ArticlePloS one2024
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or Molnupiravir for treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at risk of disease progression.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Still Treating Yesterday's Risk? Reconsidering Antiviral Use for Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Cases in a Broadly Immune Population.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Antivirals for COVID-19 in the Post-vaccine, Omicron Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn randomized controlled trials, Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and Molnupiravir (MPV) reduced the risk of severe/fatal COVID-19 disease. Real-world data are limited, particularly studies directly comparing the two agents.
methodsUsing the VA National COVID-19 database, we identified previously uninfected, non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 with ≥1 risk factor for disease progression who were prescribed either NMV/r or MPV within 3 days of a positive test. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to account for providers' preferences for a specific treatment. Absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% confidence intervals were determined for those treated with NMV/r vs. MPV. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death within 30 days of treatment prescription using the IPTW approach. Analyses were repeated using propensity-score matched groups.
resultsBetween January 1 and November 30, 2022, 9,180 individuals were eligible for inclusion (6,592 prescribed NMV/r; 2,454 prescribed MPV). The ARD for hospitalization/death for NMV/r vs MPV was -0.25 (95% CI -0.79 to 0.28). There was no statistically significant difference in ARD among strata by age, race, comorbidities, or symptoms at baseline. Kaplan-Meier curves did not demonstrate a difference between the two groups (p-value = 0.6). Analysis of the propensity-score matched cohort yielded similar results (ARD for NMV/r vs. MPV -0.9, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.23). Additional analyses showed no difference for development of severe/critical/fatal disease by treatment group.
conclusionWe found no significant difference in short term risk of hospitalization or death among at-risk individuals with COVID-19 treated with either NMV/r or MPV.
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.