ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatments for symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients: network meta-analysis and budget impact analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Unvaccinated COVID-19 Patients Treated in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis.Therapeutic advances in pulmonary and critical care medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Remdesivir (RDV) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NRM/RTV) are two antiviral agents for treating outpatient adults with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 at high risk of developing a severe disease. The review objectives are to compare the efficacy and safety of these antivirals based on published RCT and real-world data, and to evaluate costs from a healthcare perspective. Methods: This study provides a network meta-analysis of RDV and NRM/RTV for early treatment of COVID-19. The outcomes analysed were hospitalisation for any cause and serious adverse events. A cost-analysis was performed incorporating drug costs, administration, hospitalisations, and management of adverse events. A budget impact analysis was estimated for the University Hospital of Padua. Results: Our results indicated that RDV showed a trend towards a lower risk of hospitalisation compared to NRM/RTV (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 0.60-4.20), though this was not statistically significant. For safety, NRM/RTV demonstrated a slightly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to RDV (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.31-2.74), but without statistical significance. A cost analysis showed that NRM/RTV could save €550,854.46 per 1,000 patients. Finally, a budget impact analysis based on data from the University Hospital of Padua estimated annual savings of €210,977.25 if all early treatments were administered with NRM/RTV instead of RDV. Discussion: The comparison of the two antiviral therapies for the early treatment of COVID-19 did not yield statistically significant differences in the potential efficacy and safety to prevent hospitalisation or serious adverse events. However, the results of the cost-analysis showed a saving in favour of NRM/RTV.
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.