1. Is Azvudine Comparable to Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Real-World Efficacy and Safety for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19? A Retrospective Cohort Study.
- Author
-
Zhao, Qinqin, Zheng, Bei, Han, Bing, Feng, Pinpin, Xia, Zhongni, Jiang, Hong, Ying, Yin, Zhu, Jun, Fei, Cheng, Xiang, Junlei, Shen, Lingli, Luo, Qiliang, Wu, Yinhuan, Wusiman, Ayiguzhali, Xin, Chuanwei, Zhang, Meiling, Li, Gonghua, and Li, Xiang
- Subjects
- *
COVID-19 , *HOSPITAL patients , *PATIENT safety , *COHORT analysis , *RETROSPECTIVE studies - Abstract
Introduction: Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are more extensively used to treat COVID-19 in China due to their earlier approval by the National Medical Products Administration. However, there has been a scarcity of research directly comparing the clinical outcomes between azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir till now. We aimed to make a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected from Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province between December 2022 and January 2023. All-cause mortality, risk of progressing to a critical condition, proportion with nucleic-acid negative conversion (PNANC), time to first nucleic-acid negative conversion (TFNANC), length of hospital stay and incidence of adverse events were systematically assessed as outcomes. Multi-model regression analysis, propensity-score-matching analysis, subgroup analysis and several sensitivity analyses were applied to compare these outcomes. Results: This study included a total of 1571 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, among whom 272 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 156 received azvudine. We found no significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.56–3.56; P = 0.471), risk of progressing to critical COVID-19 (HR 1.67; 95% CI 0.78–3.60; P = 0.189), PNANC (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69–1.09; P = 0.220), length of stay (β − 0.82; 95% CI − 2.78 to 1.15; P = 0.414) and adverse event rate (3.21% vs. 4.41%, P = 0.538) between the two groups, although azvudine was slightly less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Meanwhile, the azvudine group exhibited a significantly longer TFNANC (β 2.53; 95% CI 0.76–4.29; P = 0.005) than the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. Results were similar for propensity-score matching and multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Azvudine probably possessed comparable efficacy and safety to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, although it was less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for some outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF