Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38148771›Full record

ArticleInfection and drug resistance2023

Comparison of Azvudine and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and Combined Use in Patients with COVID-19.

Cheng-Yi Hu, Wen-Shuai Cui, Yi Lei, Yu-Wen Tang, Yan-Yan Zhang, Qi-Min Su, Fang Peng, Yun-Fei Zeng, Jia-Lin Song, Cheng-Na Luo and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cheng-Yi HuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Shuai CuiDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yi LeiDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yu-Wen TangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yan-Yan ZhangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Qi-Min SuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Fang PengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guang Zhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yun-Fei ZengDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Jia-Lin SongDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Cheng-Na LuoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yan ZhouDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Xin-Yan LiDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Zhu-Xiang ZhaoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-3638-298X
Guangzhou First People's Hospital · CNThird Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 576 patients with COVID-19, comprising 195 patients without antiviral therapy, 226 patients treated with azvudine, 114 patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 41 patients were treated with azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir concurrently. We compared their symptoms, mortality rates, and the length and cost of hospitalization. Results: The incidence of symptoms was similar in patients treated with azvudine and in those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. However, among patients experiencing weakness, the duration of weakness was significantly shorter in the azvudine group than in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (P=0.029). Mortality did not differ significantly between the azvudine group and the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (18.14% vs.10.53%, P=0.068). Among "severe patients", the mortality rate was markedly lower in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir than in patients treated with azvudine (16.92% vs.32.17%, P=0.026). In patients with hepatic insufficiency, those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had substantially lower mortality than those treated with azvudine (15.09% vs.34.25%, P=0.016). In addition, patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had longer hospital stays (P=0.002) and higher hospital costs (P<0.001) than those receiving azvudine. Compared with patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or azvudine alone, patients taking nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine concurrently had no significant improvement in survival (P>0.05), length of stay (P>0.05), or hospital costs (P>0.05). Conclusion: Azvudine is recommended for patients with non-severe COVID-19 with weakness. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is recommended for patients with severe COVID-19, to reduce mortality, and it could be the best choice for patients with hepatic insufficiency. The concurrent use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine in patients with COVID-19 could be not recommended.

Indexed as

azvudineCOVID-19nirmatrelvir/ritonavirSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID38148771
PMCPMC10750493
OpenAlexW4390110550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.