SynthesisPloS one2024
Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of imatinib in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir and Molnupiravir in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Safety of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) Versus Remdesivir in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Retrospective Studies.Health science reports · 2026Review
- The efficacy of azvudine in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective single-center cohort analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Remdesivir Versus Sotrovimab in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in cancer patients with COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral Azvudine versus Paxlovid for COVID-19 in patients with kidney disease: a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2).
methodsA search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data.
resultsTwenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate.
conclusionsThe antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in 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.