ReviewViruses2023
Molnupiravir Revisited-Critical Assessment of Studies in Animal Models of COVID-19.
Review in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molnupiravir, a prodrug known for its broad antiviral activity, has demonstrated efficacy in animal models of COVID-19, prompting clinical trials, in which initial results indicated a significant effect against the disease. However, subsequent clinical studies did not confirm these findings, leading to the refusal of molnupiravir for permanent market authorization in many countries. This report critically assessed 22 studies published in 18 reports that investigated the efficacy of molnupiravir in animal models of COVID-19, with the purpose of determining how well the design of these models informed human studies. We found that the administered doses of molnupiravir in most studies involving animal COVID-19 models were disproportionately higher than the dose recommended for human use. Specifically, when adjusted for body surface area, over half of the doses of molnupiravir used in the animal studies exceeded twice the human dose. Direct comparison of reported drug exposure across species after oral administration of molnupiravir indicated that the antiviral efficacy of the dose recommended for human use was underestimated in some animal models and overestimated in others. Frequently, molnupiravir was given prophylactically or shortly after SARS-CoV-2 inoculation in these models, in contrast to clinical trials where such timing is not consistently achieved. Furthermore, the recommended five-day treatment duration for humans was exceeded in several animal studies. Collectively, we suggest that design elements in the animal studies under examination contributed to a preference favoring molnupiravir, and thus inflated expectations for its efficacy against COVID-19. Addressing these elements may offer strategies to enhance the clinical efficacy of molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19. Such strategies include dose increment, early treatment initiation, administration by inhalation, and use of the drug in antiviral combination therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.