Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, Shatin, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 Jun;23(6):683-695. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00873-8. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
Viral rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment has implications for the clinical management and isolation of patients with COVID-19. We evaluated an unselected, population-wide cohort to identify the incidence of viral burden rebound and associated risk factors and clinical outcomes.
We did a retrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 in Hong Kong, China, for an observation period from Feb 26 to July 3, 2022 (during the omicron BA.2.2 variant wave). Adult patients (age ≥18 years) admitted 3 days before or after a positive COVID-19 test were selected from medical records held by the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong. We included patients with non-oxygen-dependent COVID-19 at baseline receiving either molnupiravir (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (nirmatrelvir 300 mg with ritonavir 100 mg twice a day for 5 days), or no oral antiviral treatment (control group). Viral burden rebound was defined as a reduction in cycle threshold (Ct) value (≥3) on quantitative RT-PCR test between two consecutive measurements, with such decrease sustained in an immediately subsequent Ct measurement (for those patients with ≥3 Ct measurements). Logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors for viral burden rebound, and to assess associations between viral burden rebound and a composite clinical outcome of mortality, intensive care unit admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation initiation, stratified by treatment group.
We included 4592 hospitalised patients with non-oxygen-dependent COVID-19 (1998 [43·5%] women and 2594 [56·5%] men). During the omicron BA.2.2 wave, viral burden rebound occurred in 16 of 242 patients (6·6% [95% CI 4·1-10·5]) receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, 27 of 563 (4·8% [3·3-6·9]) receiving molnupiravir, and 170 of 3787 (4·5% [3·9-5·2]) in the control group. The incidence of viral burden rebound did not differ significantly across the three groups. Immunocompromised status was associated with increased odds of viral burden rebound, regardless of antiviral treatment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: odds ratio [OR] 7·37 [95% CI 2·56-21·26], p=0·0002; molnupiravir: 3·05 [1·28-7·25], p=0·012; control: 2·21 [1·50-3·27], p<0·0001). Among patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the odds of viral burden rebound were higher in those aged 18-65 years (vs >65 years; 3·09 [1·00-9·53], p=0·050), those with high comorbidity burden (score >6 on the Charlson Comorbidity Index; 6·02 [2·09-17·38], p=0·0009), and those concomitantly taking corticosteroids (7·51 [1·67-33·82], p=0·0086); whereas the odds were lower in those who were not fully vaccinated (0·16 [0·04-0·67], p=0·012). In patients receiving molnupiravir, those aged 18-65 years (2·68 [1·09-6·58], p=0·032) or on concomitant corticosteroids (3·11 [1·23-7·82], p=0·016) had increased odds of viral burden rebound. We found no association between viral burden rebound and occurrence of the composite clinical outcome from day 5 of follow-up (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: adjusted OR 1·90 [0·48-7·59], p=0·36; molnupiravir: 1·05 [0·39-2·84], p=0·92; control: 1·27 [0·89-1·80], p=0·18).
Viral burden rebound rates are similar between patients with antiviral treatment and those without. Importantly, viral burden rebound was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes.
Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
在使用奈玛特韦-利托那韦治疗后病毒反弹对 COVID-19 患者的临床管理和隔离具有重要意义。我们评估了一个未选择的、全人群队列,以确定病毒载量反弹的发生率以及相关的风险因素和临床结局。
我们对中国香港的医院收治的 COVID-19 确诊患者进行了回顾性队列研究,观察期为 2022 年 2 月 26 日至 7 月 3 日(奥密克戎 BA.2.2 变体浪潮期间)。从 COVID-19 检测阳性前 3 天或后 3 天内从香港医院管理局的病历中选择非氧依赖型 COVID-19 的成年患者(年龄≥18 岁)。我们纳入了基线时接受莫努匹韦(800 mg 每日两次,连用 5 天)、奈玛特韦-利托那韦(奈玛特韦 300 mg 联合利托那韦 100 mg 每日两次,连用 5 天)或未接受口服抗病毒治疗(对照组)的患者。病毒载量反弹定义为连续两次定量 RT-PCR 检测中 Ct 值(≥3)的降低,且在随后的 Ct 测量中持续下降(对于有≥3 个 Ct 测量值的患者)。使用逻辑回归模型确定病毒载量反弹的预后因素,并评估病毒载量反弹与死亡率、重症监护病房入院和有创机械通气启动的复合临床结局之间的关联,按治疗组分层。
我们纳入了 4592 名非氧依赖型 COVID-19 住院患者(1998 名女性[43.5%]和 2594 名男性[56.5%])。在奥密克戎 BA.2.2 变体浪潮期间,接受奈玛特韦-利托那韦治疗的 242 名患者中有 16 名(6.6%[95%CI 4.1-10.5])、接受莫努匹韦治疗的 563 名患者中有 27 名(4.8%[3.3-6.9])和接受对照组治疗的 3787 名患者中有 170 名(4.5%[3.9-5.2])发生了病毒载量反弹。三组间病毒载量反弹的发生率无显著差异。免疫抑制状态与病毒载量反弹的几率增加相关,无论是否接受抗病毒治疗(奈玛特韦-利托那韦:比值比[OR]7.37[95%CI 2.56-21.26],p=0.0002;莫努匹韦:3.05[1.28-7.25],p=0.012;对照组:2.21[1.50-3.27],p<0.0001)。在接受奈玛特韦-利托那韦治疗的患者中,年龄在 18-65 岁的患者(与>65 岁的患者相比;3.09[1.00-9.53],p=0.050)、合并症负担较高(Charlson 合并症指数评分>6;6.02[2.09-17.38],p=0.0009)和同时服用皮质类固醇(7.51[1.67-33.82],p=0.0086)的患者发生病毒载量反弹的几率更高;而未完全接种疫苗的患者(0.16[0.04-0.67],p=0.012)的几率较低。在接受莫努匹韦治疗的患者中,年龄在 18-65 岁(2.68[1.09-6.58],p=0.032)或同时服用皮质类固醇(3.11[1.23-7.82],p=0.016)的患者发生病毒载量反弹的几率增加。我们没有发现病毒载量反弹与从第 5 天开始的复合临床结局发生之间存在关联(奈玛特韦-利托那韦:调整后的 OR 1.90[0.48-7.59],p=0.36;莫努匹韦:1.05[0.39-2.84],p=0.92;对照组:1.27[0.89-1.80],p=0.18)。
接受抗病毒治疗的患者与未接受抗病毒治疗的患者的病毒载量反弹率相似。重要的是,病毒载量反弹与不良临床结局无关。
香港特别行政区政府卫生署卫生及医疗研究基金。