ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Real-world effectiveness of azvudine for patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariant BA.5 in an intensive care unit.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Azvudine remodels the local immunosuppressive microenvironment and exhibits sustained anti-tumor effects in combination with anti-PD-1 therapies.Frontiers of medicine · 2025Article
- Real-World Evaluation Study of Azvudine for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2025Review
- Systematic evaluation of therapeutic effectiveness of Azvudine in treating COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Azvudine (FNC) has been shown to be effective against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but data regarding the Omicron BA.5.1.3 subvariant are lacking. This retrospective analysis investigated the effectiveness and safety of FNC against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5.1.3 subvariant in a real-world setting, utilizing data from a patient cohort at our institution. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Sanya Central Hospital during the Sanya outbreak (August 13 to September 7, 2022). The patients, all infected with the Omicron BA.5.1.3 subvariant, were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were classified as the FNC (azvudine 5 mg, qd + standard supportive treatment) and non-FNC (standard supportive treatment only) groups. Results: The study comprised 13 patients, with 6 and 7 in the FNC and non-FNC groups, respectively. Baseline data, clinical features, and imaging manifestations were generally similar between the two groups. However, patients administered FNC demonstrated significantly lower levels of inflammatory indicators at baseline. Although there was no significant difference in the duration of ICU stay between the FNC and non-FNC groups, overall ICU stay appeared to be reduced in the FNC group. Conclusions: FNC emerges as a feasible treatment against the Omicron BA.5.1.3 subvariant. It may reduce ICU stay and demonstrate a promising safety profile without major side effects or disruption to normal physiological parameters.
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.