20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and COVID-19 Mortality and Hospitalization Among Patients With Vulnerability to COVID-19 Complications

      research-article
      , ScD 1 , 2 , , , MPH 1 , 2 , , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , , PharmD 3 , 4 , , PharmD 5
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the association of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir exposure with the risk of death or COVID-19–related hospitalization when accounting for patient vulnerability to complications from COVID-19 infection?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 6866 individuals with COVID-19, treatment with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir was associated with lower risk of death or hospitalization in the most clinically extremely vulnerable individuals but not in less vulnerable individuals. Individuals who were not extremely vulnerable to experiencing complications from COVID-19, whose median age was 79 years, had greater risk of the outcome while receiving nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, but the finding was not statistically significant.

          Meaning

          In this study, treatment with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir was not associated with reduced risk of death or hospitalization among individuals who were not extremely vulnerable to complications from COVID-19 infection, regardless of age.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines the association of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir with prevention of death or admission to hospital in individuals with different risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Postmarket analysis of individuals who receive nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid [Pfizer]) is essential because they differ substantially from individuals included in published clinical trials.

          Objective

          To examine the association of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir with prevention of death or admission to hospital in individuals with different risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This is a cohort study of adult patients in British Columbia, Canada, between February 1, 2022, and February 3, 2023. Patients were eligible if they belonged to 1 of 4 higher-risk groups of individuals who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination. Two groups included clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) people who were severely (CEV1) or moderately immunocompromised (CEV2). CEV3 individuals were not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group was added to allow wider access to nirmatrelvir and ritonavir for certain other higher-risk individuals who were not in a CEV group, such as those older than 70 years who were unvaccinated.

          Exposures

          Patients with COVID-19 who received nirmatrelvir and ritonavir were matched to patients in the same vulnerability group; who were of the same sex, age, and propensity score for nirmatrelvir and ritonavir treatment; and who were also infected within 1 month of the individual treated with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.

          Results

          There were 6866 individuals included in the study, of whom 3888 (56.6%) were female and whose median (IQR) age was 70 (57-80) years. Compared with unexposed controls, treatment with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome in the CEV1 group (560 patients; risk difference [RD], −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.8% to −0.2%) and the CEV2 group (2628 patients; RD, −1.7%; 95% CI, −2.9% to −0.5%). In the CEV3 group, the RD was −1.3%, but the findings were not statistically significant (2100 patients; 95% CI, −2.8% to 0.1%). In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with higher risk of the outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the findings were not statistically significant (1578 patients; 95% CI, −0.9% to 2.9%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cohort study of 6866 individuals in British Columbia, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death in CEV individuals, with the greatest benefit observed in severely immunocompromised individuals. No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19

            Background Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (M pro ) inhibitor with potent pan–human-coronavirus activity in vitro. Methods We conducted a phase 2–3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19–related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated. Results A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19–related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −9.04 to −3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of −5.81 percentage points (95% CI, −7.78 to −3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmaltrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of −0.868 log 10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo. Conclusions Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202 .)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies

              In a study comparing the effects of two treatments, the propensity score is the probability of assignment to one treatment conditional on a subject's measured baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to estimate the effects of exposures using observational data. In the most common implementation of propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects are formed whose propensity scores differ by at most a pre-specified amount (the caliper width). There has been a little research into the optimal caliper width. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the optimal caliper width for estimating differences in means (for continuous outcomes) and risk differences (for binary outcomes). When estimating differences in means or risk differences, we recommend that researchers match on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. When at least some of the covariates were continuous, then either this value, or one close to it, minimized the mean square error of the resultant estimated treatment effect. It also eliminated at least 98% of the bias in the crude estimator, and it resulted in confidence intervals with approximately the correct coverage rates. Furthermore, the empirical type I error rate was approximately correct. When all of the covariates were binary, then the choice of caliper width had a much smaller impact on the performance of estimation of risk differences and differences in means. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                2 October 2023
                October 2023
                2 October 2023
                : 6
                : 10
                : e2336678
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [2 ]Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [4 ]BC COVID Therapeutics Committee, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [5 ]Pharmaceutical Laboratory and Blood Services Division, British Columbia Ministry of Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 25, 2023.
                Published: October 2, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36678
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Dormuth CR et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, 2176 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada ( colin.dormuth@ 123456ubc.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Dormuth had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Dormuth, Fisher, Kuo.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Dormuth.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Dormuth, Kim.
                Obtained funding: Kuo.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Fisher, Kuo.
                Supervision: Dormuth, Fisher.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health (MOH).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The BC MOH approved access to and use of the BC databases used in this study. The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this article are those of the authors. All inferences, opinions, and conclusions drawn in this publication are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Data Steward(s).
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Additional Information: The following data sources were used: BC MOH (2021): Medical Services Plan Payment Information File; BC MOH (2021): PharmaNet; BC MOH, Data Stewardship Committee, Canadian Institute for Health Information (2021): National Ambulatory Care Reporting System; BC MOH, Canadian Institute for Health Information (2021): Discharge Abstract Database (Hospital Separations); BC MOH (2021): Consolidation File (MSP Registration & Premium Billing); BC MOH (2021): Provincial Immunization Registry (Table ahip.pir_covid_vaccinations_hist); and BC MOH (2021): Provincial Laboratory Information Solution (Table ahip.plis_covid19_result_mvw).
                Article
                zoi231060
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36678
                10546233
                37782496
                a2c72c6a-f070-4786-8c7b-d6742fce9ca7
                Copyright 2023 Dormuth CR et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 24 May 2023
                : 25 August 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Infectious Diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article