Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Recent case reports document that some patients who were treated with Paxlovid experienced rebound COVID-19 infections and symptoms 2 to 8 days after completing a 5-day course of Paxlovid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory to update the public on the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatments. However, the rates of COVID-19 rebound in a real-world population or whether rebound is unique to Paxlovid remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the rates and relative risks of COVID-19 rebound in patients treated with Paxlovid or with Molnupiravir and to compare characteristics of patients who experienced COVID-19 rebound to those who did not. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of electronic health records (EHRs) of 92 million patients from a multicenter and nationwide database in the US. The study population comprised 13,644 patients age ≥ 18 years who contracted COVID-19 between 1/1/2022-6/8/2022 and were treated with Paxlovid (n =11,270) or with Molnupiravir (n =2,374) within 5 days of their COVID-19 infection. EXPOSURES: Paxlovid or Molnupiravir. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Three types of COVID-19 rebound outcomes (COVID-19 infections, COVID-19 related symptoms, and hospitalizations) were examined. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 7-day and 30-day risk for COVID-19 rebound between patients treated with Paxlovid and patients treated with Molnupiravir were calculated before and after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Paxlovid treatment were 3.53% and 5.40% for COVID-19 infection, 2.31% and 5.87% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.44% and 0.77% for hospitalizations. The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Molnupiravir treatment were 5.86% and 8.59% for COVID-19 infection, 3.75% and 8.21% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.84% and 1.39% for hospitalizations. After propensity-score matching, there were no significant differences in COVID-19 rebound risks between Paxlovid and Molnupiravir: infection (HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11), COVID-19 symptoms (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.83-1.27), or hospitalizations (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56-1.55). Patients with COVID-19 rebound had significantly higher prevalence of underlying medical conditions than those without. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: COVID-19 rebound occurred both after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, especially in patients with underlying medical conditions. This indicates that COVID-19 rebound is not unique to Paxlovid and the risks were similar for Paxlovid and Molnupiravir. For both drugs the rates of COVID-19 rebound increased with time after treatments. Our results call for continuous surveillance of COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir treatments. Studies are necessary to determine the mechanisms underlying COVID-19 rebounds and to test dosing and duration regimes that might prevent such rebounds in vulnerable patients.