Nirmatrelvir or Molnupiravir Use and Severe Outcomes From Omicron Infections.

Importance: Ritonavir-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. Objective: To 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 Participants: This 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. Exposures: Treatment with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir or molnupiravir. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 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. Results: There 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 Relevance: These 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.

Accuracy of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Varies by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Position: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Inequality in health outcomes in relation to Americans' socioeconomic position is rising. OBJECTIVE: First, to evaluate the spatial relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)-related events; second, to evaluate the relative extent to which neighborhood disadvantage and physiologic risk account for neighborhood-level variation in ASCVD event rates. DESIGN: Observational cohort analysis of geocoded longitudinal electronic health records. SETTING: A single academic health center and surrounding neighborhoods in northeastern Ohio. PATIENTS: 109 793 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) who had an outpatient lipid panel drawn between 2007 and 2010. The date of the first qualifying lipid panel served as the study baseline. MEASUREMENTS: Time from baseline to the first occurrence of a major ASCVD event (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) within 5 years, modeled as a function of a locally derived neighborhood disadvantage index (NDI) and the predicted 5-year ASCVD event rate from the Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Model (PCERM) of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. Outcome data were censored if no CCHS encounters occurred for 2 consecutive years or when state death data were no longer available (that is, from 2014 onward). RESULTS: The PCERM systematically underpredicted ASCVD event risk among patients from disadvantaged communities. Model discrimination was poorer among these patients (concordance index [C], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.74]) than those from the most affluent communities (C, 0.80 [CI, 0.78 to 0.81]). The NDI alone accounted for 32.0% of census tract-level variation in ASCVD event rates, compared with 10.0% accounted for by the PCERM. LIMITATIONS: Patients from affluent communities were overrepresented. Outcomes of patients who received treatment for cardiovascular disease at Cleveland Clinic were assumed to be independent of whether the patients came from a disadvantaged or an affluent neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Neighborhood disadvantage may be a powerful regulator of ASCVD event risk. In addition to supplemental risk models and clinical screening criteria, population-based solutions are needed to ameliorate the deleterious effects of neighborhood disadvantage on health outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland and National Institutes of Health.