Search

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R treatment and similar untreated individuals., Methods: We identified symptomatic participants who tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study. Index cases from ambulatory settings and their households contacts were enrolled. We collected daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative polymerase chain reaction for 10 days during March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R treatment (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R treatment completion or 7 days after symptom onset if untreated., Results: Treated (n = 130) and untreated participants (n = 241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; P = .009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; P < .001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; P = .5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; P = .7)., Conclusions: Individuals who completed N/R treatment experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but rebound occured more often compared with untreated individuals. Providers should prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate rebound risk to patients., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. R. reports grant support from BioFire. H. Q. M. reports grant/research support from CSL Sequiris and CSK. J. G. P. reports serving as a former consultant for CSL Seqirus and receipt of grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CSL Seqirus. E. A. reports serving as a former consultant for Hillevax and Moderna, presenting a Merck-supported lecture at the Latin American Vaccine Summit, and receipt of grant/research support from Pfizer for pneumococcal pneumonia studies. C. G. G. reports being a former advisor to Merck, participation on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board for Merck, and receipt of grant/research support from AHRQ, CDC, US Food and Drug Administration, NIH, and Syneos Health. N. M.B. reports grant/contracts from NIH to the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and North Carolina Collaboratory; participation on a DSMB or advisory board for the Snowball Study Technical Interchange; a leadership or fiduciary role on the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Scientific Committee; and other financial or nonfinancial interests with the COVID-19 Equity Evidence Academy (RADx-UP CDCC) Steering Committee and North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education Research Center. S. H. M. reports grants/contracts from NIH, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. E. A. B. reports research support to the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute from the CDC. E. S. reports grants or contracts to institution from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (originating at CDC #75D30121C11656). S. G. reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for Infectious Disease Week 2022 and 2023. K. G. M., L. M., S. B.-W., and V. O. report funding to Westat via the CDC (contract 75D30121C11571). M. S. S. reports a leadership role as Associate Director of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS), paid to Trustees of Columbia University. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

As population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 evolves and new variants emerge, the role and accuracy of antigen tests remain active questions. To describe recent test performance, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen testing was compared with that by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture testing during November 2022-May 2023. Participants who were enrolled in a household transmission study completed daily symptom diaries and collected two nasal swabs (tested for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, culture, and antigen tests) each day for 10 days after enrollment. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the percentages of positive antigen, RT-PCR, and culture results were calculated each day from the onset of symptoms or, in asymptomatic persons, from the date of the first positive test result. Antigen test sensitivity was calculated using RT-PCR and viral culture as references. The peak percentage of positive antigen (59.0%) and RT-PCR (83.0%) results occurred 3 days after onset, and the peak percentage of positive culture results (52%) occurred 2 days after onset. The sensitivity of antigen tests was 47% (95% CI = 44%-50%) and 80% (95% CI = 76%-85%) using RT-PCR and culture, respectively, as references. Clinicians should be aware of the lower sensitivity of antigen testing compared with RT-PCR, which might lead to false-negative results. This finding has implications for timely initiation of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatment, when early diagnosis is essential; clinicians should consider RT-PCR for persons for whom antiviral treatment is recommended. Persons in the community who are at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness and eligible for antiviral treatment should seek testing from health care providers with the goal of obtaining a more sensitive diagnostic test than antigen tests (i.e., an RT-PCR test)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Edwin J. Asturias reports grant support from Pfizer, consulting fees from Hillevax and Moderna, and payment from Merck for a lecture delivered at the Latin American Vaccine Summit. Carlos G. Grijalva reports support from the Food and Drug Administration and grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Syneos Health. Son H. McLaren reports institutional support from the Respiratory Virus Transmission Network, receipt of the Ken Graff Young Investigator Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Emergency Medicine, institutional support from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinician-Scientists. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from Biofire. Melissa S. Stockwell reports institutional support from the University of Washington, Boston Children’s Hospital, Westat, and New York University, and service as the Associate Director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings Research Network (payment to the trustees of Columbia University). Huong Q. Nguyen reports research support from CSL Seqirus, GSK, and ModernaTX, and an honorarium from ModernaTX for participating in a consultancy group, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

We used daily real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results from 67 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a household transmission study, conducted April 2020-May 2021, to examine the trajectory of cycle threshold (Ct) values, an inverse correlate of viral RNA concentration. Ct values varied across RT-PCR platforms and by participant age. Specimens collected from children and adolescents had higher Ct values and adults aged ≥50 years showed lower Ct values than adults aged 18-49 years. Ct values were lower on days when participants reported experiencing symptoms, with the lowest Ct value occurring 2-6 days after symptom onset., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. C. G. G. reports grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and consultation fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur. N. B. H. reports grant support from Sanofi-Pasteur and Quidel. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)