ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024
Comparative efficacy of repurposed drugs lopinavir-ritonavir and darunavir-ritonavir in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: insights from a tertiary centre cohort.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. 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.
- Research progress on the association between viruses and cardiac diseases.Journal of virology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug repurposing has become a widely adopted strategy to minimise research time, costs, and associated risks. Combinations of protease inhibitors such as lopinavir and darunavir with ritonavir have been repurposed as treatments for COVID-19. Although lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) and darunavir-ritonavir (DRV/r) have shown Research design and methods: A clinical dataset from 417 hospitalised patients was analysed. Patients were assigned to the LPV/r, DRV/r, or control (standard-of-care) group based on clinical decisions made by the attending infectious disease specialists, aligned with national treatment protocols. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to compare in-hospital mortality and to identify factors associated with clinical improvement or fatal outcomes. Results: By day 10, more patients showed improvement with LPV/r and DRV/r (p=0.03 and 0.01, respectively), but only LPV/r was associated with improved survival compared to the control group (p=0.05). Factors associated with mortality included male gender (HR: 3.63, p=0.02), diabetes (HR: 2.49, p=0.03), oxygen saturation below 90% at admission (HR: 5.23, p<0.01), high blood glucose levels (HR: 3.68, p=0.01), age (HR: 1.04, p=0.02), and more than 25% lesion extension on chest CT scan (HR: 2.28, p=0.03). Conclusions: LPV/r, but not DRV/r, showed a survival benefit in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but these findings deserve further investigation in a randomised clinical trial.
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.