ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2020
Brief Report: Retrospective Evaluation on the Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Chloroquine to Treat Nonsevere COVID-19 Patients.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery.Genes & diseases · 2023Review
- Therapeutic strategies to fight COVID-19: Which is the status artis?British journal of pharmacology · 2022Review
- Slower Recovery with Early Lopinavir/Ritonavir use in Pediatric COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.Paediatric drugs · 2022Observational
- Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP).Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Article
- Efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.Future virology · 2021Review
- Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.Future virology · 2021Review
- Antiviral treatment selection for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2021Article
- Antiviral Therapeutic Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Potential Interaction Between SARS-CoV-2 and Thyroid: A Review.Endocrinology · 2021Review
- Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19: the never-ending story.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Both Chloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Are Ineffective for COVID-19 Treatment and Combined Worsen the Pathology: A Single-Center Experience with Severely Ill Patients.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Challenges in Repurposing Drugs in COVID-19 Pandemic. Debating on Potential New Refinements.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and chloroquine treatment for COVID-19 has not been verified.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study to summarize the clinical practices of nonsevere patients with COVID-19 receiving the standard care, LPV/r or chloroquine in Beijing Ditan Hospital from January 20 to March 26, 2020. The main outcome measurements include the changes of cycle threshold values of open reading frame 1 ab (ORF1ab) and nucleocapsid (N) genes by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay from day 1 to 7 after admission for patients receiving standard care or after treatment being initiated for patients receiving either LPV/r or chloroquine. The proportion of developing severe illness, fever duration and the time from symptom onset to chest computer tomography improvement, and negative conversion of nucleic acid were compared.
resultsOf the 129 patients included in the study, 59 received the standard care, 51 received LPV/r, and 19 received chloroquine. The demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable among the 3 groups. The median duration of fever, median time from symptom onset to chest computer tomography improvement, and negative conversion of the nucleic acid were similar among the 3 groups. The median increase in cycle threshold values of N and ORF1ab gene for patients receiving LPV/r or chloroquine or the standard care during the treatment course was 7.0 and 8.5, 8.0, and 7.6, 5.0, and 4.0, respectively. These figures were not found significantly different among the 3 groups.
conclusionsAntiviral therapy using LPV/r or chloroquine seemed not to improve the prognosis or shorten the clinical course of COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.