viral burden was significantly shorter among oral antiviral recipients than matched controls (molnupiravir HR 1·38 [95% CI 1·15-1·64], p=0·0005; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 1·38 [1·07-1·79], p=0·013). Significant differences in initiation of IMV and ICU admission were not found.InterpretationDuring a wave of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2, initiation of novel oral antiviral treatments in hospitalised patients not requiring oxygen therapy on admission showed substantial clinical benefit. Our findings support the early use of oral antivirals in this population of patients.FundingHealth and Medical Research Fund (Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region).TranslationFor the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19.DesignObservational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform.SettingWith the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings.ParticipantsAdult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021.InterventionsSotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.Main outcome measuresAdmission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment.ResultsBetween 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England.ConclusionsIn routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets