Abstract
Introduction The uptake of Paxlovid in individuals infected with COVID-19 has been significantly limited by concerns around the Paxlovid rebound phenomenon despite the scarcity of evidence around its epidemiology. The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the epidemiology of Paxlovid rebound in treated and untreated participants with acute COVID-19 infection
Methods We designed a decentralized, digital, prospective observational study in which participants who tested positive for COVID-19 using eMed Test-to-Treat telehealth kits and were clinically eligible for Paxlovid were recruited to be evaluated for viral and symptom clearance, as well as rebound. Participants were assigned to a Paxlovid or control group based on their decision to take Paxlovid. Following initial diagnosis based on a telehealth proctored test both groups were provided 12 telehealth proctored rapid antigen home tests and asked to test on a regular frequent schedule for 16 days and answer symptom surveys. Viral rebound based on test results and COVID-19 symptom rebound based on patient reported symptoms were evaluated.
Results Viral rebound incidence was 14.2% in the Paxlovid group (n=127) and 9.3% in the control group (n=43). COVID-19 symptom rebound incidence was higher in the Paxlovid group (18.9%) compared to the control group (7.0%). There were no notable differences in viral rebound by age, gender, pre-existing conditions, or major symptom groups during the acute phase or at the 1-month interval.
Conclusion This preliminary report of our prospective study suggests that rebound after clearance of test positivity or symptom resolution is higher than previously reported. However, we observed a similar rate of rebound in both in the Paxlovid and control groups. Large studies with diverse participants and extended follow-up are needed to better understand the rebound phenomena.
Competing Interest Statement
MJM is Chief Science Officer of eMed, he is on the board of directors of Quantum-SI, a protein sequencing company, is on the scientific advisory board for ImmuneID, a company that develops immunological tools, and serves on the medical advisory board for 4 Catalyzer. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by eMed.
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:
All individuals participating in the study provided informed consent electronically. The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the Scripps Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (IRB-22-7978).
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
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
2
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
31
Blogs/Media
Author Videos