Unveiling therapeutic dynamics: An in-depth comparative analysis of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies and favipiravir in alleviating COVID-19 outpatients impacts among middle-aged and special populations (MA-FAST).
COVID-19
Casirivimab/ imdevimab
Favipiravir
Neutralizing monoclonal antibody
SARS-CoV-2
Sotrovimab
Journal
Journal of infection and public health
ISSN: 1876-035X
Titre abrégé: J Infect Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101487384
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2024
06 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
19
01
2024
revised:
31
05
2024
accepted:
02
06
2024
medline:
13
6
2024
pubmed:
13
6
2024
entrez:
12
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NMabs) are recognized for their efficacy against non-severe COVID-19. However, spike protein mutations may confer resistance. This study evaluates the effectiveness of favipiravir (FPV) versus NMabs in preventing severe COVID-19 in special populations. A retrospective cohort was conducted on middle-aged, elderly, diabetic, or obese patients with COVID-19 treated with either FPV or NMabs. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for analysis. The study included 1410 patients, resulting in four cohorts: middle-aged (36), elderly (48), diabetic (46), and obese (28) post-PSM. No significant differences were noted in 28-day emergency department (ED) visits across all groups between NMabs and FPV treatments, despite lower immunity in the FPV group. However, the diabetic group treated with FPV had higher 28-day hospitalization and oxygen supplemental, with no differences in the other groups. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were similar between the two treatments. Early dose-adjusted FPV showed no difference from NMabs in preventing ED visits, ICU admissions, ventilator needs, or mortality among patients with major comorbidities. Diabetic patients on FPV experienced higher hospitalizations and oxygen needs, with no observed differences in other groups. FPV may be a viable alternative, especially in settings with limited resources.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NMabs) are recognized for their efficacy against non-severe COVID-19. However, spike protein mutations may confer resistance. This study evaluates the effectiveness of favipiravir (FPV) versus NMabs in preventing severe COVID-19 in special populations.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective cohort was conducted on middle-aged, elderly, diabetic, or obese patients with COVID-19 treated with either FPV or NMabs. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study included 1410 patients, resulting in four cohorts: middle-aged (36), elderly (48), diabetic (46), and obese (28) post-PSM. No significant differences were noted in 28-day emergency department (ED) visits across all groups between NMabs and FPV treatments, despite lower immunity in the FPV group. However, the diabetic group treated with FPV had higher 28-day hospitalization and oxygen supplemental, with no differences in the other groups. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were similar between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Early dose-adjusted FPV showed no difference from NMabs in preventing ED visits, ICU admissions, ventilator needs, or mortality among patients with major comorbidities. Diabetic patients on FPV experienced higher hospitalizations and oxygen needs, with no observed differences in other groups. FPV may be a viable alternative, especially in settings with limited resources.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38865775
pii: S1876-0341(24)00205-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2024.102471
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102471Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.