Molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial
Horby, P. W.; Staplin, N.; Peto, L.; Emberson, J. R.; Campbell, M.; Pessoa-Amorim, G.; Basnyat, B.; Thwaites, L.; Van Doorn, R.; Hamers, R. L.; Nel, J.; Amuasi, J.; Stewart, R.; Ghosh, D.; Hamilton, F.; Desai, P.; Easom, N.; Majumdar, J.; Hine, P.; Chadwick, D.; Cooke, G.; Sharp, S.; Esmail, H.; Baillie, J. K.; Buch, M. H.; Faust, S. N.; Jaki, T.; Jeffery, K.; Juszczak, E.; Knight, M.; Lim, W. S.; Montgomery, A.; Mukherjee, A.; Mumford, A.; Rowan, K.; Thwaites, G.; Mafham, M.; Haynes, R.; Landray, M. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundMolnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) are oral antivirals that have been proposed as treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, several potential treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia were evaluated. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were assessed in separate comparisons in RECOVERY, both of which are reported here. Eligible and consenting adults could join the molnupiravir comparison, the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison, or both. For each comparison, participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the relevant antiviral (five days of molnupiravir 800mg twice daily or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 300mg/100mg twice daily) or to usual care without the relevant antiviral drug, using web-based unstratified randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were time to discharge alive from hospital, and among those not on invasive ventilation at baseline, progression to invasive ventilation or death. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Both comparisons were stopped by the investigators because of low recruitment. ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsFrom 24 January 2022 to 24 May 2023, 923 patients were recruited to the molnupiravir comparison (445 allocated molnupiravir and 478 allocated usual care), and from 31 March 2022 to 24 May 2023, 137 patients were recruited to the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison (68 allocated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 69 allocated usual care). More than three-quarters of the patients in both comparisons were vaccinated and had anti-spike antibodies at randomisation, and more than two-thirds were receiving other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals (including remdesivir or sotrovimab). In the molnupiravir comparison, 74 (17%) patients allocated to molnupiravir and 79 (17%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.28; p=0.66). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison, 13 (19%) patients allocated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 13 (19%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.47-2.23; p=0.96). In neither comparison was there evidence of a significant difference in the duration of hospitalisation or the proportion of patients progressing to invasive ventilation or death. InterpretationIn adults hospitalised with COVID-19, neither molnupiravir nor nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death although these comparisons had limited statistical power due to low recruitment. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health and Care Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z). Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 ISRCTN50189673 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50189673
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir against mortality, hospitalization, and in-hospital outcomes among community-dwelling, ambulatory COVID-19 patients during the BA.2.2 wave in Hong Kong: an observational study 95%
- Antivirals for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 94%
- Antivirals for treatment of severe influenza: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A randomised clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care in ambulatory COVID-19 – the ATOMIC2 trial 97%
- Namilumab or infliximab compared to standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a phase 2 randomised adaptive trial 96%
- Peginterferon-lambda for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effectiveness of Rosuvastatin plus Colchicine, Emtricitabine/Tenofovir and a combination of them in Hospitalized Patients with SARS Covid-19 96%
- Antiviral efficacy of fluoxetine in early symptomatic COVID-19: an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PLATCOV) 96%
- Early treatment with nitazoxanide prevents worsening of mild and moderate COVID-19 and subsequent hospitalization 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Favipiravir for treatment of outpatients with asymptomatic or uncomplicated COVID-19: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial 95%
- Efficacy and safety of ensitrelvir in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: the phase 2b part of a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study 94%
- A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.