4.7 Article

Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir: Oral Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antiviral Drugs

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 165-171

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac180

关键词

COVID-19; nirmatrelvir; molnupiravir; Paxlovid; ritonavir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are two new oral antiviral drugs for outpatient treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. Both drugs have shown a reduction in death and hospitalization when started within 5 days of symptom onset.
Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are 2 new antivirals for outpatient treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. Though they differ in several aspects, both drugs led to a reduction in death and hospitalization when started within 5 days of symptom onset. At a crucial time with rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant globally, the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for 2 oral antivirals, molnupiravir (in persons aged >= 18 years) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) (in persons aged >= 12 years weighing >= 40 kg), for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at risk for progression. Molnupiravir is a nucleoside analogue, whereas nirmatrelvir is a SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitor, and ritonavir is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor. Drug interactions are a major concern for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir demonstrated a greater risk reduction in hospitalization and death than molnupiravir compared to placebo. Both drugs need to be started within 5 days of symptoms onset and given for 5 days' duration. This article reviews the 2 oral COVID-19 antiviral drugs including the mechanisms of action, antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, clinical experience including trials, adverse events, recommended indications, and formulary considerations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据