Abstract
Objective To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) vs. molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients.
Design With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform.
Setting Patient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both medications were frequently prescribed in community settings.
Participants Non-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high-risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir between December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022.
Interventions Sotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units.
Main outcome measure COVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation.
Results Patients treated with sotrovimab (n=3288) and molnupiravir (n=2663) were similar with respect to most baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 5951 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 87% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 84 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (31 treated with sotrovimab and 53 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.83; P=0.007) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.90; P=0.020). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10).
Conclusion In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.
What is already known on this topic Two phase 3 randomised controlled trials in unvaccinated non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients who were at high risk of progression to severe disease or death showed a strong efficacy of sotrovimab for preventing hospitalisation or death (relative risk reduction by 79%) and a modest efficacy of molnupiravir (relative risk reduction by 30%).
No randomised controlled trial comparing these medications has been conducted and evaluations of their effectiveness when used in routine care are limited.
It remains unclear whether their effectiveness persists in vaccinated populations, patients infected by the Omicron variant, and other subgroups underrepresented in clinical trials.
What this study adds Following the concurrent rollout of sotrovimab and molnupiravir in community settings in England between December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022, we were able to make direct comparisons of their effectiveness using near real-time electronic health record data.
This real-world cohort study demonstrated that among non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients in England, those receiving sotrovimab were at substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.
This study generalises findings from the randomised controlled trials to vaccinated populations and the Omicron variant, and provides supportive evidence for the current clinical guideline which prioritises sotrovimab over molnupiravir in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients.
Competing Interest Statement
BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
Funding Statement
This work was jointly funded by UKRI [COV0076;MR/V015737/1], the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (MC_PC_20030: MC_PC_20059: COV-LT-0009), NIHR and Asthma UK-BLF. The OpenSAFELY data science platform is funded by the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Ethics Board (reference 21863).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Access to the underlying identifiable and potentially re-identifiable pseudonymised electronic health record data is tightly governed by various legislative and regulatory frameworks, and restricted by best practice. The data in OpenSAFELY is drawn from General Practice data across England where TPP is the data processor. TPP developers initiate an automated process to create pseudonymised records in the core OpenSAFELY database, which are copies of key structured data tables in the identifiable records. These pseudonymised records are linked onto key external data resources that have also been pseudonymised via SHA-512 one-way hashing of NHS numbers using a shared salt. Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science developers and PIs holding contracts with NHS England have access to the OpenSAFELY pseudonymised data tables as needed to develop the OpenSAFELY tools. These tools in turn enable researchers with OpenSAFELY data access agreements to write and execute code for data management and data analysis without direct access to the underlying raw pseudonymised patient data, and to review the outputs of this code. All code for the full data management pipeline-from raw data to completed results for this analysis-and for the OpenSAFELY platform as a whole is available for review at github.com/OpenSAFELY. Detailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared.
