Back

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.

2024-05-24 infectious diseases
10.1101/2024.05.23.24307731 medRxiv
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
2
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.1%
4
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.1%
5
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.7%
7
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
11
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.6%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
14
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.4%
16
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
17
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
21
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
24
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%
26
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%