Effectiveness of Sotrovimab and Molnupiravir in community settings in England across the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages: emulated target trials using the OpenSAFELY platform
================================================================================================================================================================================

* The OpenSAFELY collaborative
* John Tazare
* Linda Nab
* Bang Zheng
* William J Hulme
* Amelia C A Green
* Helen J Curtis
* Viyaasan Mahalingasivam
* Rose Higgins
* Anna Schultze
* Krishnan Bhaskaran
* Amir Mehrkar
* Andrea Schaffer
* Rebecca M Smith
* Christopher Bates
* Jonathan Cockburn
* John Parry
* Frank Hester
* Sam Harper
* Rosalind M Eggo
* Alex J Walker
* Michael Marks
* Mike Brown
* Camille Maringe
* Clémence Leyrat
* Stephen J W Evans
* Ben Goldacre
* Brian MacKenna
* Jonathan A C Sterne
* Laurie A Tomlinson
* Ian J Douglas

## Abstract

**Background** The effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody and antiviral therapies against severe COVID-19 outcomes is unclear. Initial benefit was shown in unvaccinated patients and before the Omicron variant emerged. We used the OpenSAFELY platform to emulate target trials to estimate the effectiveness of sotrovimab or molnupiravir, versus no treatment.

**Methods** With the approval of NHS England, we derived population-based cohorts of non-hospitalised high-risk individuals in England testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during periods of dominance of the BA.1 (16/12/2021-10/02/2022) and BA.2 (11/02/2022-21/05/2022) Omicron sublineages. We used the clone-censor-weight approach to estimate the effect of treatment with sotrovimab or molnupiravir initiated within 5 days after positive test versus no treatment. Hazard ratios (HR) for COVID-19 hospitalisation or death within 28 days were estimated using weighted Cox models.

**Results** Of the 35,856 [BA.1 period] and 39,192 [BA.2 period] patients, 1,830 [BA.1] and 1,242 [BA.2] were treated with molnupiravir and 2,244 [BA.1] and 4,164 [BA.2] with sotrovimab. The estimated HRs for molnupiravir versus untreated were 1.00 (95%CI: 0.81;1.22) [BA.1] and 1.22 (0.96;1.56) [BA.2]; corresponding HRs for sotrovimab versus untreated were 0.76 (0.66;0.89) [BA.1] and 0.92 (0.79;1.06) [BA.2].

**Interpretation** Compared with no treatment, sotrovimab was associated with reduced risk of adverse outcomes after COVID-19 in the BA.1 period, but there was weaker evidence of benefit in the BA2 period. Molnupiravir was not associated with reduced risk in either period.

**Funding** UKRI, Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR and HDRUK.

## Introduction

In December 2021, COVID-19 medicine delivery units (CMDUs) were launched across England to offer antiviral medicines and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMABs) to non-hospitalised people with COVID-19, identified to be at high risk of severe outcomes.1, 2 Before February 2022, sotrovimab and molnupiravir were the most commonly prescribed medications.3 The approval and adoption of these medications was largely driven by evidence from two phase III randomised placebo-controlled trials conducted in unvaccinated populations.4, 5

Amid concerns surrounding early regulatory authorisations,6 changes in population level immunity, and the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, evidence of ongoing effectiveness of these medications remains important to inform policy on their use in routine clinical practice. Analysis comparing people who receive treatment to those who are untreated may be subject to significant bias.7, 8 Firstly, it is important to sufficiently control for factors confounding the relation between treatment and adverse outcomes.9, 10 Secondly, immortal-time bias is a key concern when comparing treated with untreated individuals, if the times of diagnosis and treatment do not coincide and people who experience the outcome before treatment are classified in the untreated comparator group.11

We used observational data to emulate a target randomised trial,12, 13 using the clone-censor-weight approach.14 We estimated the effectiveness of either sotrovimab or molnupiravir versus no treatment, amongst non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients within high-risk groups in whom consideration of treatment was recommended in the United Kingdom.14, 15

## Methods

### Data Source

English primary care records managed by the GP software provider TPP SystmOne were accessed through the OpenSAFELY platform, where all data were linked, stored and analysed securely ([https://opensafely.org/](https://opensafely.org/)). Data, including coded diagnoses, medications and physiological parameters, are pseudonymised. No free text data are included. The following linked data were also used for this study: patient-level vaccination status via the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS); accident and emergency (A&E) attendance and in-patient hospital spell records via NHS Digital’s Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); national coronavirus testing records via the Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS); and the “COVID-19 therapeutics dataset”, a patient-level dataset on antiviral and nMAb treatments, sourced from NHS England and derived from Blueteq software that CMDUs use to notify NHS England of COVID-19 treatments.16 Detailed pseudonymised patient data are potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared.

### Study Design and Patient Selection

We conducted two population-based cohort analyses, covering periods of dominance of the BA.1 (16th December 2021 to 10th February 2022) and BA.2 (11th February to 21st May 2022) Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant sublineages.17 For each analysis, we identified all adults (aged ≥ 18 and < 110 years), registered at a practice using TPP software, who tested positive (via either polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or lateral flow test) for SARS-CoV-2 in the community within the study period. We required patients to have non-missing data on sex, and demographics (including the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership region [an NHS administrative region] or index of multiple deprivation).

Given NHS England eligibility for nMAb and antiviral treatment,3, 18 eligible patients had been diagnosed with Down syndrome, an active or recently treated solid cancer, a haematological disease or stem cell transplant, renal disease, liver disease, immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, immune deficiencies, HIV/AIDS, solid organ transplant, or rare neurological conditions.19 We ensured that codelists for immune deficiencies, solid cancer and solid organ transplant were mutually exclusive to allow for adjustment in regression modelling. Further details of the coding of these high-risk groups, including codelists, are described by *Green et al*.3 Patients were additionally required to have no treatment history of antiviral or nMAb therapy for COVID-19 prior to the positive test, not be hospitalised on the day of the positive test, have no evidence of previous COVID-19 infection (no positive test or COVID-19 related hospitalisation) in the 90 days before the current test-positive spell, and not be recorded as treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir on the same day (Figure 1).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F1)

Figure 1: Number of people excluded (n) at different stages of cohort selection in the BA.1 and the BA.2 periods.
All patient counts are rounded to the nearest six and non-zero patient counts of eight or lower are redacted. Abbreviations: nMAB: neutralising monoclonal antibody; AV: antiviral; EHR: electronic health record.

On February 10th 2022, Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, an oral antiviral treatment) was introduced as a first-line therapy alongside sotrovimab, while molnupiravir became a third-line therapy (Supplementary Figure S21 provides an overview of changes in treatment guidance and variant dominance throughout the study period).18 To ensure consistency with the BA.1 analysis and given additional complications surrounding contraindications for Paxlovid, all patients receiving Paxlovid during the BA.2 period were excluded.

### Outcome and Follow-up

The outcome was a composite of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (based on primary diagnosis ascertained from SUS) or COVID-19-related death (based on underlying/contributing causes) within 28-days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospital admissions recorded as elective day case admissions or regular admissions were not counted. Since treatment with sotrovimab can be registered as day case hospital admissions for infusions, these events were not counted as outcome events.20 Day case admissions in patients treated with sotrovimab were detected by hospital admissions associated with a MABs procedure or an admission on the same day, one day or two days after sotrovimab prescription with an associated discharge on the same day or the day after.

Patients were followed from the date of positive SARS-CoV-2 infection until the earliest of the outcome, non-COVID-19 related death, deregistration from GP practice or 28 days post SARS-CoV-2 infection.

### Treatment Strategies and Target Trial

Based on NHS treatment guidance, we emulated a target trial, specified in Table 1, comparing the following treatment strategies in high risk patients: 

*   Initiation of either sotrovimab or molnupiravir within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection (operationalised as initiation on the same day as recorded positive SARS-CoV-2 test, or on day 1-4 after positive test).

*   No initiation of either sotrovimab, molnupiravir or any other COVID-19 therapy within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/T1)

Table 1: Target trial emulation

### Statistical Analysis

We estimated hazard ratios comparing initiation of (a) sotrovimab or molnupiravir, (b) molnupiravir only and (c) sotrovimab only within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection with no treatment within 5 days. In comparisons b and c, individuals who started the other drug (sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively) were excluded.

We applied the clone-censor-weight approach to avoid immortal time bias.14, 15 Briefly, we created two copies (‘clones’) of the data for each eligible patient, assigning one to each of the two treatment strategies. For each assigned strategy, follow-up was censored if the treatment received was not compatible with the strategy (censoring step). This censoring occurred if clones assigned to sotrovimab or molnupiravir had not initiated treatment on or before day 4, or if clones assigned to no treatment started sotrovimab or molnupiravir on day 0-4. Treatment was ignored if a clone started treatment on the same day as an outcome or if a censoring event occurred (non-COVID-related death or GP deregistration). To adjust for the potential selection bias induced by this artificial censoring, inverse probability of censoring weights were used to up-weight uncensored patients to represent artificially censored patients (weighting step).

In the untreated arm, we used pooled logistic regression (PLR) to estimate the probabilities of remaining uncensored at each day of the grace period, conditional on baseline covariates. In the treated arm, we used logistic regression to estimate the probability of remaining uncensored on day 4, conditional on baseline covariates. These models were fitted separately in the two emulated treatment arms to allow for possible treatment-covariate interactions.14, 15 The performance of the weights was checked by comparing standardised mean differences (SMD) between treatment groups on each day up to day 5, considering differences below 10% to indicate good balance.15

Following clinical input, the following baseline covariates were included in the censoring models: age (using natural splines with 3 degrees of freedom), sex, region, ethnicity (grouped in 6 categories: Black, Mixed, South Asian, White, Other, Unknown), Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, derived from patient postcode and grouped by quintile), rurality, smoking status, the individual high-risk groups, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obesity (BMI of 30 kg/m2 or more), dialysis, severe mental illness (psychosis, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder), learning disabilities including Down’s syndrome, dementia, autism, care home status, housebound status, diabetes, vaccination status (grouped in 5 categories: unvaccinated, unvaccinated (declined), one vaccination, two vaccinations, three or more vaccinations), type of most recent vaccination (grouped in 3 categories: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna) and calendar time (using natural splines with 3 degrees of freedom). Missing data on obesity and ethnicity were addressed using a missing category approach; this is valid under the assumption that values for these variables only contribute to the treatment decision when measured.21

After the cloning-censoring-weighting, we used weighted Cox regression models to estimate 28-day hazard ratios (HR). Additionally, Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate differences in 28-day survival.15, 22 Robust standard errors were applied to obtain confidence intervals. We used inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis to pool log HRs across the BA.1 and BA.2 periods.23

To describe baseline demographic and clinical characteristics across treatment groups, we subdivided the study population into three groups based on the occurrence of events (outcome or censoring events) or initiation of treatment within 5 days. Due to people with early events being included in both treated and untreated arms through the clone-censor weight approach these groups are an approximation of the compared study arms. The ‘untreated or early event’ group consists of all individuals who did not receive treatment within 5 days including those who were censored or had an outcome without treatment. The ‘treated’ groups include all individuals who were treated with molnupiravir or sotrovimab within 5 days, and have not experienced an event before or on the day of treatment.

#### Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses

Since nMAb and antivirals may have particular benefits for patients with haematological disease and solid organ transplants, who may have inadequate antibody responses we performed pre-specified analyses restricted to these subgroups. In sensitivity analyses, we compared the estimated inverse probability of censoring weights obtained using Cox models in both arms. We investigated the possible influence of extreme weights by truncating at the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles of the weights distribution. We studied the influence of the treatment window by estimating effects of treatment within 4 and 3 days compared with no treatment. Additionally, given the potential for unmeasured confounding, we applied quantitative bias analysis to obtain bias-adjusted HRs for unmeasured theoretical binary confounders representing symptomatic or unresolved COVID-19 status and degree of immunosuppression (full details in Supplementary Methods pp2-3).24

### Disclosure control

In compliance with re-identification minimisation requirements for statistical outputs from OpenSAFELY’s Trusted Research Environment, we rounded any reported counts to the nearest six and non-zero patient counts of eight or lower were redacted.

### Software and Reproducibility

Data management was performed using Python [version 3.8.10], with analysis carried out using R [version 4.0.5]. Code for data management and analysis, as well as codelists, are openly available for inspection and re-use under MIT open license online at: [https://github.com/opensafely/mab-av-non-users/tree/ccw-analysis](https://github.com/opensafely/mab-av-non-users/tree/ccw-analysis). The pre-specified protocol is available at: [https://github.com/opensafely/mab-av-non-users/tree/main/docs](https://github.com/opensafely/mab-av-non-users/tree/main/docs).

### Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE)

through which we invite any patient or member of the public to make contact regarding this study or the broader OpenSAFELY project through our website [https://opensafely.org/](https://opensafely.org/).

### Ethical approval

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).

### Role of funding source

The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation of data, or writing of the report.

## Results

### Patient characteristics

Of 33,017,670 people registered at an OpenSAFELY GP practice using TPP software, 19,532,300 were aged between 18 and 110 years and had complete demographic information.25 Among this population, 35,856 and 39,192 patients were in high-risk groups and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the BA.1 and BA.2 periods, respectively (Figure 1).

During the BA.1 period 1,830 and 2,244 patients were treated with molnupiravir and sotrovimab respectively, within 5 days of recorded infection. Corresponding numbers in the BA.2 period were 1,242 and 4,164 patients respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated with molnupiravir and sotrovimab and those untreated or with early events are presented in Table 2. During the BA.1 period, demographic features were broadly similar in the two treated groups and the untreated or early event group although, compared with treated patients, untreated or early event patients had higher levels of deprivation (most deprived fifth, 21.2% vs 14.4% sotrovimab and 13.1% molnupiravir) and smoking (12.9% vs 7.5% sotrovimab and 9.5% molnupiravir). Furthermore, the untreated or early event group had a lower proportion of patients with three or more vaccinations (76.7% vs 88.5% sotrovimab vs 87.5% molnupiravir) and solid organ transplant (6.3% vs 17.6% sotrovimab vs 12.5% molnupiravir) compared to treated patients. Similar differences were observed during the BA.2 period. However, the characteristics of molnupiravir users differed in the BA.2 period (where this therapy was a third-line treatment) compared to the BA.1 period: a higher proportion were over 80 years old (13.0% vs 5.6%), in a care home (4.8% vs 1.6%), housebound (3.9% vs 2.3%) and had chronic cardiac disease (21.3% vs 12.5%).

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/T2)

Table 2: Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, treated or untreated or early event, within 5 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 infection in the BA.1 and BA.2 period.
All patient counts are rounded to the nearest six and patient counts of eight or lower are redacted; as a result percentages may not add up to 100%.

During the BA.1 period, 3.4% (1,218/35,856) of patients experienced a COVID-19-related death or hospitalisation within 28 days, including 14% (174/1,218) COVID-19-related deaths. In the BA.2 period, 3.0% (1,194/39,192) of patients experienced a COVID-19-related death or hospitalisation within 28 days (17% (204/1,194) COVID-19-related deaths) (Table 3).

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/T3)

Table 3: Estimated 28 day COVID-19 hospitalisation or death outcomes comparing treatment with untreated in the main analysis and for patients with haematological disease or active solid organ transplants.
All patient counts are rounded to the nearest six and patient counts of eight or lower are redacted.

Full breakdown of outcomes counted across the cloned treatment arms in our CCW analysis is presented in Figure 2. In the BA.1 period, a copy was created of 35,856 individuals and each of these individuals started follow-up in both treatment arms. In the control arm, 4,074 individuals were artificially censored because they initiated treatment within 5 days; in the treatment arm, 31,056 individuals were artificially censored because they did not initiate treatment within 5 days. In total, 678 individuals experienced an outcome within 5 days without treatment and were therefore included in both arms; 474 individuals experienced an outcome after 5 days without treatment and were counted in the control arm; 66 individuals experienced an outcome after treatment and were counted in the treatment arm. In the BA.2 period, a copy was created of 39,192 individuals; 5,406 individuals were artificially censored in the control arm; 32,982 individuals were artificially censored in the treatment arm. In total, 738 individuals experienced an outcome within 5 days without treatment and were included in both arms; 366 outcomes were experienced after 5 days without treatment and included in the control arm; and 84 outcomes were experienced after treatment and included in the treatment arm.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F2)

Figure 2: Schematic representation of data flow and breakdown of events in the clone-censor-weight analysis in the BA.1 and BA.2 study period

### Effectiveness of monulpravir and sotrovimab in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death

The adjusted HRs for 28-day COVID-19 hospitalisation and death comparing those treated with either therapy versus untreated was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.07) in the BA.1 period and 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.13) in the BA.2 period (Table 3). When stratifying by drug, the HRs for molnupiravir versus untreated were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1.22) and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.56) in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods respectively. The HRs for sotrovimab versus untreated were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.89) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.06) in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods respectively. For this comparison, the estimated differences in survival at 28 days were 9 per thousand (95% CI 4 to 13) and 3 per thousand (95% CI -2 to 7) in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods, respectively (Table 3, Figure 3). After combining the BA.1 and BA.2 periods using inverse-variance weighted meta analysis, the HRs were 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27) for molnupiravir versus untreated and 0.84 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.93) for sotrovimab versus untreated.

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F3)

Figure 3: Weighted Kaplan-Meiers estimates of cumulative incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods

### Subgroup Analyses

Analyses restricting separately to patients with haematological disease or active solid organ transplants are presented in Table 3. In the haematological disease subgroup, 16% (528/3,372) and 21% (786/3,684) of individuals were treated in the BA.1 and BA.2 period, respectively. In the solid organ transplant group, 24% (624/2,628) and 34% (966/2,838) of individuals were treated in the BA.1 and BA.2 period, respectively. As a consequence of the relatively small numbers, balance in baseline characteristics at day 5 was suboptimal as evidenced by SMDs, leading to increased uncertainty in the subgroup estimates (Supplementary Figures S9-S20). The pattern of results was broadly similar to the main analysis and we found no consistent signal of a difference between the results of the main analysis and the subgroup analysis.

### Sensitivity Analyses

The results of sensitivity analyses estimating inverse probability of censoring weights using a Cox model and truncating extreme weights at the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles of the weights distribution were consistent with those from the main analyses (Supplementary Table S1 and Table S2). However, there were greater imbalances in the covariates from weights obtained using Cox models; SMDs for both approaches are presented in Supplementary Figures S3-S8.

The analyses comparing treatment within three or four days reduced the number of outcomes included in both arms but increased the number of people followed up in the control arm who were treated subsequent to the specified treatment window (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2). In our primary analysis using a treatment window of 5 days, the number of outcomes included in both arms was 678 [BA.1] and 738 [BA.2], which was reduced to 600 [BA.1] and 696 [BA.2] for the 4 day treatment period analysis and 480 [BA.1] and 630 [BA.2] for the 3 day treatment period analysis. The number of people followed up in the control arm in our primary analysis was 31,056 [BA.1] and 32,982 [BA.2] and increased to 31,704 [BA.1] and 33,534 [BA.2] for the 4 day treatment period and 33,060 [BA.1] and 34,692 [BA.2] for the 3 day treatment period. The HRs from these analyses tended towards more protective associations than the primary analysis (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.67;0.91) [four days] and 0.64 (95% CI 0.53;0.79) [three days] in the BA.1 period and 0.94 (95%CI 0.82;1.08) [four days] and 0.87 (95% CI 0.75;1.02) [three days] in the BA.2 period), with the exception of molnupiravir in the BA.2 period which remained null (HR 1.16 (95%CI 0.88;1.51) [four days] and 1.14 (95%CI 0.83;1.57) [three days]) (Table S3).

Bias-adjusted HRs investigating the impact of binary unmeasured confounders representing unresolved/symptomatic COVID-19 status (those with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 would be more likely both to be treated and to experience an outcome) and less severe immunosuppressive conditions (less immunosuppressed patients would be less likely both to be treated and to experience an outcome) are presented in Figure 4A and Figure 4B. Changes to the results under these hypothesised scenarios suggested, under the assumption there were no other key unmeasured confounders, that the observed results were likely an underestimate of treatment effectiveness.

![Figure 4A:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4A:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F4)

Figure 4A: Quantitative bias analysis investigating the impact of a binary unmeasured confounder representing unresolved/symptomatic COVID-19 status on the estimated 28 day COVID-19 hospitalisation or death (composite outcome) hazard ratios separately in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods.
Prevalence of the confounder in the untreated group was kept constant at 0.65; prevalence in the treated group was varied (0.70, 0.85, 0.90, x-axis); and the effect of the confounder on the outcome on the hazard ratio scale was varied (1.20 (green), 1.50 (blue), 2.50 (purple)). Abbreviations: HR; hazard ratio; Pr; prevalence in the treated.

![Figure 4B:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 4B:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/16/2023.05.12.23289914/F5)

Figure 4B: Quantitative bias analysis investigating the impact of a binary unmeasured confounder representing degree of immunosuppression on the estimated 28 day COVID-19 hospitalisation or death (composite outcome) hazard ratios separately in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods.
Prevalence of the confounder in the treated group was kept constant at 0.1; prevalence in the untreated group was varied (0.15, 0.30, 0.50, x-axis); and the effect of the confounder on the outcome on the hazard ratio scale was varied (0.70 (green), 0.50 (blue), 0.50 (purple)). Abbreviations: HR; hazard ratio; Pr; prevalence in the untreated.

## Discussion

### Principal findings

Using the OpenSAFELY platform we emulated target trials to estimate the effectiveness of treatment with sotrovimab or molnupiravir, compared to no treatment, across periods during which the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages were dominant in England. In patients identified as high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the percentage of individuals experiencing hospitalisation or death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was low (3.4% and 3.0% in the BA.1 and BA.2 periods, respectively). Sotrovimab was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, although evidence of benefit was weaker in the BA.2 period compared to the BA.1 period. There was no evidence of benefit from treatment with molnupiravir in either period. Results in subgroups of patients with haematological disease and active solid organ transplants, and results of sensitivity analyses, were broadly consistent with those from the main analysis.

### Strengths and weaknesses of the study

This study draws on detailed, linked healthcare data across England where treatment was available to all eligible patients, free at the point of use. These data enabled us to assess effectiveness of treatments in a vaccinated population, during periods of dominance of different omicron variants. By explicitly emulating target trials and use of the clone-censor-weight approach, we were able to mitigate immortal time bias due to patients initiating treatment at different times within five days after SARS-CoV-2 positive test.

Our study has several limitations. Most importantly, whilst we were able to account for many baseline characteristics of the treatment groups, residual confounding is likely in comparisons between those who received treatment and those who did not. We used codelists based on those used to identify patients eligible for treatment by NHS England.3 However, a service evaluation in four regions across England highlighted that the most common reason for being ineligible on assessment by a CMDU was not being in an at-risk clinical group.16 Therefore, while the treated population in our study was highly likely to be both in a high-risk group, and have symptomatic COVID-19 upon receiving treatment, people in the untreated group may have been misclassified as eligible or had resolving/no COVID-19 symptoms and, as a consequence, be at lower risk of adverse outcomes than the treated group. Importantly, this source of confounding favours the untreated group being at lower risk of severe outcomes, which would imply that our results may underestimate treatment benefit. We quantified the impact of this using quantitative bias analysis. In addition, characteristics such as immobility and frailty are not well captured in routine data. From our descriptive analyses, molnupiravir was more frequently used in patients who could have found travelling for an intravenous infusion difficult, for example those in care-homes, which may suggest poorer health status among those treated with molnupiravir and further potential for residual confounding.

The degree of baseline confounding is also likely to have changed across the two studied time periods. Changes in NHSE guidelines resulted in molnupiravir moving to third-line and the introduction of Paxlovid in the BA.2 period. This impacted the characteristics of patients receiving these medications over time, with sotrovimab and molnupiravir increasingly prescribed to patients with contraindications or strong cautions for use of Paxlovid, for example, in patients with advanced kidney disease or using some immunosuppressive drugs. A larger percentage of individuals were treated in the BA.2 period when CMDUs were well established compared to the BA.1 period (16% versus 13%), which might indicate that a lower percentage of untreated patients in the BA.2 period were at high risk of experiencing adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Further, we cannot rule out residual confounding caused by time-varying confounders (after baseline). There was no data on the progression or severity of COVID-19 symptoms within five days after SARS-CoV-2 positive test to enable adjustment for such characteristics, for example, spontaneous symptom resolution at the point of CMDU triage. For this reason, untreated patients were likely at lower risk of hospitalisation.

Under the clone-censor-weight approach, to mitigate immortal time bias, outcomes experienced within 5 days of treatment were counted in both arms of our emulated trial, under the assumption that individuals could have been treated had they not experienced the outcome. However, the majority of the outcomes in our study were experienced within the first 5 days, meaning that patients who were never treated, but who had the outcome within 5 days were influential in the analysis. To investigate the sensitivity of our findings to the choice of a five day period we explored the impact of comparing treatment within four and three days with no treatment. In these analyses, fewer outcomes were included in both treatment arms but a greater number in the group assigned to no treatment were treated after the specified treatment window. The estimated benefit of treatment was generally greater for both treatments in these analyses.

### Findings in context

These results are consistent with those from the Panoramic trial which found molnupiravir to be ineffective for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes.26 In vitro evidence shows conflicting results about the efficacy of sotrovimab against SARS-CoV-2 variants:27 specifically, there was concern it was less effective against the BA.2 variant. Previous observational studies found that, compared to untreated patients, sotrovimab was associated with a reduction in hospitalisation or death,28–30 while other observational studies suggested no evidence for a protective effect of sotrovimab in periods of Omicron dominance.31, 32 These studies may have been impacted by immortal time bias and low power. For molnupiravir, emulated target trials using data from US veterans showed conflicting results: one study suggested a reduction of hospital admission or death33 while another did not.34 In these emulated target trials, 90% of participants were male and results might therefore not be generalizable to our population.

### Policy and Research implications

Recommendations regarding use of sotrovimab vary globally. In the UK, NICE recommends use of sotrovimab (but not molnupiravir) for patients who have contraindications to Paxlovid treatment.35 However, the World Health Organisation recommends against the use of sotrovimab and in the US authorisation was withdrawn in April 2022 due to concerns about its efficacy.36, 37 Evaluation of COVID-19 therapies is challenging due to the rapid evolution of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains, more rapid than the timeframe of standard clinical trials.27 This work highlights the potential for platforms such as OpenSAFELY which facilitate secure privacy-protecting analyses of detailed linked electronic health record data at population scale to conduct pharmacoepidemiology studies in a timely fashion to inform regulatory and treatment guideline decision making. In the future, studies using real-world data could be further improved through better alignment of data collection with the information and code necessary to rapidly and robustly implement appropriate analyses.

## Conclusion

Outpatient treatment for COVID-19 with sotrovimab, compared to no treatment, was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 infection in the BA.1 period, but there was weaker evidence of benefit in the BA2 period. We found no evidence of benefit for molnupiravir. The most plausible sources of unmeasured confounding would lead to underestimation of treatment benefit. Reassuringly, absolute rates of severe outcomes were low across all high risk patients.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Materials [[supplements/289914_file03.pdf]](pending: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 (GP) 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.

[https://github.com/OpenSAFELY](https://github.com/OpenSAFELY) 

## Administrative

## Authors’ contributors

The study was conceptualised by LAT, IJD, JACS, JT, LN, BZ, SJWE, BG and BMK; data was curated by LN, JT, BZ, ACAG, HJC, RH, RMS, CB, JC, JP, FH and SH; and formally analysed by LN and JT; funding was acquired by BG; the investigation was done by LN and JT; to the methodology was contributed by JT, LN, JACS, LAT, IJD, BZ, WJH, AS, CM, C; project administration was done by JT, LN, AJW, BMK, LAT and IJD; resources were provided by AM, AJW, BG, BMK and LAT; software was developed by LN, JT, ACAG, HJC, RH and RMS; the project was supervised by IJD and LAT; the study was validated by JT, LN, BZ, WJH, ACAG, HJC and RH; the results were visualised by JT and LN; the original draft was written by JT, LN and LAT; all authors were involved in draft revisions and approving the final draft for submission; all authors had full access to the OpenSAFELY platform and accept responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science developers and principal investigators (WJH, RMS, AJW and BG) 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 (LN and JT) without direct access to the underlying raw pseudonymised patient data, and to review the outputs of this code; CB, RC, JP, FH, SH, had full unrestricted access to all data underlying the study.

## Funding

This research used data assets made available as part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC\_PC_20058). This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the UKRI [MC_PC_20058] and the Wellcome Trust [222097/Z/20/Z]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. In addition, the OpenSAFELY Platform is supported by grants from MRC (MR/V015757/1, MC_PC-20059, MR/W016729/1); NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000, 2021.0157). CL was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (Skills Development Fellowship MR/T032448/1). 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.

## Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at [http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/](http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/) and declare: BG has received research funding to the Bennett Institute from the Bennett Foundation (ongoing), the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (past), the NIHR (ongoing), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research (past), the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (past), the Mohn-Westlake Foundation (ongoing), NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley (ongoing), the Wellcome Trust (ongoing), the Good Thinking Foundation (ongoing), Health Data Research UK (past), the Health Foundation (past), the World Health Organization (past), UKRI (ongoing), Asthma UK (past), the British Lung Foundation (past), and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (ongoing); he has been a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital (past); 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 GSK. JT and AS are employed at LSHTM through an unrestricted research grant from GSK. CL is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (Skills Development Fellowship MR/T032448/1). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Data sharing

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 (GP) 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.

## Information governance

NHS England is the data controller for OpenSAFELY-TPP; TPP is the data processor; all study authors using OpenSAFELY have the approval of NHS England. This implementation of OpenSAFELY is hosted within the TPP environment which is accredited to the ISO 27001 information security standard and is NHS IG Toolkit compliant.38

Patient data has been pseudonymised for analysis and linkage using industry standard cryptographic hashing techniques; all pseudonymised datasets transmitted for linkage onto OpenSAFELY are encrypted; access to the platform is via a virtual private network (VPN) connection, restricted to a small group of researchers; the researchers hold contracts with NHS England and only access the platform to initiate database queries and statistical models; all database activity is logged; only aggregate statistical outputs leave the platform environment following best practice for anonymisation of results such as statistical disclosure control for low cell counts.39

The OpenSAFELY research platform adheres to the obligations of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. In March 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care used powers under the UK Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (COPI) to require organisations to process confidential patient information for the purposes of protecting public health, providing healthcare services to the public and monitoring and managing the COVID-19 outbreak and incidents of exposure; this sets aside the requirement for patient consent.40 This was extended in July 2022 for the NHS England OpenSAFELY COVID-19 research platform.41 In some cases of data sharing, the common law duty of confidence is met using, for example, patient consent or support from the Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group.42

Taken together, these provide the legal bases to link patient datasets on the OpenSAFELY platform. GP practices, from which the primary care data are obtained, are required to share relevant health information to support the public health response to the pandemic, and have been informed of the OpenSAFELY analytics platform.

## Transparency statement

The lead authors affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

## Copyright/license for publication

A CC BY licence is required. The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above.

## Acknowledgements

We are very grateful for all the support received from the TPP Technical Operations team throughout this work, and for generous assistance from the information governance and database teams at NHS England and the NHS England Transformation Directorate.

## Footnotes

*   * These authors contributed equally to this manuscript

*   Received May 12, 2023.
*   Revision received May 12, 2023.
*   Accepted May 16, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Department of Health and Social Care. UK’s most vulnerable people to receive life-saving COVID-19 treatments in the community. GOV.UK. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-most-vulnerable-people-to-receive-life-saving-covid-19-treatments-in-the-community](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-most-vulnerable-people-to-receive-life-saving-covid-19-treatments-in-the-community)
    
    

2.  2.Lamontagne F, Agarwal A, Rochwerg B, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m3379. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3379
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNzAvc2VwMDRfMTEvbTMzNzkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNS8xNi8yMDIzLjA1LjEyLjIzMjg5OTE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

3.  3.Green ACA, Curtis HJ, Higgins R, et al. Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY. BMJ Med. 2023;2(1). doi:10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000276
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiYm1qbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIyLzEvZTAwMDI3NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA1LzE2LzIwMjMuMDUuMTIuMjMyODk5MTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

4.  4.Gupta A, Gonzalez-Rojas Y, Juarez E, et al. Early Treatment for Covid-19 with SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(21):1941–1950. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107934
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2107934&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34706189&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

5.  5.Jayk Bernal A, Gomes da Silva MM, Musungaie DB, et al. Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):509–520. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2116044
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2116044&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34914868&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

6.  6.Brophy JM. Molnupiravir’s authorisation was premature. BMJ. 2022;376:o443. doi:10.1136/bmj.o443
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNzYvbWFyMDNfMy9vNDQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDUvMTYvMjAyMy4wNS4xMi4yMzI4OTkxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

7.  7.Lund JL, Richardson DB, Stürmer T. The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015;2(4):221–228. doi:10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26954351&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

8.  8.Stürmer T, Wang T, Golightly YM, Keil A, Lund JL, Jonsson Funk M. Methodological considerations when analysing and interpreting real-world data. Rheumatol Oxf Engl. 2020;59(1):14–25. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kez320
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/rheumatology/kez320&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

9.  9.Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):323–337. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15862718&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228055200001&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Stürmer T, et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med Care. 2007;45(10 Supl 2):S131–142. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318070c08e
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.mlr.0000244636.54588.2b&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17909372&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

11. 11.Suissa S. Immortal Time Bias in Pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(4):492–499. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm324
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwm324&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18056625&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000253246200016&link_type=ISI) 

12. 12.Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758–764. doi:10.1093/aje/kwv254
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwv254&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26994063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

13. 13.Hernán MA, Sauer BC, Hernández-Díaz S, Platt R, Shrier I. Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:70–75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27237061&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

14. 14.Hernán MA. How to estimate the effect of treatment duration on survival outcomes using observational data. BMJ. 2018;360:k182. doi:10.1136/bmj.k182
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjAvZmViMDFfMTcvazE4MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA1LzE2LzIwMjMuMDUuMTIuMjMyODk5MTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

15. 15.Maringe C, Benitez Majano S, Exarchakou A, et al. Reflection on modern methods: trial emulation in the presence of immortal-time bias. Assessing the benefit of major surgery for elderly lung cancer patients using observational data. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(5):1719–1729. doi:10.1093/ije/dyaa057
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/dyaa057&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32386426&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

16. 16.Brown M, Saund J, Qureshi A, et al. Demographics and Outcomes of Initial Phase of COVID-19 Medicines Delivery Units Across 4 UK Centers During Peak B1.1.529 Omicron Epidemic: A Service Evaluation. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(10):ofac527. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac527
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ofid/ofac527&link_type=DOI) 

17. 17.Wellcome Sanger Institute. Lineages (raw) | COVID-19 Genomic Surveillance. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://covid19.sanger.ac.uk/lineages/raw](https://covid19.sanger.ac.uk/lineages/raw)
    
    

18. 18.NHS England. Coronavirus » Interim clinical commissioning policy: Treatments for non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/interim-clinical-commissioning-policy-neutralising-monoclonal-antibodies-or-antivirals-for-non-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/interim-clinical-commissioning-policy-neutralising-monoclonal-antibodies-or-antivirals-for-non-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19/)
    
    

19. 19.Department of Health and Social Care. Higher-risk patients eligible for COVID-19 treatments: independent advisory group report. GOV.UK. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-risk-patients-eligible-for-covid-19-treatments-independent-advisory-group-report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-risk-patients-eligible-for-covid-19-treatments-independent-advisory-group-report)
    
    

20. 20.Zheng 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
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE5OiIzNzkvbm92MTZfOS9lMDcxOTMyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDUvMTYvMjAyMy4wNS4xMi4yMzI4OTkxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

21. 21.Blake HA, Leyrat C, Mansfield KE, et al. Propensity scores using missingness pattern information: a practical guide. Stat Med. 2020;39(11):1641–1657. doi:10.1002/sim.8503
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.8503&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32103533&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

22. 22.Hernán MA. The Hazards of Hazard Ratios. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2010;21(1):13–15. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20010207&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000272872900005&link_type=ISI) 

23. 23.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111. doi:10.1002/jrsm.12
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/jrsm.12&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26061376&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

24. 24.VanderWeele TJ. Unmeasured confounding and hazard scales: sensitivity analysis for total, direct, and indirect effects. Eur J Epidemiol. 2013;28(2):113–117. doi:10.1007/s10654-013-9770-6
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10654-013-9770-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23371044&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

25. 25.Nab L, Parker EPK, Andrews CD, et al. Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups in England from 2020 to 2022: a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(5):e364–e377. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00079-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00079-8&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Butler CC, Hobbs FDR, Gbinigie OA, et al. Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2023;401(10373):281–293. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02597-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02597-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36566761&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2F2023.05.12.23289914.atom) 

27. 27.Wu MY, Carr EJ, Harvey R, et al. WHO’s Therapeutics and COVID-19 Living Guideline on mAbs needs to be reassessed. The Lancet. 2022;400(10369):2193–2196. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01938-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01938-9&link_type=DOI) 

28. 28.Cheng 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(2):607–621. doi:10.1007/s40121-022-00755-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40121-022-00755-0&link_type=DOI) 

29. 29.Aggarwal NR, Beaty LE, Bennett TD, et al. Real-World Evidence of the Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Sotrovimab for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality in COVID-19 Outpatients. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(12):2129–2136. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiac206
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiac206&link_type=DOI) 

30. 30.Piccicacco N, Zeitler K, Ing A, et al. Real-world effectiveness of early remdesivir and sotrovimab in the highest-risk COVID-19 outpatients during the Omicron surge. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77(10):2693–2700. doi:10.1093/jac/dkac256
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkac256&link_type=DOI) 

31. 31.Zaqout A, Almaslamani MA, Chemaitelly H, et al. Effectiveness of the neutralizing antibody sotrovimab among high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 in Qatar. Int J Infect Dis IJID Off Publ Int Soc Infect Dis. 2022;124:96–103. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.09.023
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2022.09.023&link_type=DOI) 

32. 32.Aggarwal NR, Beaty LE, Bennett TD, et al. Change in effectiveness of sotrovimab for preventing hospitalization and mortality for at-risk COVID-19 outpatients during an Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1-predominant phase. Int J Infect Dis IJID Off Publ Int Soc Infect Dis. 2023;128:310–317. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.10.002
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2022.10.002&link_type=DOI) 

33. 33.Xie Y, Bowe B, Al-Aly Z. Molnupiravir and risk of hospital admission or death in adults with covid-19: emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records. BMJ. 2023;380:e072705. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-072705
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE5OiIzODAvbWFyMDdfNC9lMDcyNzA1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDUvMTYvMjAyMy4wNS4xMi4yMzI4OTkxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

34. 34.Bajema KL, Berry K, Streja E, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir among U.S. Veterans: target trial emulation studies with one-month and six-month outcomes. MedRxiv Prepr Serv Health Sci. Published online December 16, 2022:2022.12.05.22283134. doi:10.1101/2022.12.05.22283134
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMi4xMi4wNS4yMjI4MzEzNHYyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDUvMTYvMjAyMy4wNS4xMi4yMzI4OTkxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

35. 35.NICE. NICE recommends 3 treatments for COVID-19 in final draft guidance. Published February 21, 2023. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-recommends-3-treatments-for-covid-19-in-final-draft-guidance](https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-recommends-3-treatments-for-covid-19-in-final-draft-guidance)
    
    

36. 36.WHO. Therapeutics and COVID-19: Living guideline, 13 January 2023. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2023.1](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2023.1)
    
    

37. 37.FDA. FDA updates Sotrovimab emergency use authorization. FDA. Published online April 5, 2022. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-sotrovimab-emergency-use-authorization](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-sotrovimab-emergency-use-authorization)
    
    

38. 38.NHS Digital. Data Security and Protection Toolkit. Accessed April 6, 2023. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/looking-after-information/data-security-and-information-governance/data-security-and-protection-toolkit](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/looking-after-information/data-security-and-information-governance/data-security-and-protection-toolkit)
    
    

39. 39.NHS Digital. ISB1523: Anonymisation Standard for Publishing Health and Social Care Data. Accessed April 6, 2023. [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/information-standards/information-standards-and-data-collections-including-extractions/publications-and-notifications/standards-and-collections/isb1523-anonymisation-standard-for-publishing-health-and-social-care-data](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/information-standards/information-standards-and-data-collections-including-extractions/publications-and-notifications/standards-and-collections/isb1523-anonymisation-standard-for-publishing-health-and-social-care-data)
    
    

40. 40.Secretary of State for Health and Social Care - UK Government. COVID-19: notification to GPs and NHS England to share information - GOV.UK. Published 2020. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-notification-to-organisations-to-share-information/coronavirus-covid-19-notice-under-regulation-34-of-the-health-service-control-of-patient-information-regulations-2002](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-notification-to-organisations-to-share-information/coronavirus-covid-19-notice-under-regulation-34-of-the-health-service-control-of-patient-information-regulations-2002)
    
    

41. 41.Secretary of State for Health and Social Care - UK Government. COVID-19: notification to GPs and NHS England to share information. Accessed April 19, 2023. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-notification-to-gps-and-nhs-england-to-share-information](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-notification-to-gps-and-nhs-england-to-share-information)
    
    

42. 42.Health Research Authority. Confidentiality Advisory Group. Accessed April 6, 2023. [https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/confidentiality-advisory-group/](https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/confidentiality-advisory-group/)