<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Ikeuchi K</submitter><funding>JST, PRESTO</funding><pagination>1213</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12482191</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>25(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Antiviral treatment reduces influenza transmission and differs in effectiveness among agents. Although SARS-CoV-2 antivirals lower viral shedding, their role in preventing secondary household transmission and the differences between agents remain unclear.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the JMDC administrative claims database in Japan. The study included married-couple households between 1 April and 31 August 2023, when the Omicron XBB variant was predominant. Households in which at least one person had been diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. We excluded households if the index patient did not receive antiviral treatment on day 0, or the spouse was diagnosed on day 0 or 1. The primary outcome was subsequent infection in the spouse by day 7. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), after adjusting for potential confounders.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Of the 326,827 married-couple households, 5,398 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 1,143 households (21.2%) experienced presumed secondary transmission by day 7. The cumulative transmission rate, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, was lower among hospitalized patients (n = 73, 11.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.7-20.8%) than among outpatients (n = 5,325, 21.5%, 95% CI: 20.4-22.6%, p = 0.035). Transmission rates did not significantly differ among the outpatient antiviral groups: molnupiravir (n = 3,093, 21.3%, 95% CI: 19.9-22.8%), ensitrelvir (n = 1,907, 21.6%, 95% CI: 19.8-23.6%), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 323, 22.8%, 95% CI: 18.6-27.8%, p = 0.74). In multivariable Cox analysis, male sex (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.26-1.63; p &lt; 0.001), history of COVID-19 in the index patient (adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.76; p = 0.001), and history of COVID-19 in the partner (adjusted HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45; p &lt; 0.001) were significantly associated with transmission risk. Hospitalization tended to be associated with a lower risk of transmission (adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.25-1.03; p = 0.062).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Household transmission rates were not statistically different among three different outpatient oral antiviral agents. Hospitalization was associated with a trend toward lower transmission rates, possibly due to physical isolation.</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMC infectious diseases</journal><pubmed_title>Comparative effectiveness of antiviral treatment on household transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a retrospective cohort study using administrative data.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12482191</pmcid><funding_grant_id>JPMJPR23R1</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Matsumoto S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Okushin K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kado A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kishida T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tsutsumi T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Arisato Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yotsuyanagi H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Saito M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ikeuchi K</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Comparative effectiveness of antiviral treatment on household transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a retrospective cohort study using administrative data.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Antiviral treatment reduces influenza transmission and differs in effectiveness among agents. Although SARS-CoV-2 antivirals lower viral shedding, their role in preventing secondary household transmission and the differences between agents remain unclear.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the JMDC administrative claims database in Japan. The study included married-couple households between 1 April and 31 August 2023, when the Omicron XBB variant was predominant. Households in which at least one person had been diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. We excluded households if the index patient did not receive antiviral treatment on day 0, or the spouse was diagnosed on day 0 or 1. The primary outcome was subsequent infection in the spouse by day 7. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), after adjusting for potential confounders.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Of the 326,827 married-couple households, 5,398 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 1,143 households (21.2%) experienced presumed secondary transmission by day 7. The cumulative transmission rate, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, was lower among hospitalized patients (n = 73, 11.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.7-20.8%) than among outpatients (n = 5,325, 21.5%, 95% CI: 20.4-22.6%, p = 0.035). Transmission rates did not significantly differ among the outpatient antiviral groups: molnupiravir (n = 3,093, 21.3%, 95% CI: 19.9-22.8%), ensitrelvir (n = 1,907, 21.6%, 95% CI: 19.8-23.6%), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 323, 22.8%, 95% CI: 18.6-27.8%, p = 0.74). In multivariable Cox analysis, male sex (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.26-1.63; p &lt; 0.001), history of COVID-19 in the index patient (adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.76; p = 0.001), and history of COVID-19 in the partner (adjusted HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45; p &lt; 0.001) were significantly associated with transmission risk. Hospitalization tended to be associated with a lower risk of transmission (adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.25-1.03; p = 0.062).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Household transmission rates were not statistically different among three different outpatient oral antiviral agents. Hospitalization was associated with a trend toward lower transmission rates, possibly due to physical isolation.</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Sep</publication><modification>2026-06-03T22:59:58.168Z</modification><creation>2026-05-02T03:12:01.529Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12482191</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41023657</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12879-025-11651-6</doi></cross_references></HashMap>