Characteristics and Outcomes of US Veterans With Immunocompromised Conditions at High Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection With or Without Receipt of Oral Antiviral Agents.

OBJECTIVES: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were the first oral antiviral agents to demonstrate reduced hospitalization or death in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but patients with immunocompromised conditions were not well-represented. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the clinical outcomes of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions prescribed oral antivirals with those who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, nationwide propensity-matched analysis of US veterans with immunocompromised conditions who developed documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the composite of any hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included 30-day comparative rates of (1) any hospitalization, (2) death, (3) intensive care requirement, and (4) subset analyses of outcomes by oral antiviral used and vaccination status. RESULTS: The composite primary outcome was significantly lower in patients receiving oral antiviral therapy compared with those who did not (23/390 [5.9%] vs 57/390 [14.6%]; odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, .22-.61). This difference was driven largely by fewer deaths in the oral antiviral group (1/390 [0.3%] vs 19/390 [4.9%]; odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .007-.38). There was no significant difference in rate of intensive care requirement. The composite outcome was improved in vaccinated patients (completing the first series or first booster dose) who received oral antiviral agents compared with those who did not receive oral antiviral agents. Compared with those prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, patients given molnupiravir were older, had a higher incidence of cautions/contraindications, greater prevalence of tobacco use, and more cardiovascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: Use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with lower incidences of hospitalization or death within 30 days of diagnosis in US veterans with immunocompromised conditions, regardless of vaccination status. These findings support the use of either oral antiviral in this patient population.

Characteristics and outcomes of US Veterans at least 65 years of age at high risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without receipt of oral antiviral agents.

OBJECTIVES: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir each became available in the United States (US) through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) in December 2021 after their respective initial prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrated efficacy for patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection considered to be at high risk for progression of disease and hospitalization. Although sufficiently powered for this wide group, the mean age for patients in these studies was only 43 and 46 years of age, respectively. We sought to compare outcomes of US Veterans 65 years and older who received either of these oral antivirals to those who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. METHODS: The current project was a retrospective, observational, nationwide propensity-matched analysis comparing outcomes of US Veterans 65 years and older who received either of these oral antivirals to US Veterans 65 years and older who did not receive oral antivirals for mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 active infection. RESULTS: The composite primary outcome of admission or death within 30 days of diagnosis was reached less often in those receiving either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus those that received no antiviral (65/1370 [4.75%] vs. 139/1370 [10.2%]; odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60, p<0.0001). Baseline differences between Veterans selected for molnupiravir vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy were noted, particularly in the number of concomitant medications with cautions or contraindications with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients 65 years of age and older. Patients with higher medication caution and contraindication burdens to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are selected for molnupiravir therapy, which in the absence of a prospective head-to-head trial, may limit any efforts to compare the effectiveness of the two drugs.