This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for intra-household post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. METHODS: MOVe-AHEAD was a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) with placebo. Eligible participants were adult, unvaccinated, asymptomatic household contacts of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of COVID-19 through day 14 in modified intention-to-treat (MITT) participants (those who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) without detectable SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, termed the MITT-VN population. Superiority of molnupiravir was prespecified as a stratified one-sided p-value of <0.0249 for the treatment difference in this endpoint. RESULTS: The MITT population comprised 763 participants randomized to molnupiravir and 764 to placebo; 83.6% had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline. In the MITT-VN population, COVID-19 rates through day 14 were 6.5% with molnupiravir and 8.5% with placebo (one-sided p-value: 0.0848). In the molnupiravir arm, 25/35 of confirmed COVID-19 events (71.4%) occurred after completion of treatment (versus 17/49 [34.7%] for placebo). Adverse event rates were low and similar between molnupiravir and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir was well-tolerated but did not meet the prespecified superiority criterion, possibly influenced in part by the high pre-existing immunity in the trial population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alpizar et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: