Dataset Information

Head-to-head comparison of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a real-world retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

ABSTRACT: Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine have been approved for the early treatment of COVID-19 in China, however, limited real-world data exists regarding their effectiveness and safety. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving the hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China between December 2022 and January 2023. Demographic, clinical, and safety variables were recorded. Results: Among the 6,616 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we included a total of 725 patients including azvudine recipients (N = 461) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N = 264) recipients after exclusions and propensity score matching (1:2). There was no significant difference in the composite disease progression events between azvudine (98, 21.26%) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (72, 27.27%) groups (p = 0.066). Azvudine was associated with a significant reduction in secondary outcomes, including the percentage of intensive care unit admission (p = 0.038) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.035), while the in-hospital death event did not significantly differ (p = 0.991). As for safety outcomes, 33 out of 461 patients (7.16%) in azvudine group and 22 out of 264 patients (8.33%) in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group experienced drug-related adverse events between the day of admission (p = 0.565). Conclusion: In our real-world setting, azvudine treatment demonstrated similar safety compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Additionally, it showed slightly better clinical benefits in this population. However, further confirmation through additional clinical trials is necessary.

SUBMITTER: Wei AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10603265 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Head-to-head comparison of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a real-world retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Wei An-Hua AH Zeng Lu L Wang Lu L Gui Lin L Zhang Wen-Ting WT Gong Xue-Peng XP Li Juan J Liu Dong D

Frontiers in pharmacology 20231013

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine have been approved for the early treatment of COVID-19 in China, however, limited real-world data exists regarding their effectiveness and safety. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving the hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China between December 2022 and January 2023. Demographic, clinical, and safety variables were recorded. Results: Among the 6,616 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we included a total of ...[more]

PMID: 37900159

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAzvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are more extensively used to treat COVID-19 in China due to their earlier approval by the National Medical Products Administration. However, there has been a scarcity of research directly comparing the clinical outcomes between azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir till now. We aimed to make a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected from Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province between December 2022 and January 2023. All-cause mortality, risk of progressing to a critical condition, proportion with nucleic-acid negative conversion (PNANC), time to first nucleic-acid negative conversion (TFNANC), length of hospital stay and incidence of adverse events were systematically assessed as outcomes. Multi-model regression analysis, propensity-score-matching analysis, subgroup analysis and several sensitivity analyses were applied to compare these outcomes.ResultsThis study included a total of 1571 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, among whom 272 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 156 received azvudine. We found no significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.56-3.56; P = 0.471), risk of progressing to critical COVID-19 (HR 1.67; 95% CI 0.78-3.60; P = 0.189), PNANC (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69-1.09; P = 0.220), length of stay (β - 0.82; 95% CI - 2.78 to 1.15; P = 0.414) and adverse event rate (3.21% vs. 4.41%, P = 0.538) between the two groups, although azvudine was slightly less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Meanwhile, the azvudine group exhibited a significantly longer TFNANC (β 2.53; 95% CI 0.76-4.29; P = 0.005) than the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. Results were similar for propensity-score matching and multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionAzvudine probably possessed comparable efficacy and safety to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, although it was less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for some outcomes.

Project description:Background and aimTwo oral antivirals (Nirmatrelvir- ritonavir and Azvudine) are widely used in China practice during the Omicron wave of the pandemic. However, little evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of these two oral antivirals in in-hospital patients. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine among adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from three Chinese PLA General Hospital medical centres. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir from Dec 10, 2022, to February 20, 2023, and did not require invasive ventilation support on admission were eligible for inclusion.ResultsAfter exclusions and propensity-score matching, the final analysis included 486 azvudine recipients and 486 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients. By 28 days of initiation of the antivirus treatment, the crude incidence rate of all-cause death was similar in both types of antivirus treatment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group 2.8 events 1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.1-3.6] vs azvudine group 3.4 events/1000 person-days [95% CI, 2.6-4.3], P = 0.38). Landmark analysis showed that all-cause death was lower in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (3.5%) group than the azvudine (6.8%, P = 0.029) within the initial 10-day admission period, while no significant difference was observed for results between 10 and 28 days follow-up. There was no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and the azvudine group in cumulative incidence of the composite disease progression event (8.6% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir vs. 10.1% with azvudine, HR, 1.22; 95% CI 0.80-1.86, P = 0.43).ConclusionAmong patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in Beijing, similar in-hospital clinical outcomes on 28 days were observed between patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and azvudine. However, it is worth noticing that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to hold an advantage over azvudine in reducing early mortality. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the efficacy of those two antivirus medications especially in early treatment.

Project description:BackgroundAzvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are approved to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults with a high risk for progression to severe infection. We sought to compare the antiviral effectiveness and clinical outcomes of elderly severe patients with COVID-19 receiving these two antiviral agents.MethodsIn this observational study, we identified 249 elderly patients with severe COVID-19 infection who were admitted to the Second Medical Center of the People's Liberation Army General Hospital from December 2022 to January 2023, including 128 azvudine recipients, 66 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients and 55 patients not received antiviral treatments. We compared the cycle threshold (Ct) value dynamic change of all three groups. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of disease progression, including all-cause death, intensive care unit admission, and initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. The outcomes of all enrolled patients were followed up from the electronic medical record system. Kaplan-Meier and Cox risk proportional regression analyses were used to compare the clinical outcomes of all three groups. To more directly compare the effectiveness of the two antiviral drugs, we performed propensity-score matching between the two antiviral groups and compared antiviral efficacy and clinical outcomes in the matched population.FindingsAmong 249 patients (mean age, 91.41 years), 77 patients died during the follow-up period. When compared to patients who did not receive any antivirals, neither nirmatrelvir/ritonavir nor azvudine demonstrated a survival benefit. The Cox analysis of the all-cause death of the three groups showed that the risk of death was 0.730 (0.423-1.262) in the azvudine group 0.802 (0.435-1.480) and in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group compared with the non-antiviral group. After propensity score matching, we included 58 azvudine recipients and 58 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients. The fitted curve of the Ct value after matching illustrated that the rate of viral decline in the early stage of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment seems to surpass that of azvudine, but there was no statistical significance. Azvudine was seemly associated with a lower risk of composite outcomes (HR:1.676, 95% CI:0.805-3.488) and short-term all-cause death (HR: 1.291, 95%CI: 0.546-3.051).InterpretationPatients who received azvudine have a similar antiviral effectiveness and survival curve trend compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In this limited series, antiviral treatment was not associated with a significant clinical benefit. This lack of clinical benefit might be attributed to potential bias.FundingThis study was supported by the "National Key R&D Program of China" (Funding No. 2020YFC2008900) and the National Defense Science and Technology Innovation Special Zone Project (223-CXCY-N101-07-18-01).

Project description:Background: Although medical guidelines discourage the use of methylxanthines in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), they are still widely used in clinical practice. This study investigated the real-world use of methylxanthines in the management of AECOPD. Methods: Patient data from the Acute exacerbation of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Using REgistry data (ACURE, NCT02657525) study database were screened. Enrolled patients were divided into treatment and control groups. Propensity score (PS) matching and Cox regression analyses were used to minimize confounding factors and determine the association between methylxanthine treatment and the length of stay (LOS). Results: Among the 2088 eligible patients, 1,563 (74.9%) were in the methylxanthine treatment group. Patients treated with methylxanthines had more severe respiratory symptoms and worse lung function than those in the control group. Doxophylline was the most commonly used methylxanthine in both secondary and tertiary hospitals. After PS matching, 966 patients were equally divided into two groups. The LOS of patients in the two groups was similar [median: 8 days, interquartile range (IQR): 7-11 days, p = 0.730]. Patients in the treatment group (median: 8, IQR: 4-12) had a more significant decrease in the COPD Assessment Test score from admission to discharge than those in the control group (median: 6, IQR: 2-10, p < 0.001). Among all matched patients, the LOS was not significantly associated with methylxanthine treatment [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.89-1.16]. However, in the subgroup analysis, methylxanthines were significantly associated with a short LOS in patients with blood eosinophil count >4% (adjusted HR: 1.56, 95% CIs: 1.12-2.17). Conclusion: This study revealed that methylxanthines, especially doxophylline, are widely used in China. Methylxanthines were effective in improving symptoms in AECOPD patients. Higher blood eosinophil count may be associated with a better efficacy of methylxanthine treatment.

Dataset Information

Head-to-head comparison of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a real-world retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Publications

Head-to-head comparison of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a real-world retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets