Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McDonald EG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8900806 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for COVID-19.
McDonald Emily G EG Lee Todd C TC
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20220203 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Hemodialysis patients have a high risk of severe/critical COVID-19 and related high mortality, but nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is not recommended for hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 infection because of lack of evidence of safety. Objectives: Our study aims to evaluate the minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) of nirmatrelvir and its safety of different doses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in hemodialysis patients with mild COVID-19. Method: This was a prospective, two step, nonrandomized, open-label study. Participants were treated with nirmatrelvir 150 mg or 300 mg once a day (another 75 mg or 150 mg supplied after hemodialysis) and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily for 5 days, respectively. The primary outcome was the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, including the Cmin of nirmatrelvir and the number of adverse events (AE). The secondary outcome was the time of viral elimination in hemodialysis patients. Results: Adverse events were happened in 3 and 7 participants in the step 1 and step 2 group, respectively (p = 0.025). Among them, 2 and 6 participants were identified as drug-related adverse events (p = 0.054). No SAE or liver function damage happened. The Cmin of nirmatrelvir in step 1 and step 2 group were 5,294.65 ± 2,370.59 ng/mL and 7,675.67 ± 2,745.22 ng/mL (p = 0.125). The Cmin of the control group was 2,274.10 ± 1,347.25 ng/mL (p = 0.001 compared to step 2 and p = 0.059 compared to step 1). Compared to hemodialysis patients without nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, there were no statistical differences in overall viral elimination time (p = 0.232). Conclusion: In our study, two doses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir appeared to be excessive for hemodialysis patients. Although all of the patients tolerated 5-day administration, nearly half of the patients experienced drug-related adverse events. In addition, the medication group did not show a significant advantage in the time of viral elimination.
| S-EPMC10213535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not shown a significant benefit of postexposure prophylaxis.MethodsWe conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind trial to assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in asymptomatic, rapid antigen test-negative adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 within 96 hours before randomization. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg of nirmatrelvir and 100 mg of ritonavir) every 12 hours for 5 days or for 10 days or matching placebo for 5 or 10 days. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, confirmed on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen testing, through 14 days in participants who had a negative RT-PCR test at baseline.ResultsA total of 2736 participants were randomly assigned to a trial group - 921 to the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 917 to the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 898 to the placebo group. Symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed by day 14 in 2.6% of the participants in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 2.4% of those in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 3.9% of those in the placebo group. In each nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the percentage of participants in whom symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed did not differ significantly from that in the placebo group, with risk reductions relative to placebo of 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.7 to 57.8; P = 0.17) in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 35.5% (95% CI, -11.5 to 62.7; P = 0.12) in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups, with dysgeusia being the most frequently reported adverse event (in 5.9% and 6.8% of the participants in the 5-day and 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir groups, respectively, and in 0.7% of those in the placebo group).ConclusionsIn this placebo-controlled trial, postexposure prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 or 10 days did not significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047601.).
| S-EPMC11694828 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10644264 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9513855 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9487421 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10688265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir).ResultsA total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%).ConclusionsAmong adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).
| S-EPMC9812289 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8996462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the filed of antiviral therapy, effective therapeutic concentration is beneficial to shorten the recovery time of patients and reduce the transmission rate.The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the factors that lead to the drug concentration of Nirmatrelvir /Ritonavir (NMV/RTV) not reaching the standard.MethodsIn this study, the NMV/RTV drug concentration(Cnmv/rtv) data (n = 114) of COVID-19 patients over 18 years old were collected from May 2022 to July 2022, and the results of the patients were retrospectively compared. According to the analysis of the early study of NMV/RTV, combined with the research results at home and abroad, according to whether the measured drug concentration > 987 ng/ml, the patients were divided into target group and non-target group,The non-target group was defined as not reaching the trough concentration level.ResultsSerum NMV/RTV concentration in adult patients was correlated with prognostic nutritional index [PNI, (P < 0.05)], height (P < 0.05), weight (P < 0.05) and creatinine clearance [Crcl, (P < 0.05)]. Multivariate analysis showed that height, weight, PNI, lymphocyte (LYM) and CrCl were independent influencing factors of NMV/RTV trough concentration. However, after the correction of BMI calculation, there was no correlation between NMV/RTV and BMI, so in the clinical medication plan, the drug was not adjusted according to the height and weight.ConclusionsThe serum NMV/RTV concentration of adult patients gradually decreased with the increase of CrCl. For patients with high and low CrCl, the trough concentration of NMV/RTV should be continuously monitored and the dosing regimen should be adjusted to achieve the target trough concentration in these patients to reduce the effect of CrCl. PNI is also a key factor affecting drug concentration. For poor nutritional status, drug concentration should be closely monitored and the dose should be adjusted.
| S-EPMC11653860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment on shedding of viable virus in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear.MethodsA prospective cohort study evaluating mildly ill COVID-19 patients was conducted. Virologic responses were compared between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treatment and supportive care groups. Risk factors and relevant clinical factors for shedding of viable virus were investigated.ResultsA total of 80 COVID-19 patients were enrolled and 222 sputum specimens were collected. Ten patients were dropped during follow-up, and 33 patients in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 37 in the supportive care groups were compared. The median age was 67 years, and 67% were male. Clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Viral loads decreased significantly faster in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group compared with the supportive care group (P < 0.001), and the slope was significantly steeper (-2.99 ± 1.54 vs. -1.44 ± 1.52; P < 0.001). The duration of viable virus shedding was not statistically different between groups. In the multivariable analyses evaluating all collected specimens, male gender (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25-5.03, P = 0.010), symptom score (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, P = 0.015), days from symptom onset (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.002), complete vaccination (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.87, P = 0.038), and BA.2 subtype (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = 0.025) were independently associated with viable viral shedding, while nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was not.ConclusionNirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment effectively reduced viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants but did not decrease the duration of viable virus shedding.
| S-EPMC9596971 | biostudies-literature