ArticleBiosafety and health2023
Viral rebound and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for lung-transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data on the viral rebound and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in lung transplant (LTx) recipients are limited. The study prospectively followed four LTx recipients. Clinical characteristics, viral RNA dynamic in throat swabs, and tacrolimus blood concentration were monitored regularly. All four LTx recipients, aged 35-74 years, were not vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). They got coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after more than one week of admission during the era of Omicron. All cases received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NM/r) within two days of infection, and the relative viral RNA copies dropped quickly. Viral load rebound was observed in all four cases after discontinuation of the first five days of NM/r treatment. Three of them received another 5-days antiviral therapy with NM/r. The duration of positive viral PCR testing was 25-28 days. None of them progressed into severe or critical COVID-19. Tacrolimus was stopped 12 h before NM/r and held during the 5-day course of antiviral therapy. Blood concentration of tacrolimus were maintained at a baseline level during these five days. Tacrolimus was re-initiated at its baseline daily dose 3-4 days after NM/r therapy. However, during the second round of antiviral therapy with NM/r, the concentration of tacrolimus fluctuated wildly. In conclusion, the 5-day course of NM/r treatment was not sufficient for LTx recipients and the viral rebound was common. More data are needed to clarify whether LTx recipients with SARS-CoV-2 viral rebound could benefit from additional treatment with NM/r.
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.