Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40383127›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2025

Molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir plus usual care versus usual care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

RECOVERY Collaborative Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04381936 (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04381936 phase3recruitingnot on this map

Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2020 to 2038Enrolled70,000ConditionsPneumoniaArmsLopinavir-Ritonavir, Corticosteroid, Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Convalescent plasma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

RECOVERY Collaborative Group

Funding

Physician Scientist Training in Cancer ResearchT32CA009172 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI Jennifer R Brown, James A. DeCaprio · 1985 to 2026
$17.1M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMolnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are oral antivirals that have shown efficacy in preventing disease progression in outpatients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate these treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia, for whom data on these antivirals are scarce.

methodsThe RECOVERY trial is a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial testing treatments for COVID-19. In this study we report the molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparisons from the RECOVERY trial. In each comparison, participants aged 18 years and older were randomly allocated (1:1) to the relevant antiviral (5 days of molnupiravir 800 mg twice daily or 300 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir twice daily) in addition to usual care, or to usual care alone. The molnupiravir comparison was conducted at 75 hospitals in the UK, two in Nepal, and two in Indonesia; the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison was conducted at 32 hospitals in the UK. Participants could take part in both comparisons. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were time to discharge alive from hospital and progression to invasive ventilation or death. Analysis was by intention to treat. Both comparisons were stopped because of low recruitment. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.

findingsFrom Jan 24, 2022, to May 24, 2023, 923 participants were recruited to the molnupiravir comparison (445 allocated to molnupiravir and 478 to usual care), and from March 31, 2022, to May 24, 2023, 137 participants were recruited to the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison (68 allocated to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 69 to usual care). More than three-quarters of participants were vaccinated and had antispike antibodies at randomisation, and more than two-thirds were receiving other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. In the molnupiravir comparison, 74 (17%) participants allocated to molnupiravir and 79 (17%) allocated to usual care died within 28 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·68-1·28], p=0·66). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison, 13 (19%) participants allocated to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 13 (19%) allocated to usual care died within 28 days (HR 1·02 [0·47-2·23], p=0·96). In neither comparison was there evidence of any difference in the duration of hospitalisation or the proportion of participants progressing to invasive ventilation or death.

interpretationAdding molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to usual care was not associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. However, low recruitment meant a clinically meaningful benefit of treatment could not be ruled out, particularly for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

fundingUK Research and Innovation (UK Medical Research Council), the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Wellcome Trust.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdultAgedCytidineDibenzothiepinsDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHospitalizationHumansHydroxylaminesLactamsLeucineMaleMiddle AgedAntiviral AgentsCytidineDibenzothiepinsHydroxylaminesLactamsLeucinemolnupiravirMorpholinesnirmatrelvirNitrilesOxadiazolesProlineRitonavir

Identifiers

PMID40383127
PMCPMC7618993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.