ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Real-world effectiveness of simnotrelvir-ritonavir versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in China: a 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.
- An integrated review of monkeypox: from pathogen and epidemiology to diagnostics, control, and challenges.Emerging microbes & infections · 2026Review
- Lessons learned: management of acute kidney injury during COVID-19.Renal failure · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess the comparative clinical effectiveness of the 3-chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) inhibitors simnotrelvir-ritonavir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in China.
methodsThe retrospective analysis of data from adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with either simnotrelvir-ritonavir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as antiviral treatment strategies will be conducted to determine any differences in clinical outcomes between the two drugs.
resultsThis study involved a total of 585 participants, with 264 in the simnotrelvir group and 321 in the nirmatrelvir group. Following propensity score matching, there were 186 individuals in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative risk of the composite disease progression, all-cause death, and respiratory support at 28 days following initiation of drug exposure between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the simnotrelvir group exhibited more cases of clinical improvement compared to the nirmatrelvir group (33.602 events per 1000 person-days vs. 30.913 events per 1000 person-days), with a better cumulative incidence in the simnotrelvir group (p < 0.05). The multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that non-severe COVID-19 (HR 0.630, 95% CI 0.496-0.801; p < 0.001), lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (HR 0.993, 95% CI 0.990-0.997; p < 0.001), and treatment with simnotrelvir-ritonavir (HR 1.395, 95% CI 1.118-1.741; p = 0.003) were independently associated with a higher likelihood of clinical improvement.
conclusionThis study illustrated that both simnotrelvir-ritonavir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir exhibited similar effectiveness in reducing the incidence of composite disease progression, all-cause death, and the need for respiratory support amidst the real-world outbreak of the omicron VOC in China. Furthermore, simnotrelvir-ritonavir was found to be more favorable in enhancing the rate of clinical improvement in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, suggesting its potential clinical effectiveness against the disease.
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.