ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral Azvudine versus Paxlovid for COVID-19 in patients with kidney disease: a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Azvudine for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and hypertension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Safety profile of azvudine in COVID-19 patients with renal impairment: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with kidney disease (KD) are at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing severe disease. There is still a lack of guidance regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in patients with KD. The safety and effectiveness of Azvudine in treating COVID-19 patients with KD remain unknown.
methodsThis study included 32,864 COVID-19 patients from nine centers in Henan Province, China. After applying the exclusion criteria and 2:1 propensity score matching, 438 and 219 participants in the Azvudine and Paxlovid groups, respectively, were subjected to analysis.
resultsKaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in all-cause death or composite disease progression between the Azvudine and Paxlovid groups (all p values > 0.05). The same results were obtained in the Cox regression analysis after baseline characteristics adjustment. Three different sensitivity analyses contributed to the robustness of these findings. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients treated with Azvudine had a lower risk of composite disease progression than patients treated with Paxlovid did among patients with moderate disease (p = 0.016, HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.96). Safety data indicated that there was no difference in the incidence of most adverse events. Compared with the Paxlovid group, the Azvudine group had a lower incidence of hypophosphatemia (p = 0.008) and a lower PLT count (p = 0.045). Moreover, during the 15-day follow-up since drug administration, higher concentrations of lymphocytes were detected in the Azvudine group.
conclusionsThis study is the first to report that the safety and effectiveness of Azvudine are not inferior to those of Paxlovid in COVID-19 patients with KD. This study provides additional treatment options for COVID-19 patients with KD.
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.