ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2022
Atazanavir versus lopinavir on Covid-19 infection: A retrospective protease inhibitors comparative study 2020.
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19: An Overview of SARS-CoV-2 Variants-The Current Vaccines and Drug Development.BioMed research international · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of protease inhibitors (PIs) is important in terms of prescribing an effective regimen for reducing mortality and hospitalization in Covid-19. Therefore, follow-up of patients better determines the characteristics of existing regimens. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the demographic, co-morbidities, gastrointestinal (GI) and liver complications of patients at two teaching hospitals from the first of March to the end of July 2020. All patients received one of two recommended regimens including hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg BD on the first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV) (300/100 mg daily) or HCQ with the same dose plus lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) (400/100 mg BD) for 5-7 days. Results: We chose 170 cases that received 2 different regimens. In group one, 85(57.6% males) patients received Kaletra and HCQ and group two, 85 (55.3% males) patients received ATV and HCQ. The study of hospitalization in both groups showed no difference in more or less than 5 days hospitalization. (P=0.757) Comparison of mortality rates has not shown a significant difference including 19 (22.4%) deaths in group 1 and 15(17.6%) deaths in group 2 (P=0.443). Nausea followed by diarrhea was the most common side effects in group 1. But no side effects were reported in group 2 (P=0.000). Abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) were seen in both groups. Conclusion: Comparison of hospitalization and mortality were not statistically significant. It seems that a respect to similar effect on mortality and hospitalization. ATV regimen is superior to Kaletra especially for better GI tolerance and less daily pills.
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.