REVIEW ARTICLE

Open Access

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bahman Amani

Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Behnam Amani,

Corresponding Author

Behnam Amani

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-4298-1807

Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Behnam Amani, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Qods St., Keshavarz Blvd., Tehran, Iran.

Email: [email protected]

Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Bahman Amani,

Bahman Amani

Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Behnam Amani,

Corresponding Author

Behnam Amani

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-4298-1807

Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Behnam Amani, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Qods St., Keshavarz Blvd., Tehran, Iran.

Email: [email protected]

Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 23 April 2024

https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.1262

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background and Aim

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).

Results

Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).

Conclusion

The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

1 INTRODUCTION

Considering that widespread vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, may not provide complete protection for individuals,¹ it is important to consider other effective therapeutic interventions, especially for populations who are not sufficiently protected by COVID-19 vaccination.² Recent evidence has demonstrated the potential of certain antiviral agents and monoclonal antibodies in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality.^{3, 4} Real-world data have highlighted the effectiveness of medications like nirmatrelvir/ritonavir,⁵ remdesivir,⁶ molnupiravir,⁷ and sotrovimab⁸ in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants. Those with mild or moderate COVID-19 who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir⁵ or remdesivir⁶ treatments showed a decreased risk of death, hospitalization, and severe forms of the disease. Molnupiravir is an oral antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, aiming to prevent progression to severe disease.⁹ The recommended dosage is a 800 mg oral intake twice daily for 5 days, available as 200-mg capsules.¹⁰ Studies have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of varying doses of molnupiravir in treating COVID-19 patients.^11-13 Sotrovimab, a human monoclonal antibody, is administered as a single 500 mg IV infusion for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.¹⁴ Studies have shown its effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates in COVID-19 patients and its potential to reduce disease progression and emergency visits in vaccinated individuals.¹⁵ However, the FDA has suspended its use in regions with a high proportion of the Omicron BA.2 subvariant,¹⁶ despite real-world studies demonstrating its effectiveness in patients infected with this subvariant.^17-19 Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have indicated that both molnupiravir and sotrovimab treatments improve clinical outcomes in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.^{20, 21} Real-world evidence has revealed diverse findings when comparing the effectiveness of molnupiravir and sotrovimab. Certain studies^{7, 22} indicate that sotrovimab outperforms molnupiravir in COVID-19 patients, while other studies.^{23, 24} Currently, both molnupiravir and sotrovimab are approved or authorized for use in countries like the USA, UK, Japan, China, and Australia for COVID-19 patients.^{25, 26} Suggest that molnupiravir is more effective than sotrovimab in treating COVID-19 patients. As a result, there is a necessity to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to further evaluate the effectiveness of these treatments.

2 METHODS

The current research employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Supporting Information S1: Table 1).²⁷ The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was registered on PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42023429910.

2.1 Literature search

Two researchers independently conducted a comprehensive search using keywords in the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar, aiming to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. In addition, they scanned the references of systematic reviews and key studies to identify additional records. Keywords included “SARS-COV-2,” “COVID-19,” “molnupiravir,” and “sotrovimab.” No language restrictions were applied. The search strategy for each database is provided in the Supporting Information.

2.2 Study selection

The present systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that met the following criteria: patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) COVID-19 test, treatment with molnupiravir or sotrovimab as monotherapy, and reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes such as mortality rate, hospitalization rate, and adverse events. Studies with irrelevant outcomes, case reports, and those conducted on healthy individuals were excluded.

2.3 Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence

Two researchers independently evaluated the potential for bias in the included studies by utilizing the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.²⁸ This tool covers seven domains, such as confounding, selection bias, measurement and classification biases of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, outcome measurement biases, and selection of reported results. Additionally, two authors assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool, which incorporates criteria such as risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias. The evidence was categorized into four levels: very low, low, moderate, and high.

2.4 Data extraction

Two researchers independently extracted all necessary data using a standardized extraction form. The extracted information encompassed: (1) study characteristics (including first author, year of publication, study location, and design type); (2) patient details (total sample size, gender, and average age); (3) treatment interventions (sample size, average age, dosage, duration of treatment, COVID-19 vaccination rate, and extent of comorbidities); (4) effectiveness outcomes (mortality rate, hospitalization rate, death or hospitalization rate, and ICU admission); and (5) safety outcomes (incidence of any adverse events).

2.5 Data analysis

The effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab were compared using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). For analyzing dichotomous variables, the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized. High heterogeneity was defined as I² > 50% or p < .1, in which case a random-effect model was applied. Conversely, the fixed effects model was employed for studies without high heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were carried out based on patients' age (<60 years and ≥60 years) and the sample size of studies (<500 and >500). Moreover, sensitivity analyses were conducted in the following manner. Initially, studies with a high risk of bias were excluded from the comparison with the overall effect size. Second, two studies by Zheng et al.^{7, 22} utilized OpenSAFELY-TPP platform data to evaluate the effectiveness of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in COVID-19 patients. Considering the potential overlap of data between these studies, one of them was excluded, and a subsequent meta-analysis for the outcomes of interest was performed.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Search result

Figure 1 depicts the study selection process based on title, abstract, and full-text review. Following the removal of duplicate records, 327 articles were assessed against the inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies were considered eligible for full-text review, out of which six were excluded based on the criteria outlined in Figure 1. Ultimately, 13 studies^{7, 22-24, 29-37} involving 16,166 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All included studies featured a retrospective design, with most comparing more than two intervention groups. The administered doses were 800 mg twice daily for molnupiravir and a single 500 mg infusion for sotrovimab. The follow-up duration for the majority of studies was 28 days, and the predominant location of the studies was the UK. The key characteristics of the included studies are outlined in Table 1.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Flow diagram of PRISMA. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study	Year	Place	Molnupiravir					Sotrovimab					Follow-up (days)
Study	Year	Place	Mean age	N	Male	Comorbidity (%)a	Vaccination rate (%)b	Mean age	N	Male	Comorbidity (%)a	Vaccination rate (%)b	Follow-up (days)
Cegolon²⁹	2023	Italy	66.2	116	62	80.2	81.9	69.8	57	36	87.7c	87.7	30
Drysdale³⁰	2023	UK	59.6	71	29	NA	90	54.6	492	206	NA	100	28
Evans³¹	2023	UK	56	359	140	59.9	97	54	1079	442	58.6	98.5	28
Gleeson²³	2022	UK	NA	21	NA	NA	NA	NA	47	NA	NA	NA	97
Goodwin³²	2023	UK	51	80	50	NA	98.8	52	169	64	NA	98.7	28
Kauer³³	2023	Austria	61	1788	839	NA	NA	64	420	201	NA	NA	28
Lasagna³⁴	2022	Italy	NA	7	5	100	100	NA	3	1	100	100	14
Manciulli²⁴	2023	Italy	68.9	205	118	>50	88.3	64.7	314	166	>50	79.6	28
Mazzotta³⁵	2022	Italy	68	117	65	>50	93.1	63	202	97	>50	91	30
Patel³⁶	2022	UK	53.7	470	253	>50	96.6	58	696	340	>50	95.1	28
Radcliffe³⁷	2022	USA	55	49	25	NA	92	57	24	14	NA	88	≤30
Zheng²²	2022	UK	52.9	2689	1138	NA	97.4	51.7	3331	1340	NA	98.1	28
Zheng- UKRR⁷	2022	UK	55.5	515	298	86.8	98.2	56	1852	1039	85.6	98.5	28
Zheng-SRR⁷	2022	UK	54.7	270	157	NA	100	58.4	723	413	NA	97.8	28

Abbreviations: N, number; NA, not applicable.
^a Having at least one comorbidity.
^b Receipt of ≥1 dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
^c Having at least three comorbidity.

3.2 Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence

Risk of confounding for most studies was evaluated as moderate. All studies had low risk of Classification of interventions and Missing Data. Deviations from intended interventions and Measurement of outcomes for all studies were moderate. Risk of other domains varied in studies. The detailed results of risk of bias assessment using ROBINS-I tool are presented in Supporting Information S1: Table 2. Moreover, the assessment of the certainty of evidence for each outcome is presented in Supporting Information S1: Table 3.

Table 2. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for effectiveness outcomes.

Analysis	No. of studies	Sample size	Point estimate (95% CI)	p Value	Heterogeneity
Analysis	No. of studies	Sample size	Point estimate (95% CI)	p Value	χ²	p Value	I² (%)
Sensitivity analysis
Mortality rate (excluding Zheng SSRR)	5	8022	2.02 [1.04, 3.92]	0.03	5.50	0.23	27.32
Death or hospitalization (excluding Zheng UKRR)	4	8794	1.21 [0.58, 2.54]	0.60	9.93	0.01	69.79
Mortality rate (excluding Celegon 2023)	5	8947	1.99 [1.10, 3.59]	0.02	4.97	0.29	19.62
Hospitalization rate (excluding Celegon 2023 and Kauer 2023)	6	2085	0.93 [0.59, 1.48]	0.78	6.12	0.29	18.32
Subgroup analysis
Mortality rate by age
<60	5	8496	2.17 [1.20, 3.92]	0.01	4.76	0.31	16.02
≥60	1	519	0.50 [0.02, 12.54]	0.67	0.00	1.00	0.00
Hospitalization rate by age
<60	4	1556	0.89 [0.54, 1.46]	0.65	5.82	0.12	48.51
≥60	3	2518	0.44 [0.21, 0.89]	0.02	3.76	0.15	46.80
Death or hospitalization rate by age
<60	4	10,818	1.75 [1.30, 2.35]	3.72	0.00	10.30	70.88
≥60	1	343	0.12 [0.00, 2.20]	0.15	0.00	1.00	0.00
Mortality rate by sample size
<500	2	317	6.66 [0.68, 65.27]	0.10	0.00	0.97	0.00
≥500	4	9015	1.91 [1.05, 3.48]	0.03	4.45	0.21	32.63
Hospitalization rate by sample size
<500	5	573	1.02 [0.40, 2.56]	0.96	3.88	0.14	48.46
≥500	3	3511	0.65 [0.41, 1.02]	0.06	7.76	0.10	48.49
Death or hospitalization rate by sample size
<500	1	343	0.12 [0.00, 2.20]	0.00	10.30	0.01	70.88
≥500	4	10,818	1.75 [1.30, 2.35]	0.15	0.00	1.00	0.00

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; UKRR, UK Renal Registry.

3.3 Effectiveness outcomes

3.3.1 Mortality rate

Six studies^{7, 22-24, 32, 36} involving 9015 patients reported cases of death in patients who received molnupiravir or sotrovimab. The pooled estimate of these studies showed a significant difference in mortality rate between the two groups (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.16, 3.70, p = .01) (Figure 2). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was rated as moderate.

3.3.2 Hospitalization rate

Eight studies^{23, 24, 29, 32-34, 36, 37} involving 4084 patients reported cases of hospital admission for patients receiving molnupiravir or sotrovimab. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in hospitalization rate between the two groups (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06, p = .10) (Figure 3). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was rated as moderate.

3.3.3 Death or hospitalization rate

Four studies^{7, 22, 31, 35} involving 11,161 patients reported cases of death or hospitalization in patients who received molnupiravir or sotrovimab. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83, p = .18) (Figure 4). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was rated as low.

3.3.4 ICU admission

Two studies^{33, 37} involving 1428 patients were included in the meta-analysis for ICU admission. The analysis showed no significant difference between patients receiving molnupiravir and those who received sotrovimab in terms of admission to the ICU (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84, p = .62) (Figure 5). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was rated as low.

3.4 Safety outcomes

3.4.1 Any adverse events

Two studies^{24, 33} involving 2177 patients reported the incidence of any adverse events in the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups. The pooled estimate demonstrated a significant difference between the two treatment groups in terms of the incidence of any adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30, p < .01) (Figure 6). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was rated as low.

3.5 Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Table 2 displays the results of subgroup analysis by the age of patients and the sample size of studies. The sensitivity analysis conducted by excluding one of the studies indicated no significant change compared to the primary analysis for the outcomes of mortality rate (OR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.92, p = .03) and death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.58, 2.54, p = .60) (Table 2). Furthermore, the pooled estimates were similar to the primary analysis when we excluded studies with a high risk of bias for outcomes of mortality rate (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.10, 3.59, p = .02) and hospitalization rate (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.48, p = .78).

4 DISCUSSION

While certain variants of SARS-CoV-2 have posed challenges in developing effective treatments for COVID-19,³⁸ recent real-world data indicate the effectiveness of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in treating patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants.^{20, 21} The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab in COVID-19 patients.

The current meta-analysis reveals that treatment with sotrovimab is linked to a significantly reduced risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to those treated with molnupiravir. This superiority may be attributed to sotrovimab's greater effectiveness in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 in patients, as opposed to those treated with molnupiravir.^{7, 22} A comparative effectiveness study by Zheng et al.²² illustrated that the risk of death in patients infected with Omicron variants was lower in the sotrovimab group compared to the molnupiravir group. Additionally, meta-analysis of real-world studies has indicated that sotrovimab could significantly reduce the risk of death in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron variants. Furthermore, in vivo and in vitro studies^39-41 studies have demonstrated the effective activity of sotrovimab against certain Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, the administration of sotrovimab in COVID-19 patients should be carefully considered in light of possible mutations.⁴² On the other hand, the effectiveness of molnupiravir in reducing COVID-19-related mortality remains unclear. While some meta-analyses found no significant benefit in using molnupiravir to reduce COVID-19-related mortality,^{21, 43, 44} others showed it to be effective in reducing the risk of death in COVID-19 patients.^{45, 46} Discrepancies in these findings may be attributed to differences in inclusion criteria and the number of included studies. Current data from studies also support the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir treatments in reducing the risk of death in patients with COVID-19. Nonetheless, evidence regarding the effectiveness of antiviral and monoclonal treatments in children with COVID-19 is limited.⁴⁷ Although one study⁴⁷ found no deaths in COVID-19 children who received treatments of molnupiravir or sotrovimab, further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of these interventions for children with COVID-19.

The current meta-analysis findings indicate that both molnupiravir and sotrovimab treatments have similar effects on reducing the hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients. Previous evidence from our meta-analysis supports the idea that COVID-19 patients treated with sotrovimab were less likely to be hospitalized compared to those not receiving sotrovimab.²⁰ However, the results of meta-analyses on the therapeutic potential of molnupiravir are inconclusive and conflicting. Recent meta-analyses conducted by Benaicha et al.⁴⁵ and Gao et al.⁴⁶ have shown that molnupiravir significantly reduces the hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients, while others have found no significant effect when compared to no treatment with molnupiravir.^{43, 44} Two other drugs approved by the FDA, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of hospitalization in patients who receive these treatments.

According to the current meta-analysis, there is no significant difference between molnupiravir and sotrovimab in reducing death or hospitalization rates in COVID-19 patients. Our previously published study demonstrated that sotrovimab significantly reduced the death or hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared to the control group.²⁰ However, a meta-analysis conducted by Malin et al.⁴³ on randomized control trials found no significant difference in reducing death or hospitalization rates between patients who received molnupiravir and those who received placebo/standard of care. In real-world settings, evidence comparing the effectiveness of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in COVID-19 patients varies. A real-world cohort study published by Zheng et al.²² showed that sotrovimab is more effective than molnupiravir in reducing death or hospitalization rates in adult patients with COVID-19. According to their study, the death or hospitalization rate for COVID-19 patients receiving molnupiravir and sotrovimab were 2.05% and 0.96%, respectively. On the other hand, one study reported no COVID-19-related hospitalization or death for patients treated with molnupiravir, while 3.1% of patients who received sotrovimab experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization or death.³⁵

The current meta-analysis also indicates that COVID-19-related ICU admission was similar in patients treated with molnupiravir or sotrovimab. Real-world meta-analyses have demonstrated that sotrovimab infusion was linked to a reduced risk of ICU admission due to COVID-19 compared to the nonsotrovimab group.²⁰ However, evidence from real-world data presents different findings when comparing these interventions in terms of reducing ICU admission for COVID-19 patients. Kauer et al.³³ found a similar rate of ICU admission between nonhospitalized patients at high risk for COVID-19 who received molnupiravir and sotrovimab. In contrast, a study by Radcliffe et al.³⁷ found that none of the solid organ transplant recipients infected with COVID-19 who received sotrovimab were admitted to the ICU, whereas 2% of the molnupiravir group had ICU admission. Given that only two studies were included in the meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in reducing ICU admission, the present finding in regard this should be interpreted with caution.

The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in patients receiving molnupiravir compared to those receiving sotrovimab. Recently published meta-analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the molnupiravir and control groups.^{21, 44, 46} Additionally, our previous research revealed no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between different doses of molnupiravir (200, 400, and 800 mg) and placebo in COVID-19 patients.⁴⁸ This discrepancy can be attributed to the type of control groups in the meta-analyses. In the aforementioned studies, standard care or placebo was considered as the control group; while in the present meta-analysis sotrovimab was considered as the comparison. Regarding the safety of sotrovimab, a meta-analysis of real-world studies revealed a comparable incidence of adverse events in COVID-19 patients treated with sotrovimab compared to those untreated with sotrovimab.²⁰ The most frequently reported adverse events for COVID-19 patients taking sotrovimab in studies were nausea, dizziness, headaches, and rash.^{24, 32, 33} However, Kauer et al.³³ reported one serious adverse event of atrial fibrillation in a COVID-19 patient who received sotrovimab. Patients taking molnupiravir experienced adverse events, mostly diarrhea, vomiting, high blood pressure, headaches, and dizziness.^{24, 33} Manciulli et al.²⁴ reported drug discontinuation in patients taking molnupiravir, while no discontinuation occurred in patients taking sotrovimab. Several cases of drug intolerance were reported in patients taking either molnupiravir or sotrovimab.²⁴

Our study is subject to several significant limitations. Firstly, the designs of all studies included in the present meta-analysis were observational, which are associated with a high risk of bias. Moreover, some studies failed to report key variables that could affect the treatment effect, such as COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidity rates, and a history of re-infection in patients. Furthermore, two studies included in our analysis did not administer treatments within 5 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, potentially impacting the estimation of treatment effects. Finally, many studies featured more than two intervention groups, which could influence the estimation of treatment effects. Conducting a network meta-analysis may provide a more robust comparison of these interventions.

5 CONCLUSION

The study's findings indicate that during the Omicron prevalent period, molnupiravir and sotrovimab demonstrate similar effectiveness in reducing hospitalization rate, death or hospitalization rate, and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. However, sotrovimab is notably superior to molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. In terms of safety, molnupiravir is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events in COVID-19 patients. Nonetheless, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is rated as low or moderate. These results can offer valuable insights for healthcare policymakers, clinicians, and researchers regarding the comparison of these interventions in COVID-19 patients. In the future, research efforts should prioritize the comparison of the effectiveness of these interventions on newly circulating SARS-COV-2 variants. This will help in gaining a comprehensive understanding of their possible long-term impacts on both the SARS-COV-2 variants and public health.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization and project administration: Bahman Amani and Behnam Amani. Literature searching: Behnam Amani and Bahman Amani. Data extraction and quality assessment: Bahman Amani and Behnam Amani. Data analysis: Bahman Amani and Behnam Amani. Writing—original draft: Behnam Amani. Writing—review and editing: Bahman Amani and Behnam Amani.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data are available online for the included studies.^{7, 22-24, 29, 31-33, 35-37}

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

1Calimeri S, Lo Giudice D, Buda A, et al. Role of the 1st booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in the protection against the infection: a fundamental public health tool. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022; 63(4): 520.
Google Scholar
2Caillard S, Thaunat O. COVID-19 vaccination in kidney transplant recipients. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2021; 17(12): 785-787.
10.1038/s41581-021-00491-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Lin WT, Hung SH, Lai CC, Wang CY, Chen CH. The impact of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies on the outcomes of COVID-19 outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Virol. 2022; 94(5): 2222-2229.
10.1002/jmv.27623
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Wen W, Chen C, Tang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of three new oral antiviral treatment (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) for COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2022; 54(1): 516-523.
10.1080/07853890.2022.2034936
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Wong C, Au I, Lau K, Lau E, Cowling BJ, Leung GM. Real-world effectiveness of early molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 without supplemental oxygen requirement on admission during Hong Kong's omicron BA.2 wave: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022; 22(12): 1681-1693.
10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00507-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Ramos-Rincon J-M, López-Carmona M-D, Cobos-Palacios L, et al. Remdesivir in very old patients (≥ 80 years) hospitalized with COVID-19: real world data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(13): 3769.
10.3390/jcm11133769
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Zheng B, Campbell J, Carr EJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR linked platform and SRR database. medRxiv. Preprint posted online December 4, 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.12.02.22283049
Google Scholar
8De Vito A, Colpani A, Poliseno M, et al. What is the efficacy of sotrovimab in reducing disease progression and death in people with COVID-19 during the omicron era? Answers from a real-life study. Viruses. 2023; 15(8): 1757.
10.3390/v15081757
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
9Kamal L, Ramadan A, Farraj S, Bahig L, Ezzat S. The pill of recovery; Molnupiravir for treatment of COVID-19 patients; a systematic review. Saudi Pharm J. 2022; 30(5): 508-518. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2022.03.002
10.1016/j.jsps.2022.03.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Painter WP, Holman W, Bush JA, et al. Human safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of molnupiravir, a novel broad-spectrum oral antiviral agent with activity against SARS-CoV-2. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021; 65(5):02428-20. doi:10.1128/aac
10.1128/AAC.02428-20
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Flisiak R, Zarębska-Michaluk D, Rogalska M, et al. Real-world experience with molnupiravir during the period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant dominance. Pharmacol Rep. 2022; 74(6): 1279-1285.
10.1007/s43440-022-00408-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Kwok WC, Tsoi MF, Leung SHI, et al. Real-world study on effectiveness of molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir–Ritonavir in unvaccinated patients with chronic respiratory diseases with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection managed in out-patient setting. Viruses. 2023; 15(3): 610.
10.3390/v15030610
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
13Tiseo G, Barbieri C, Galfo V, et al. Efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir in a real-world cohort of outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk of progression: the PISA outpatient clinic experience. Infect Dis Ther. 2023; 12(1): 257-271.
10.1007/s40121-022-00729-2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Cheng MM, Reyes C, Satram S, et al. Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab for the early treatment of COVID-19 during SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron waves in the USA. Infect Dis Ther. 2023; 12: 607-621.
10.1007/s40121-022-00755-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Nene RV, Santodomingo MA, Balog B, et al. Use of sotrovimab in vaccinated versus unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in a resource-limited emergency department during the omicron surge. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2023; 4(3):e12958.
10.1002/emp2.12958
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Food and Drug Administration. Drug safety and availability. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-sotrovimab-emergency-use-authorization
Google Scholar
17Behzad A, Mohamed A, Ali A, Niinuma S, Butler AE, Alqahtani M. Real world effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death in patients infected with Omicron BA.2. J Infect Public Health. 2023; 17(2): 315-320.
10.1016/j.jiph.2023.11.029
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Martin-Blondel G, Marcelin A-G, Soulié C, et al. Sotrovimab to prevent severe COVID-19 in high-risk patients infected with Omicron BA.2. J Infect. 2022; 85(4): e104-e108.
10.1016/j.jinf.2022.06.033
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Miyashita N, Nakamori Y, Ogata M, et al. Clinical efficacy of the neutralizing antibody therapy sotrovimab in patients with SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariant infections. Viruses. 2023; 15(6): 1300.
10.3390/v15061300
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
20Amani B, Amani B. Efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with COVID-19: a rapid review and meta-analysis. Rev Med Virol. 2022; 32(6):e2402.
10.1002/rmv.2402
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Huang PY, Liu TH, Wu JY, Tsai YW, Lai CC. Clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for nonhospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. J Med Virol. 2023; 95(3):e28621.
10.1002/jmv.28621
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Zheng B, Green ACA, Tazare J, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe covid-19 outcomes in patients in the community: observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform. BMJ. 2022; 379:e071932. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-071932
PubMed Google Scholar
23Gleeson S, Martin P, Thomson T, et al. Kidney transplant recipients and omicron: outcomes, effect of vaccines and the efficacy and safety of novel treatments. medRxiv. Preprint posted online May 3, 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.05.03.22274524
Google Scholar
24Manciulli T, Spinicci M, Rossetti B, et al. Safety and efficacy of outpatient treatments for COVID-19: real-life data from a regionwide cohort of high-risk patients in Tuscany, Italy (the FEDERATE Cohort). Viruses. 2023; 15(2): 438.
10.3390/v15020438
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
25Maas BM, Strizki J, Miller RR, et al. Molnupiravir: mechanism of action, clinical, and translational science. Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 17(2):e13732.
10.1111/cts.13732
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Twohig KA, Nyberg T, Zaidi A, et al. Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022; 22(1): 35-42.
10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00475-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021; 88:105906.
10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919.
10.1136/bmj.i4919
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Cegolon L, Pol R, Simonetti O, Larese Filon F, Luzzati R. Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Sotrovimab for high-risk COVID-19 patients infected by the omicron variant: hospitalization, mortality, and time until negative swab test in real life. Pharmaceuticals. 2023; 16(5): 721.
10.3390/ph16050721
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
30Drysdale M, Tibble H, Patel V, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals or no treatment in Scotland. medRxiv. Preprint posted online June 9, 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.06.09.23291195
Google Scholar
31Evans A, Qi C, Adebayo JO, et al. Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab on preventing hospital admission among higher-risk patients with COVID-19 in Wales: a retrospective cohort study. J Infect. 2023; 86(4): 352-360.
10.1016/j.jinf.2023.02.012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Goodwin AT, Thompson JS, Hall IP. Evaluation of outpatient treatment for non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the experience of a regional centre in the UK. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0281915.
10.1371/journal.pone.0281915
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33Kauer V, Totschnig D, Augustin M, Karolyi M, Zoufaly A, Naegeli M. Efficacy and tolerability of Sotrovimab Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir for non-hospitalized patients at high risk for COVID-19: a retrospective, single-center analysis. Preprint posted online April 10, 2023. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2786240.v1
Google Scholar
34Lasagna A, Cassaniti I, Lilleri D, et al. Effectiveness of the available early therapies in reducing severe COVID-19 in non-hospitalized patients with solid tumors on active treatment. Front Med. 2022; 9:1036473.
10.3389/fmed.2022.1036473
Web of Science® Google Scholar
35Mazzotta V, Cozzi Lepri A, Colavita F, et al. Viral load decrease in SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron sublineages infection after treatment with monoclonal antibodies and direct antiviral agents. J Med Virol. 2023; 95(1):e28186.
10.1002/jmv.28186
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Patel V, Yarwood MJ, Levick B, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high-risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals or no treatment in England. medRxiv. Preprint posted online November 29, 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.11.28.22282808
Google Scholar
37Radcliffe C, Palacios CF, Azar MM, Cohen E, Malinis M. Real-world experience with available, outpatient COVID-19 therapies in solid organ transplant recipients during the omicron surge. Am J Transplant. 2022; 22(10): 2458-2463. doi:10.1111/ajt.17098
10.1111/ajt.17098
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38Fernandes Q, Inchakalody VP, Merhi M, et al. Emerging COVID-19 variants and their impact on SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, therapeutics and vaccines. Ann Med. 2022; 54(1): 524-540.
10.1080/07853890.2022.2031274
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39Driouich J-S, Bernadin O, Touret F, de Lamballerie X, Nougairède A. Activity of Sotrovimab against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 Omicron sublineages in a hamster model. Antiviral Res. 2023; 215:105638.
10.1016/j.antiviral.2023.105638
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40Hérate C, Marlin R, Touret F, et al. Sotrovimab retains activity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BQ.1.1 in a non-human primate model. Heliyon. 2023; 9:e16664.
10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16664
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41Touret F, Baronti C, Bouzidi HS, de Lamballerie X. In vitro evaluation of therapeutic antibodies against a SARS-CoV-2 Omicron B.1.1.529 isolate. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):4683.
10.1038/s41598-022-08559-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42Uraki R, Kiso M, Imai M, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of monoclonal antibodies and antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 in Syrian hamsters. Nat Microbiol. 2022; 7(8): 1252-1258.
10.1038/s41564-022-01170-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43Malin JJ, Weibel S, Gruell H, Kreuzberger N, Stegemann M, Skoetz N. Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023; 78(7): 1586-1598.
10.1093/jac/dkad132
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44Tian F, Feng Q, Chen Z. Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Antimicro Agents. 2023; 62:106870.
10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106870
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45Benaicha K, Khenhrani RR, Veer M, et al. Efficacy of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild or moderate COVID-19 in adults: a meta-analysis. Cureus. 2023; 15(5):e38586.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46Gao Y, Liu M, Li Z, Xu J, Zhang J, Tian J. Molnupiravir for treatment of adults with mild or moderate COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023; 29(8): 979-999.
10.1016/j.cmi.2023.04.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47Minotti C, Mengato D, De Pieri M, et al. Early treatments of fragile children with COVID-19—results of CLEVER (Children COVID Early Treatment), a retrospective, observational study. Viruses. 2023; 15(1): 192.
10.3390/v15010192
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
48Amani B, Zareei S, Amani B. Rapid review and meta-analysis of adverse events associated with molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022; 88(10): 4403-4411.
10.1111/bcp.15449
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume12, Issue4

April 2024

e1262

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis