Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2026 Oct 28;6(10):e0005771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005771

Real-world effectiveness of Paxlovid in protecting Long COVID for outpatient adult patients: A target trial emulation study from the RECOVER Initiative

Chengxi Zang 1, Haoyang Li 1, Dhruv Khullar 1, Yongkang Zhang 1, Stephenson Strobel 1, Yong Chen 2, Marc A Sala 3, Payal Bharat Patel 4, Alejandro P Comellas 5, Andrew Wylam 6, Mark Weiner 1, Chris B Forrest 7, Thomas Carton 8, Fei Wang 1,*, Rainu Kaushal 1; on behalf of the RECOVER Consortium
Editor: Julia Robinson9
PMCID: PMC13716174  PMID: 42949887

Abstract

Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) has been approved for use in patients who are at high risk for severe acute COVID-19 illness. Evidence regarding whether acute use of Paxlovid protects against Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), or Long COVID, is mixed in high-risk patients and lacking in low-risk patients. With a target trial emulation framework, we evaluated the association of Paxlovid treatment within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection with incident Long COVID and hospitalization or death from any cause in the post-acute period (30–180 days after infection) using electronic health records from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Networks (PCORnet) RECOVER repository. The study population included 497,499 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients between March 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023. For those who had at least 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 illness, 159,659 were treated with at least one dose of Paxlovid within 5 days since infection and 272,048 were not treated with Paxlovid or other COVID-19 treatments during the acute infection period. Compared with the non-treated group, Paxlovid treatment was associated with reduced risk of Long COVID with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.89) and absolute risk reduction of 2.99 events per 100 persons (95% CI, 2.65 to 3.32). For those without documented risk factors, the associations (HR, 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; risk increase 0.80 events per 100 persons, 95% CI -0.84 to 2.45) were inconclusive. High-risk, nonhospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with Paxlovid within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk of Long COVID and all-cause hospitalization or death in the post-acute period. However, Long COVID risk reduction with Paxlovid was not observed in low-risk patients.

Introduction

Some patients who recover from the acute phase of COVID-19 infection develop new, prolonged, or exacerbated medical conditions, often referred to as Post-Acute Sequalae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC) or Long COVID [1–7]. No standard definition or diagnostic criteria exists for Long COVID, and researchers are still clarifying the biological mechanism through which these conditions develop [4].

Although no treatments for Long COVID have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there is growing interest in whether the antiviral, Paxlovid (or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), could mitigate the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paxlovid received emergency use authorization (EUA) in December 2021 for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate acute infection who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 (treatment recommended within 5 days of symptom onset) [8,9]; millions of people in the US have since received Paxlovid for acute COVID-19. Although studies have shown that Paxlovid is effective at reducing the risk of severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death [9], limited research exists on whether it is effective in preventing Long COVID, and existing studies have found mixed results [10–12]. Further, the association of Paxlovid with Long COVID risk is largely lacking in low-risk patients. A few low-risk patients were prescribed Paxlovid for acute illness [2], also providing the opportunity for examining the effectiveness of reducing Long COVID risk in those low-risk patients.

To date, the largest observational retrospective study on Paxlovid as a preventative treatment for Long COVID was conducted through an analysis of electronic health records (EHR) from 281,793 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 1 risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 in the Veteran Affairs (VA) system [13]. The study found that receipt of Paxlovid was associated with a reduced risk of Long COVID (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.77; absolute risk reduction, 4.51%; 95% CI, 4.01-4.99), as well as post-acute death or hospitalization [13]. However, the study population, which was older and overwhelmingly white and male, was not representative of the general U.S. population, and the effectiveness of Paxlovid in preventing Long COVID remains unclear in demographically diverse populations.

In this study, we analysed data from 29 EHR repositories of the national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Networks (PCORnet) as part of the NIH RECOVER initiative. We studied the association between Paxlovid treatment within 5 days of acute COVID-19 and the development of Long COVID, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in the post-acute phase. We followed the target trial emulation framework [9,14,15], together with the large observational cohort, aiming to examine the associations of Paxlovid and the risk of Long COVID in general population.

Methods

Data

The PCORNet RECOVER Database. The PCORnet RECOVER infrastructure leveraged PCORnet to develop a single, unified EHR/RWD repository to study PASC across ~28.25 million (18.75 million adult - 9.5 million paediatric) patients from 40 adult and paediatric health systems nationwide who continue to refresh their data at least quarterly. The source data includes patients tested for COVID-19 (regardless of result), those diagnosed with COVID-19, those who received COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutics (e.g., Remdesivir and Paxlovid), and/or those who have received a respiratory diagnosis since 2019. The enclave contains structured EHR data consisting of inpatient and ambulatory encounters, laboratory results, vital signs, medications, diagnoses, procedures, birthdates, gender, and race information. The EHR data is linked to geocoded data to the level of the census tract, block group, and/or 9-digit zip code to allow linkage to exposome information to assess the influence of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and environmental exposures on COVID-19 outcomes. In addition, our data enclave includes clinical notes for Natural Language Processing (NLP), vaccine registries, and death registries.

Study cohort

This observational analysis emulated a target trial [9,14] to determine whether Paxlovid treatment for acute COVID-19 reduces the risk of Long COVID among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. We used data from 29 EHR repositories of the national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) as part of the NIH RECOVER initiative. Patients were identified as having acute COVID-19 if they had (a) positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen laboratory tests; (b) the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis code U07.1 representing COVIID-19 diagnosis; or (c) Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) or Remdesivir prescriptions. The protocol is summarized in Table A in S1 Appendix.

Key eligibility criteria included age 18 years or greater at the first confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1st, 2022 and February 28, 2023, interactions with the healthcare system in the past 3 years to 7 days before the index event, risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 illness (≥50 years or having at least 1 underlying medical conditions associated with an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19), no previous ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes of U0.99 (Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified) or B94.8 (Sequelae of other specified infectious and parasitic diseases), nonhospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19, and absence of severe liver disease, dialysis or severe renal impairment, use of other COVID-19 treatments including antiviral, antibody, or convalescent plasma treatments, or contraindication for Paxlovid. See Table A in S1 Appendix for the detailed specifications of protocols of the target trial and Table B in S1 Appendix for the study variables and associated time windows.

Exposure

The exposure of interest was receipt of Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) within 5 days after the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were assigned to the treatment group if they had a documented prescription for Paxlovid within this time window. The control group consisted of patients who did not receive Paxlovid or other COVID-19 treatments during the acute infection period. Because treatment was not randomly assigned in routine clinical care, we emulated randomization by adjusting for a comprehensive set of baseline covariates using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores. The index date for treated group was defined as the date of the first Paxlovid prescription and the index date for the control group was defined as the date of the first documented evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Outcomes

The outcomes of interest were incident post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC, or Long COVID), all-cause death, and all-cause hospitalization in the post-acute phase. The Long COVID definition is a rules-based computable phenotype leveraging ICD codes for 24 condition clusters [6,7]. See the detailed condition clusters in S1 Appendix-Long COVID definition section. Follow-up began 30 days after the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of the incident outcome of interest in the post-acute phase, death, 180 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or the end of the study period (August 1, 2023), whichever occurred first. These events defined the censoring mechanisms in the survival analyses. The death event, both in acute and post-acute phases, was treated as a competing event that precludes other outcomes of interest from occurring.

Covariates

A broad range of potential confounders was considered, including sex, age, race and ethnicity, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), body mass index (BMI), time of infection, smoking status, COVID-19 vaccine status, baseline clinical risk factors (cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, chronic lung diseases, cystic fibrosis, dementia or other neurological conditions, diabetes (type 1 or type 2), disabilities, heart conditions, HIV infection, immunocompromised condition or weakened immune system, mental health conditions, overweight and obesity, pregnancy, sickle cell disease or anemia, smoking, stroke or cerebrovascular disease, substance use disorders, tuberculosis) [16] for developing severe COVID-19 illness, and additional covariates (coagulopathy, peripheral vascular disorders, seizure/epilepsy, weight loss, obstructive sleep apnea, Epstein-Barr and Infectious Mononucleosis, Herpes Zoster) might be associated with treatment and PASC outcomes [6,7,17,18]. Covariates and assessment periods are summarized in Table B in S1 Appendix.

Statistical analysis

Baseline covariate balance was compared between the two exposure groups by standardized mean differences (SMD) both before and after applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with a difference of less than 0.1 considered to be balanced. The stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used in the survival analysis to adjust for the baseline covariates [19,20]. The propensity scores for different exposures were calculated with the regularized logistic regression with L2 norm, with exposure to Paxlovid or not as the dependent variable, and with all the baseline covariates as independent variables [7,15]. Cumulative incidence curves were estimated using the Aalen–Johansen estimator in the reweighted population, treating death as a competing risk for non-mortality outcomes. The hazard ratios were estimated by the Cox survival model in the reweighted population, and two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the use of a robust variance estimator to account for stabilized IPTW weights. The absolute risk reduction was the difference in cumulative incidences at 180 days of follow-up between exposed and non-exposed groups. The nonparametric 1000-iteration bootstrapping estimation of risks, risk reductions, and percentile-based 95% confidence intervals were also calculated. In each bootstrap iteration, individuals were resampled with replacement, propensity scores were re-estimated using the same model specification, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights were recalculated, and the weighted Cox models were refitted to obtain the bootstrap estimates. The missing values in baseline covariates were treated as separate categories for categorical variables when appropriate or handled according to standard PCORnet data conventions as shown in Table 1 and Table B in S1 Appendix.

Table 1. Population characteristics of adult SARS-CoV-2 infected patients for evaluating the effectiveness of the acute prescription of Paxlovid on the PASC conditions, during the period from March 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023.

Paxlovid treated SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients.

(N = 165,256)
Control group (N = 307,922) SMD
Characteristic
Sex — no. (%)
Female 100,931 (61.1) 196,527 (63.8) -0.06
Male 64,300 (38.9) 111,224 (36.1) 0.06
Other/Missing 25 (0.0) 171 (0.1) -0.02
Median age (IQR) — yr 61 (48—71) 50 (35—65) 0.49
Age group — no. (%)
18-24 3,649 (2.2) 26,292 (8.5) -0.28
25-34 12,128 (7.3) 53,258 (17.3) -0.31
35-49 30,936 (18.7) 74,274 (24.1) -0.13
50-64 50,522 (30.6) 74,914 (24.3) 0.14
65+ 68,021 (41.2) 79,184 (25.7) 0.33
Race/Ethnicity — no. (%)
Asian Non-Hispanic 6,453 (3.9) 17,258 (5.6) -0.08
Black or African American Non-Hispanic 15,125 (9.2) 43,307 (14.1) -0.15
Hispanic or Latino Any Race 9,848 (6.0) 37,630 (12.2) -0.22
White Non-Hispanic 116,020 (70.2) 175,712 (57.1) 0.28
Other Non-Hispanic 3,545 (2.1) 9,772 (3.2) -0.06
Unknown 14,265 (8.6) 24,243 (7.9) 0.03
No. of hospital visits in the past 3 yr — no. (%)
Inpatient 0 138,148 (83.6) 261,619 (85.0) -0.04
Inpatient 1–2 19,765 (12.0) 35,296 (11.5) 0.02
Inpatient >=3 7,343 (4.4) 11,007 (3.6) 0.04
Outpatient 0 1,544 (0.9) 11,394 (3.7) -0.18
Outpatient 1–2 7,899 (4.8) 26,481 (8.6) -0.15
Outpatient >=3 155,813 (94.3) 270,047 (87.7) 0.23
Emergency 0 130,061 (78.7) 223,574 (72.6) 0.14
Emergency 1–2 27,353 (16.6) 58,644 (19.0) -0.07
Emergency >=3 7,842 (4.7) 25,704 (8.3) -0.15
Median Area Deprivation Index (IQR) — rank 30 (12—54) 37 (16—61) -0.20
BMI (IQR) 29 (25—35) 29 (24—35) 0.03
Documented Vaccination Status
Fully vaccinated 67,718 (41.0) 111,921 (36.3) 0.10
Partially vaccinated 26,333 (15.9) 41,717 (13.5) 0.07
No evidence 72,282 (43.7) 156,552 (50.8) -0.14
Patients in different Index time — no. (%)
03/22-06/22 48,541 (29.4) 117,644 (38.2) -0.19
07/22-10/22 68,535 (41.5) 127,243 (41.3) 0.00
11/22-02/23 48,180 (29.2) 63,035 (20.5) 0.20
Patient w/o documented risks— no. (%) 5,597 (3.4) 35,874 (11.7) -0.32
Pregnant— no. (%) 822 (0.5) 4,368 (1.4) -0.09
Patient with at least one risk factor— no. (%) 158,837 (96.1) 267,680 (86.9) 0.33
Individual Risk Factors — no. (%)
Cancer 20,016 (12.1) 23,277 (7.6) 0.15
Chronic kidney disease 10,709 (6.5) 20,746 (6.7) -0.01
Chronic liver disease 11,232 (6.8) 17,398 (5.7) 0.05
Chronic lung disease 33,140 (20.1) 55,918 (18.2) 0.05
Cystic fibrosis 224 (0.1) 225 (0.1) 0.02
Dementia or other neurological conditions 4,897 (3.0) 7,272 (2.4) 0.04
Diabetes 25,877 (15.7) 41,410 (13.4) 0.06
Disabilities 1,340 (0.8) 3,045 (1.0) -0.02
Heart conditions 33,471 (20.3) 50,986 (16.6) 0.10
Hypertension 68,942 (41.7) 101,995 (33.1) 0.18
HIV infection 1,173 (0.7) 1,839 (0.6) 0.01
Immune dysfunction 62,773 (38.0) 81,236 (26.4) 0.25
Mental health conditions 27,472 (16.6) 56,395 (18.3) -0.04
Overweight and obesity 108,679 (65.8) 185,509 (60.2) 0.11
Sickle cell disease or thalassemia 18,546 (11.2) 34,254 (11.1) 0.00
Smoking current or former 32,814 (19.9) 59,393 (19.3) 0.01
Stroke or cerebrovascular disease 9,363 (5.7) 14,048 (4.6) 0.05
Substance use disorders 11,894 (7.2) 33,630 (10.9) -0.13
Tuberculosis 77 (0.0) 199 (0.1) -0.01

a. The SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were identified by a) positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen laboratory tests; b) the ICD-10-CMdiagnosis code U07.1 representing COVIID-19 diagnosis; or c) Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) or Remdesivir prescriptions. The first documented evidence was defined as the index event. IQR denotes the interquartile range. The percentage may not sum up to 100 because of rounding. ADI, the Area Deprivation Index. BMI, Body Mass Index. b. A standardized mean difference (SMD) of >0.10 or <-0.10 indicates an important effect size difference between the two samples, otherwise, no significant difference is assumed. c. Pregnant patients were included when SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred during pregnancy.

We conducted subgroup analyses according to sex (female or male), race (Black or White), age (<65 or ≥ 65 years), different baseline risk factors, infection time, and areas with different rural-urban commuting patterns. For subgroup analyses, infection time was grouped into two broader periods separated by October 1, 2022 to approximate different waves of potentially different variants of concerns. In addition to investigating the at-risk patients, we also investigated patients without documented risk factors. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including using a different Long COVID definition with a focus on fatigue, cognitive, and respiratory symptom clusters [21], cohorts similar to the US Veterans study (87.8% male patients aged ≥ 60 years old or having any risk factors) [13]. We further conducted two negative outcome control studies to explore the possibility of residual confounding [22]. Negative control outcomes were selected based on the absence of a plausible causal relationship with Paxlovid treatment and but share the same potential confounders as the primary outcomes. These outcomes were identified based on clinical knowledge and prior literature (e.g., benign neoplasms, skin cancer, etc as shown in Figs C and D in S1 Appendix). If the estimated associations between treatment and these negative control outcomes were close to the null, this would provide evidence supporting the validity of the study design.

Ethics

This study received Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) institutional review board (IRB) approval #21-08-508. As part of the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY IRB) process, the protocol has been reviewed in accordance with the institutional guidelines. The Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) waived the need for consent and HIPAA authorization.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

Among 558,037 patients with their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1, 2022, and February 28, 2023, 497,499 were eligible for the study (Fig 1). Among eligible adult patients, 165,256 received Paxlovid within 5 days of infection and 307,922 did not. The baseline characteristics of the two groups are presented in Table 1.

Fig 1. Selection of adult SARS-CoV-2 infected patients for evaluating the effectiveness of the acute prescription of Paxlovid on the PASC conditions, during the period from March 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023.

Fig 1

The median age in the Paxlovid-treated group was older than the non-treated group (61 [interquartile range (IQR), 48–71 vs 50 [IQR 35–65]). Paxlovid-treated patients were more likely to be (self-reported) White than non-treated patients, and more likely to have a risk factor (e.g., cancer, hypertension, immune dysfunction, overweight, and obesity) for developing severe COVID-19 illness. They were less likely to be (self-reported) Black or Hispanic, or have substance use disorders.

Comparisons were conducted for the Paxlovid-treated group and non-treated group and all measured variables were well-balanced between corresponding comparisons as summarized in Figs A and B in S1 Appendix. In addition, significant associations of exposure were not observed with negative outcomes, as summarized in Figs C and D in S1 Appendix, suggesting little residual confounding.

Paxlovid effectiveness

At 180 days of follow-up, the estimated risk of Long COVID was 30.51 events per 100 persons (95% confidence interval (CI), 30.25 to 30.77) in the Paxlovid-treated group and 33.50 (95% CI, 33.28 to 33.71) in the non-treated group (Fig 2). Compared to patients in the non-treatment group, Paxlovid-treated patients had a reduced risk of Long COVID, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.89) and risk reduction of 2.99 events per 100 persons (95% CI, 2.65 to 3.32). Paxlovid treatment was also associated with a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.68-0.73; risk reduction of 2.37 events per 100 persons, 95% CI, 2.19 to 2.56), and all-cause death (HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.60; risk reduction of 0.23 events per 100 persons, 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.28) in the post-acute 180 days.

Fig 2. Absolute risk, risk ratio, and risk difference of long COVID in the Paxlovid group versus the Non-treated group among high-risk patients.

Fig 2

A, the cumulative incidence of Long COVID; B, the cumulative incidence of post-acute death; C, the cumulative incidence of post-acute hospitalization; and D, the absolute risk, risk ratio, and risk difference of individual Long COVID at 180 days after the infection. Outcomes were ascertained 30 days after the first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection evidence until the end of the follow-up. The absolute risk, risk ratio, and risk difference were captured by the cumulative incidence (CIF), hazard ratio (HR), and the difference of cumulative incidence per 100 persons (DIFF/100), estimated at 180 days after the infection date, respectively. Shaded areas represent pointwise 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI).

Paxlovid treatment was associated with a lower risk of incident Long COVID across systems as shown in Fig 2D, including post-acute neurological conditions (sleep disorders, cognitive problems, headache, encephalopathy, dementia), post-acute pulmonary conditions (pulmonary fibrosis, acute pharyngitis, shortness of breath), post-acute blood conditions (anemia), post-acute metabolic conditions (edema, diabetes, malnutrition), post-acute digestive conditions (abdominal pain, constipation), post-acute musculoskeletal conditions (joint pain), and some general conditions in the post-acute phase (e.g., malaise and fatigue, fever, smell, and taste). There were no conclusive associations between Paxlovid and hair loss (HR, 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), or ICD-10 codes U0.99 or B94.8 representing unspecified Post COVID-19 conditions or sequelae of infectious illness (HR, 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05).

Paxlovid treatment was also associated with a lower risk of incident Long COVID in different subpopulations stratified by sex, race, age, baseline risk conditions (except for pregnant females), infection time, and different rural-urban commuting areas as shown in Fig 3. Specifically, the weighted Cox proportional hazards models were fitted separately within each predefined subgroup. Relatively greater risk reductions were observed in males (3.53 events per 100 persons, 95% CI, 2.98 to 4.08) compared to females (2.61, 95% 2.18 to 3.04) and for individuals aged ≥ 65 (3.27, 95% CI, 2.74 to 3.81) compared to those under 65 (2.73, 95% CI, 2.29 to 3.17). Regarding the rural and urban areas, the greatest risk reduction was found in small towns (6.90 events per 100 persons, 95% CI, 4.28 to 9.52), followed by micropolitan (5.69, 95% CI, 3.96 to 7.42) and metropolitan patients (2.19, 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.56). The subgroup analyses for post-acute all-cause hospitalization or death are in Fig F and G in S1 Appendix. Results were broadly similar in sensitivity analyses that considered a secondary Long COVID definition with a focus on cognitive, fatigue, and respiratory conditions, and in a population with demographics similar to the Veteran Affairs study (87.8% male patients aged ≥ 60 years old or having any risk factors) (Fig 3 and Fig H in S1 Appendix for the subgroup analyses).

Fig 3. Risks of Long COVID in subgroups of high-risk patients (stratified by sex, race, age, coexisting conditions, infection time, and rural-urban areas), low risk patients, and sensitivity analyses by using different cohort and Long COVID definitions.

Fig 3

The absolute risk, risk ratio, and risk difference were captured by the cumulative incidence (CIF), hazard ratio (HR), and the difference of cumulative incidence per 100 persons (DIFF/100), estimated at 180 days after the infection index date, respectively. Shaded areas represent pointwise 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI).

However, in low-risk patients who didn’t have documented risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness or who were younger than 50, the association between Paxlovid treatment and incident Long COVID was inconclusive (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.11).

Discussion

In this clinical trial emulation of 497,499 individuals with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1, 2022, and February 28, 2023, we found that Paxlovid treatment within 5 days of diagnosis was associated with a reduced risk of developing a range of post-acute conditions in various organ systems, among patients at high-risk for severe COVID-19 illness. Individuals treated with Paxlovid were also significantly less likely to be hospitalized or to die from any cause in the post-acute phase. These results suggest that Paxlovid may significantly reduce the risk of Long COVID and other downstream consequences of acute COVID-19 infection for high-risk non-hospitalized adults. Current guidelines recommend the use of Paxlovid for treating acute COVID-19 [9]; our findings suggest that its potential to reduce the risk of Long COVID conditions among high-risk patients should also be considered.

We did not, however, observe a reduction in Long COVID risk among patients who did not have risk factors for severe COVID-19. This finding is consistent with a recent randomized clinical trial that failed to show a significant benefit of Paxlovid in treatment of acute COVID-19 in low-risk populations [23]. Taken together, this suggests limited utility of Paxlovid in low-risk patients, both for preventing short-term and long-term consequences of infection [9]. In subgroup analyses, the magnitude of benefit appeared smaller and was not statistically significant among individuals at lower baseline risk. This likely reflects the lower baseline risk of severe post-acute outcomes in these populations, which reduces the absolute benefit achievable through antiviral therapy and limits statistical power to detect differences.

This study has several strengths. First, it is the largest observational cohort study examining the impact of Paxlovid on Long COVID conditions [13]. The study’s diverse demographic composition allows for more generalizable conclusions and allows for a more granular investigation of the effect of Paxlovid in various patient subgroups. Our study suggests that, compared to the veteran population [13], the beneficial effects of acute Paxlovid treatment on Long COVID can be extended to female patients, Black patients, and patients who live in metropolitan areas. Importantly there is no evidence of benefit of Paxlovid in preventing Long COVID for pregnant females and low-risk patients. Furthermore, though the beneficial effects span across different subgroups, greater risk reductions were observed in males compared to females, patients aged 65 years and older compared to those under 65, and rural patients compared to micropolitan and metropolitan patients. Second, this study included a broad set of Long COVID outcomes including post-acute incident conditions involving multiple organ systems, post-acute hospitalization, and death. Our results demonstrate that Paxlovid treatment is associated with reduced risk in most outcomes, especially in post-acute hospitalization, death, pulmonary embolism, dementia, and thromboembolism. One exception is the less severe outcome of hair loss which had no significant association with Paxlovid use. The benefits of Paxlovid treatment on Long COVID may be due to reduced acute severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection but differential effects might arise from distinct biologic mechanisms of different Long COVID subtypes [2,6].

Our study also has limitations. First, this was an observational analysis, and patients were not randomized to treatment or control groups. However, the baseline covariates and negative outcome control analyses suggest relatively good balance between the groups; however, residual confounding may still exist. Second, we considered only incident conditions in the post-acute period and did not examine worsening or prolonging of preexisting conditions after the COVID-19 infection. Third, the study used structured information in EHR, which may be incomplete and does not capture patients who do not seek or access care and, on some variables, defined based on ICD codes and EHR data may introduce misclassification bias. Fourth, we estimated intention-to-treatment effects without modeling medication adherence during the acute phase; we could not determine adherence to Paxlovid treatment after prescription.

In conclusion, we conducted the largest observational study to date investigating the effectiveness of Paxlovid treatment within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection in preventing Long COVID in a diverse patient population. Our study suggests that, among high-risk, nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, treatment with Paxlovid during the acute illness was associated with reduced risk of Long COVID, post-acute hospitalization, and death. These benefits do not appear among low-risk patients.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Supplementary Appendix.

(DOCX)

pgph.0005771.s001.docx (2.3MB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the National Institutes of Health (NIH) the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) research program, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, the National Community Engagement Group (NCEG), all patient, caregiver and community Representatives, and all the participants enrolled in the RECOVER Initiative. Authorship has been determined according to ICMJE recommendations. To view the full list of core contributors and data contributors, please refer to the appendix.

Data Availability

The de-identified data used in this analysis are considered the domain of the contributing health systems. These data were shared with the RECOVER research program under data-sharing agreements. Requests for deidentified data through RecoverEHRInformatics@med.cornell.edu can be considered through the RECOVER research program but would need the approval of the contributing health systems.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Agreement OTA. OT2HL161847 (contract number EHR-01-21 to all) as part of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) research program and the National Institute of Health (grant number RF1AG084178, R01HD120978 to F.W. and C.Z.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the RECOVER Program, the NIH or other funders.

References

  • 1.Zang C, Guth D, Bruno AM, Xu Z, Li H, Ammar N, et al. Long COVID after SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy in the United States. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):3005. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-57849-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Solving the puzzle of Long Covid. Science. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl0867?s=09 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P. Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. BMJ. 2021:n1648. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Davis HE, McCorkell L, Vogel JM, Topol EJ. Long COVID: Major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21(3):133–46. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mandel H, et al. Long-COVID incidence proportion in adults and children between 2020 and 2024. Clin Infect Dis. 2025. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaf046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang H, Zang C, Xu Z, Zhang Y, Xu J, Bian J, et al. Data-driven identification of post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subphenotypes. Nat Med. 2023;29(1):226–35. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02116-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zang C, et al. Data-driven analysis to understand long COVID using electronic health records from the RECOVER initiative. Nat Commun. 2023;14:1948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Harris E. FDA grants full approval to Paxlovid, COVID-19 antiviral treatment. JAMA. 2023. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.9925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hammond J, et al. Oral nirmatrelvir for high-risk, nonhospitalized adults with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1397–408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Durstenfeld MS, Peluso MJ, Lin F, Peyser ND, Isasi C, Carton TW, et al. Association of nirmatrelvir for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with subsequent Long COVID symptoms in an observational cohort study. J Med Virol. 2024;96(1):e29333. doi: 10.1002/jmv.29333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fung KW, Baye F, Baik SH, McDonald CJ. Nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir and post-COVID-19 condition in older patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(12):1404–6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.5099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Suran M. Studies investigate whether antivirals like paxlovid may prevent Long COVID. JAMA. 2024;331(2):98–100. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.24103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Xie Y, Choi T, Al-Aly Z. Association of treatment with nirmatrelvir and the risk of post–COVID-19 condition. JAMA Intern Med. 2023. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hernán MA, Wang W, Leaf DE. Target trial emulation: A framework for causal inference from observational data. JAMA. 2022;328(24):2446–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.21383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zang C, Zhang H, Xu J, Zhang H, Fouladvand S, Havaldar S, et al. High-throughput target trial emulation for Alzheimer’s disease drug repurposing with real-world data. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):8180. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-43929-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.CDC. People with Certain Medical Conditions. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2023. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thaweethai T, et al. Development of a definition of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA. 2023. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.8823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zang C, Hou Y, Schenck EJ, Xu Z, Zhang Y, Xu J, et al. Identification of risk factors of Long COVID and predictive modeling in the RECOVER EHR cohorts. Commun Med (Lond). 2024;4(1):130. doi: 10.1038/s43856-024-00549-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xu S, Ross C, Raebel MA, Shetterly S, Blanchette C, Smith D. Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health. 2010;13(2):273–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79. doi: 10.1002/sim.6607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Global Burden of Disease Long COVID Collaborators. Estimated global proportions of individuals with persistent fatigue, cognitive, and respiratory symptom clusters following symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021. JAMA. 2022. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.18931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Arnold BF, Ercumen A. Negative control outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316:2597–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hammond J, et al. Nirmatrelvir for vaccinated or unvaccinated adult outpatients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:1186–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2026 Oct 28;6(10):e0005771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005771.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0


Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

15 Dec 2025

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005771.r002

Decision Letter 0

Ilse Bloom

23 Feb 2026

PGPH-D-25-03662

Real World Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir in Protecting Long COVID for Outpatient Adult Patients: A Large Scale Observational Cohort Study from the RECOVER Initiative

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Zang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below.

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ilse Bloom

Staff Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

2. We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg (R), (C), or TM  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including ® on page 8.

3. Please upload a copy of Figure 1,2 & 3 which you refer to in your text on pages 10,11 & 12. Or, if the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the article.

General comments

Recommend following the TARGET Checklist of Recommended Items to Address in Reports of Studies Emulating a Target Trial when reporting the study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2837724).

Recommend consistent use of terminology (e.g. nirmatrelvir vs Paxlovid).

Introduction:

Add a clear rationale for emulating a target trial using the available data for this study.

Consider citing the randomized trial(s) that informed the design of the target trial, if available.

Methods:

Clarify how treatment assignment was determined.

Report the frequency of missing data for all variables, stratified by treatment strategy where applicable.

Inconsistency in study period: Line 144 states March 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023, whereas Figure 1 shows March 1, 2022 to February 1, 2023.

Table 1: consider using “control group” instead of “no treated SARS-CoV-2 Infected.”

Figure 3 presents two infection-time groups, while Table 1 shows three different index times. Consider conducting subgroup analyses based on the three index-time categories defined in Table 1.

Supplementary tables are not included in the submission. Please upload all supplementary tables.

Reviewer #2: How was the index date defined?

Provide a clear definition of censoring.

Were standardized mean differences (SMDs) used to assess balance before weighting, after weighting, or both?

How about categorical variables?

Did the Cox survival model account for competing risks?

Was the proportional hazards assumption tested?

How was the regularization parameter (λ) selected?

Was class imbalance taken into account during model fitting?

What variables were in “all baseline covariates”? Were any variables excluded due to collinearity or missing?

For subgroup analyses, were interaction used or stratified estimation?

Provide details regarding the negative outcome control analyses, including the selection and validation of control outcomes.

How were missing covariate data handled?

More details are needed on the bootstrapping procedure: Was stratified bootstrapping or simple resampling used?

Were propensity scores re-estimated within each bootstrap iteration? Were IPTW weights recalculated in each iteration?

Reviewer #3: This paper evaluates the real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir in non-hospitalized adults. Utilizing a target trial emulation design, the authors analyze both Long COVID incidence and late-phase clinical outcomes (hospitalization/death) occurring 30 to 180 days post-infection.

The study is overall well-written and logically organized; nonetheless, I have few minor points that require clarification or refinement.

1) There is a minor inconsistency in the nomenclature used for the intervention throughout the manuscript. While the title mentions only 'Nirmatrelvir', the abstract uses the brand name 'Paxlovid', and the introduction refers to 'nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid)'. Subsequently, 'Paxlovid' is used throughout the text. I recommend the authors standardize the terminology to maintain internal consistency.

2) Within the 'The PCORNet RECOVER Databases' section, I recommend that the authors provide the full terminology for the abbreviations SDoH (Social Determinants of Health) and NLP (Natural Language Processing) upon their first mention to ensure clarity for all readers.

3) The definition of outcomes and the follow-up period (lines 163–172) are generally well-described. In particular, the use of a competing risk framework for mortality is a robust methodological choice. However, could the authors authors clarify if 'time zero' (line 168) is consistently anchored to the 'index event' (line 139) across all patients? Clarifying whether the 30-to-180-day window is calculated from the date of the first positive test or the date of treatment initiation would help ensure the comparability of the treatment and control groups.

4) I commend the authors for the extensive range of covariates adjusted for in the models. However, while Reference 14 justifies risk factors for severe COVID-19 (lines 181-182), the outcomes of interest here are Long COVID, hospitalization, and mortality. Are there any supporting references that link the selected covariates particularly those that might be related directly to these post-acute outcome to ensure the rationale is consistent ?

5) I suggest the authors briefly define 'negative control outcomes' (falsification endpoints) and explicitly list them in the main text. Providing this explanation would be highly beneficial for clinical readers to understand how these tools are used to detect unmeasured confounding and validate the study's findings.

6) The more pronounced HR reduction for mortality compared to hospitalization is consistent with the drug’s mechanism of action and has been observed in other high-risk cohorts, such as the VA study (Xie et al., 2023). This reinforces the plausibility of the results.

Xie et al., JAMA Intern Med 2023:

post–acute death (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.61)

post–acute hospitalization (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80)

vs.

all-cause death (HR, 0.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.60)

hospitalization (HR, 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)

7) I also recommend the authors address the lack of significant benefit observed in low-risk populations in the discussion.

8) Regarding study limitations, the authors should acknowledge that the reliance on ICD codes and EHR data for defining variables and outcomes may introduce misclassification bias.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005771.r004

Decision Letter 1

Julia Robinson

21 May 2026

Real-World Effectiveness of Paxlovid in Protecting Long COVID for Outpatient Adult Patients: A Target Trial Emulation Study from the RECOVER Initiative

PGPH-D-25-03662R1

Dear Prof Zang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Real-World Effectiveness of Paxlovid in Protecting Long COVID for Outpatient Adult Patients: A Target Trial Emulation Study from the RECOVER Initiative' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: All my concerns are addressed.

Reviewer #3: I really appreciated the study and the authors’ effort to conduct an observational analysis in the best possible way using a framework compatible with target trial emulation. In addition, the authors have addressed all of my comments. From my perspective, I believe the study is suitable for publication.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Supplementary Appendix.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0005771.s001.docx (2.3MB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter PLOS Global Public Health.docx

    pgph.0005771.s003.docx (88.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The de-identified data used in this analysis are considered the domain of the contributing health systems. These data were shared with the RECOVER research program under data-sharing agreements. Requests for deidentified data through RecoverEHRInformatics@med.cornell.edu can be considered through the RECOVER research program but would need the approval of the contributing health systems.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES