Background: Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression by 88% compared to placebo, while Molnupiravir reduced it by 31%. However, these two agents have not been compared head-to-head. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of both agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients.
Methods: We identified 240 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Patients were matched using a 1:2 ratio based on age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65) and type of cancer. The collected data included demographics, comorbidities, and treatment outcome.
Results: Both groups had comparable characteristics and presenting symptoms. However, dyspnea was more prevalent in the Molnupiravir group, while sore throat was more prevalent in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir group. The rate of disease progression was comparable in both groups by univariate and multivariable analysis. Treatment with Molnupiravir versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir revealed no significant difference in disease progression by multivariable analysis (adjusted OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.14, p = 0.70). Patients who received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, however, were significantly more prone to having drug-drug interactions/adverse events (30% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: In the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in cancer patients, Molnupiravir was comparable to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in preventing progression to severe disease/death and rebound events, and it had a superior safety profile.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; cancer; coronaviruses; immunocompromised; molnupiravir; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; paxlovid; therapy; treatment.