MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413907085 · doi:10.14740/jocmr6297

Safety of Molnupiravir in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4413907085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yota Yamada, Motoyasu Miyazaki, Hitomi Hirata, Arata Ogawa, Chika Hagiwara, A Nakashima, Hisako Kushima, Hiroshi Ishii, Osamu Imakyure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studySingle CenterCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)CohortCoronavirusCenter (category theory)Cohort study2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDiseaseInternal medicineVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Molnupiravir (MOV) is recommended for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are ineligible for remdesivir treatment. However, data regarding laboratory-based adverse events (AEs) associated with MOV use in hospitalized patients are limited. In this study, we evaluated MOV-associated laboratory abnormalities, including increased creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and decreased hemoglobin (Hb) levels (e.g., anemia), and evaluated related risk factors in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: We reviewed retrospective data for 78 adult inpatients with COVID-19 who received MOV upon admission at Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital. Individuals with MOV treatment history, early discontinuation, or premature discharge were excluded. Data were collected on demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, bacterial coinfection, concomitant medications, COVID-19 severity, oxygen therapy, and length of hospital stay. The AEs were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 Japanese Clinical Oncology Group. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for elevated CPK levels and anemia. Results: The median age of the study population was 82 years (interquartile range: 74 - 89 years; men: 56.4%), and 17.9% had bacterial coinfection. Twenty-seven patients (34.6%) experienced ≥ 1 AE, and MOV was discontinued in two patients because of a mild rash and CPK elevation. Elevated CPK levels and anemia each occurred in 11 patients (14.1%). Severe AEs (grade ≥ 3) were observed in one patient with grade 4 CPK elevation and in another with grade 3 anemia. Multivariate analysis showed that bacterial coinfection tended to increase CPK levels (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75 - 13.32, P = 0.10) and was significantly associated with anemia (aOR: 5.40, 95% CI: 1.27 - 23.69, P = 0.022). Conclusions: MOV exhibits a generally favorable safety profile in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with low treatment discontinuation rates and mild laboratory abnormalities. Elevated CPK levels and anemia may reflect the complications of bacterial coinfection rather than direct MOV toxicity; however, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and single-center, non-controlled study design. Further multicenter prospective studies are warranted to determine the relationship between CPK elevation, anemia, and MOV treatment in COVID-19 patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→