Oral Azvudine for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing conditions: a retrospective cohort study

Antiviral effectiveness and survival correlation of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in elderly severe patients with COVID-19: a retrospective real-world study

Background

Azvudine 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.

Methods

In 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.

Findings

Among 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).

Interpretation

Patients 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.

Funding

This 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).

Effectiveness of azvudine in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Azvudine has been approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China, and this meta-analysis aims to illustrate the safety of azvudine and its effectiveness in reducing mortality.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database (L.OVE) were searched to aggregate currently published studies. Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled study and cohort study respectively. Odds radios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were combined for dichotomous variables. Publication bias was assessed by Egger's test and funnel plots.

RESULTS

A total of 184 articles were retrieved from the included databases and 17 studies were included into the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that azvudine significantly reduced mortality risk in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (OR: 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.54, p < 0.001). Besides, either mild to moderate or severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from azvudine administration. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ICU admission (OR: 0.90, 95%CI 0.47-1.72, p = 0.74) and invasive ventilation (OR: 0.94, 95%CI 0.54-1.62, p = 0.82) between azvudine and control group. The incidence of adverse events was similar between azvudine and control (OR: 1.26, 95%CI 0.59-2.70, p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that azvudine could reduce the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients, and the safety of administration is acceptable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42023462988; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Comparison of azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and safety of azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and molnupiravir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study included patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (asymptomatic, mild, and common types) at the First Hospital of Changsha (Hunan Province, China) between March and November 2022. Eligible patients were classified into the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, or molnupiravir groups according to the antiviral agents they received. The outcomes were the times to nucleic acid negative conversion (NANC). This study included 157 patients treated with azvudine (n = 66), molnupiravir (n = 66), or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 25). There were no statistically significant differences in the time from diagnosis to NANC among the azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups [median, 9 (95% CI 9-11) vs. 11 (95% CI 10-12) vs. 9 (95% CI 8-12) days, P = 0.15], time from administration to NANC [median, 9 (95% CI 8-10) vs. 10 (95% CI 9.48-11) vs. 8.708 (95% CI 7.51-11) days, P = 0.50], or hospital stay [median, 11 (95% CI 11-13) vs. 13 (95% CI 12-14) vs. 12 (95% CI 10-14) days, P = 0.14], even after adjustment for sex, age, COVID-19 type, comorbidities, Ct level, time from diagnosis to antiviral treatment, and number of symptoms. The cumulative NANC rates in the azvudine, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups were 15.2%/12.3%/16.0% at day 5 (P = 0.858), 34.8%/21.5%/32.0% at day 7 (P = 0.226), 66.7%/52.3%/60.0% at 10 days (P = 0.246), and 86.4%/86.2%/80.0% at day 14 (P = 0.721). No serious adverse events were reported. Azvudine may be comparable to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 regarding time to NANC, hospital stay, and AEs.

Efficacy and safety of azvudine in symptomatic adult COVID-19 participants who are at increased risk of progressing to critical illness: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will coexist with humans for a long time, and it is therefore important to develop effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recent studies have demonstrated that antiviral therapy is a key factor in preventing patients from progressing to severe disease, even death. Effective and affordable antiviral medications are essential for disease treatment and are urgently needed. Azvudine, a nucleoside analogue, is a potential low-cost candidate with few drug interactions. However, validation of high-quality clinical studies is still limited.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial involving 1096 adult patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms of COVID-19 who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Patients will be randomized to (1) receive azvudine tablets 5 mg daily for a maximum of 7 days or (2) receive placebo five tablets daily. All participants will be permitted to use a standard treatment strategy except antiviral therapy beyond the investigational medications. The primary outcome will be the ratio of COVID-19-related critical illness and all-cause mortality among the two groups within 28 days.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this clinical trial is to determine whether azvudine can prevent patients at risk of severe disease from progressing to critical illness and death, and the results will identify whether azvudine is an effective and affordable antiviral treatment option for COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05689034. Registered on 18 January 2023.

Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in older adults with mild and moderate COVID-19: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Azvudine has clinical benefits and acceptable safety against COVID-19, including in patients with comorbidities, but there is a lack of available data for its use in older adult patients. This study explored the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in older adults with mild or moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients aged ≥80 diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Shaoyang between October and November 2022. According to the therapies they received, the eligible patients were divided into the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and standard-of-care (SOC) groups. The outcomes were the proportion of patients progressing to severe COVID-19, time to nucleic acid negative conversion (NANC), and the 5-, 7-, 10-, and 14-day NANC rates from admission.

RESULTS

The study included 55 patients treated with azvudine (n = 14), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 18), and SOC (n = 23). The median time from symptom onset to NANC of the azvudine, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and SOC groups was 14 (range, 6-25), 15 (range, 11-24), and 19 (range, 18-23) days, respectively. The median time from treatment initiation to NANC of the azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir groups was 8 (range, 4-20) and 9 (range, 5-16) days, respectively. The median length of hospital stay in the three groups was 10.5 (range, 5-23), 13.5 (range, 10-21), and 17 (range, 10-23) days, respectively. No treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Azvudine showed satisfactory effectiveness and acceptable safety in older adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. Therefore, azvudine could be a treatment option for this special patient population.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Comparison of Azvudine and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and Combined Use in Patients with COVID-19

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 576 patients with COVID-19, comprising 195 patients without antiviral therapy, 226 patients treated with azvudine, 114 patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 41 patients were treated with azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir concurrently. We compared their symptoms, mortality rates, and the length and cost of hospitalization.

Results

The incidence of symptoms was similar in patients treated with azvudine and in those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. However, among patients experiencing weakness, the duration of weakness was significantly shorter in the azvudine group than in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (P=0.029). Mortality did not differ significantly between the azvudine group and the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (18.14% vs.10.53%, P=0.068). Among "severe patients", the mortality rate was markedly lower in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir than in patients treated with azvudine (16.92% vs.32.17%, P=0.026). In patients with hepatic insufficiency, those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had substantially lower mortality than those treated with azvudine (15.09% vs.34.25%, P=0.016). In addition, patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had longer hospital stays (P=0.002) and higher hospital costs (P<0.001) than those receiving azvudine. Compared with patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or azvudine alone, patients taking nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine concurrently had no significant improvement in survival (P>0.05), length of stay (P>0.05), or hospital costs (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Azvudine is recommended for patients with non-severe COVID-19 with weakness. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is recommended for patients with severe COVID-19, to reduce mortality, and it could be the best choice for patients with hepatic insufficiency. The concurrent use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine in patients with COVID-19 could be not recommended.

Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: Emulation of a randomized target trial

To examine the effectiveness of azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in treating hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We emulated a target trial with a multicenter retrospective cohort of hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 without contraindications for azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir between December 01, 2022 and January 19, 2023 (during the Omicron BA.5.2 variant wave). Exposures included treatment with azvudine or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 days versus no antiviral treatment during hospitalization. Primary composite outcome (all-cause death and initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation), and their separate events were evaluated. Of the 1154 patients, 27.2% were severe cases. In the intent-to-treat analyses, azvudine reduced all-cause death (Hazard ratio [HR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.12-0.78), and its composite with invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24-0.92). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.17-1.05), and its composite with all-cause death (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18-0.81). The study did not identify credible subgroup effects. The per-protocol analyses and all sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. Both azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir improved the prognosis of hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Small-molecule anti-COVID-19 drugs and a focus on China's homegrown mindeudesivir (VV116)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stimulated tremendous efforts to develop therapeutic agents that target severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to control viral infection. So far, a few small-molecule antiviral drugs, including nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid), remdesivir, and molnupiravir have been marketed for the treatment of COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been recommended by the World Health Organization as an early treatment for outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. However, the existing treatment options have limitations, and effective treatment strategies that are cost-effective and convenient for tackling COVID-19 are still needed. To date, four domestically developed oral anti-COVID-19 drugs have been granted conditional market approval in China. These drugs include azvudine, simnotrelvir-ritonavir (Xiannuoxin), leritrelvir, and mindeudesivir (VV116). Preclinical and clinical studies have explored the efficacy and tolerability of mindeudesivir and supported its early use in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 cases at high risk for progression. In this review, we discuss the most recent findings regarding the pharmacological mechanism and therapeutic effects focusing on mindeudesivir and other small-molecule antiviral agents for COVID-19. These findings will expand our understanding and highlight the potential widespread application of China's homegrown anti-COVID-19 drugs.

Pathogen evolution, prevention/control strategy and clinical features of COVID-19: experiences from China

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported at the end of 2019 as a worldwide health concern causing a pandemic of unusual viral pneumonia and many other organ damages, which was defined by the World Health Organization as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pandemic is considered a significant threat to global public health till now. In this review, we have summarized the lessons learnt during the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, including its prototype and variants. The overall clinical features of variants of concern (VOC), heterogeneity in the clinical manifestations, radiology and pathology of COVID-19 patients are also discussed, along with advances in therapeutic agents.

Separation and quantification of Azvudine in plasma of patients with COVID-19 using LC-MS/MS

Azvudine (FNC) is a new drug conditionally approved in 2022 for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. However, the exposure level of FNC in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice is still obscure, and there is no liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or LC method reported for quantifying the FNC. In this study, a simple, fast, and reliable LC-MS/MS method using L-phenylalanine-D5 (Phe-D5) as the internal standard (IS) was developed for the quantification of FNC in plasma from COVID-19 patients. After simple protein precipitation with methanol, the analyte in the supernatant was separated on Waters Atlantis® T3 (2.1 ×100 mm, 3.0 µm) column with the mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile (ACN) - aqueous solution (containing 0.03% heptafluorobutyric acid and 0.2% formic acid). The mobile phase was delivered at 0.3 mL/min in an isocratic elution program (15:85, V: V). The linear relationship of FNC was good within the calibration range of 2.0 - 2000.0 ng/mL, with the recovery of FNC ranging from 81.37% to 103.31% and the matrix effect was 94.77%- 109.83%. The short-term, long-term, and freeze-thaw stability of the FNC assessed in method was acceptable, and all other items met the requirements of validation of the biological analytical method. Finally, the method was applied to detect the exposure level of FNC in plasma samples from patients diagnosed with COVID-19, and the results, which are within the linear range of the method, showed huge inter-individual variation, supporting the significance of therapeutic drug monitoring of FNC.

Azvudine reduces the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study

In our retrospective cohort study, we aim to explore whether Azvudine modifies the risk of death in COVID-19 patients. It was conducted on the medical records of patients, consecutively admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia to two hospitals in Chongqing, China. Based on Azvudine treatment exposure, the patients were divided into Azvudine group and non-Azvudine group. We used 1:2 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) in our study to adjust for confounding factors and differences between Azvudine and non-Azvudine groups. There were 1072 patients included in our original cohort. With 1:2 ratio PSM, the Azvudine group included 195 patients and non-Azvudine group included 390 patients. The results showed that Azvudine treatment was associated with improved in-hospital mortality in overall population (OR 0.375, 95% CI 0.225-0.623, P < 0.001), severe subgroup (OR 0.239, 95% CI 0.107-0.535, P = 0.001), critical subgroup (OR 0.091, 95% CI 0.011-0.769, P = 0.028) in matched cohort with univariate analysis. And there was a significantly lower in-hospital mortality in overall population (11% vs. 24%, P＜0.001), severe sub-group (10% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) and critical sub-group (5% vs. 34%, P = 0.017) in matched cohort. These results suggest Azvudine can reduce in-hospital mortality in overall COVID-19 patients, severe, and critical subgroup population.

Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among 572 fully vaccinated (BBIBP-CorV) hospitalized patients

Background

Breakthrough infections have been widely reported in vaccinated individuals. However, the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated (BBIBP-CorV) hospitalized patients have not yet been fully elucidated.

Methods

In the single-center cohort study conducted at Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, we enrolled the hospitalized COVID-19 patients who had received full (2 doses) vaccination with the BBIBP-CorV vaccine between December 5, 2022, and January 31, 2023. We collected and analyzed information related to clinical characteristics, laboratory results, treatments, outcomes and prognostic data. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression were performed to assess the impact of clinical characteristics and laboratory results on the composite outcome (including the initiation of endotracheal intubation, non-invasive respiratory support, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death).

Results

A total of 572 COVID-19 hospitalized patients with fully vaccinated (BBIBP-CorV) were included. The median age of the patients was 66 years (IQR 53, 74). The most common symptoms included fever (347 [60.7 %]), dry cough (401 [70.1 %]), and expectoration (333 [58.2 %]). Among those with pre-existing chronic comorbidities, 44.2 % had hypertension and 20.5 % had diabetes. Laboratory tests revealed that the majority of patients (425/549 [77.4 %]) had normal white blood cell counts. Composite outcome occurred in 11.9 % of patients, with 96.7 % of patients discharged and 3.3 % of patients died. Multivariate Cox regression analyses suggested that the NLR >4 (adjusted HR, 5.50 [95%CI: 1.56-19.47]; P = 0.008), D-dimer >0.5 mg/ml (adjusted HR, 2.17 [95%CI: 1.03-4.59]; P = 0.042) and procalcitonin >0.1 ng/ml (adjusted HR, 3.22 [95%CI: 1.38-7.52]; P = 0.007) were independently associated with the composite outcome.

Conclusion

Breakthrough infection after being fully vaccinated (BBIBP-CorV) is more likely to occur in older patients and patients with pre-existing chronic comorbidities. NLR >4, D-dimer >0.5 mg/ml and procalcitonin >0.1 ng/ml were independent risk factors for composite outcome.

Do disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the burden on ankylosing spondylitis patients with mild-moderate COVID-19? evidence from a retrospective cohort study

Objectives: The impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) on the outcomes of mild-moderate COVID-19 in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of NSAIDs, csDMARDs, and TNFi on AS patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. Methods: This cohort study utilized patient-reported PCR/antigen tests to determine the occurrence of COVID-19 and assessed clinical manifestations to determine its severity. The study focused on two primary outcomes: an increased number of COVID-19 symptoms and a prolonged disease course (longer than 10 or 28 days). Modified Poisson regression was performed to analyze the association between exposures and outcomes. Results: A total of 521 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 34.8 (inter-quartile range: 27.2-46.7), with 420 (80.6%) being men. Among the patients, 52 (10.0%) had comorbidities and 443 (85%) had been vaccinated. After adjusting for confounding factors, there was no significant association between csDMARDs or TNFi and the presence of more than 5 symptoms in mild-moderate COVID-19 (adjusted relative risk (RRa) 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84-1.40 or 1.09, 0.92-1.29 for csDMARDs or TNFi, respectively), whereas the prevalence of experiencing more than 5 symptoms increased in patients with NSAID monotherapy (RRa 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.46). Similarly, there was no significant association with having more than 10 symptoms (RRa 0.65, 95% CI: 0.26-1.64; 0.95, 0.36-2.54; and 1.01, 0.53-1.91 for NSAIDs, csDMARDs, and TNFi, respectively). Patients who had pre-existing use of NSAIDs, csDMARDs and TNFi had similar odds of experiencing a disease course longer than 10 days (RRa 1.17, 95% CI: 0.82-1.66; 1.18, 0.78-1.77; and 1.22, 0.92-1.63 for NSAIDs, csDMARDs, and TNFi, respectively) and longer than 28 days (RRa 0.94, 95% CI: 0.31-2.81; 0.97, 0.25-3.74 and 1.05, 0.44-2.49, respectively) compared to those not using medication. Conclusion: AS patients treated with csDMARDs or TNFi did not show inferior outcomes in terms of symptom burden or recovery compared to those not using medication in mild-moderate COVID-19. The observed inverse association between pre-existing NSAIDs use and COVID-19 symptom burden in AS deserves further investigation.

Lactate dehydrogenase predicts disease progression outcome in COVID-19 patients treated with Azvudine

Background

Azvudine has been approved in China for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Previous studies have suggested a correlation between high levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and the severity of COVID-19. However, the impact of LDH levels in COVID-19 patients receiving Azvudine treatment remains unclear.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the data of 351 hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were consecutively treated with Azvudine, with or without high LDH levels. The clinical features, treatment strategies and prognosis data were collected and analyzed.

Results

Among the 351 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with Azvudine (119 with high-LDH levels), the median age was 69 years (range 58-78), and 213 (60.7%) were male. Common symptoms included cough (86.0%), expectoration (73.5%), fever (69.8%), polypnea (47.6%) and poor appetite (46.4%). Patients with high LDH levels exhibited significantly elevated leucocyte and neutrophil counts, elevated level of myocardial enzymes, as well as higher levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6, interleukin-10, procalcitonin, C reactive protein, ferritin, and prolonged erythrocyte sedimentation rate upon admission. COVID-19 patients with high-LDH levels had higher rates of corticosteroid therapy, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, worsened and death (2.5% vs. 0%). The Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated that high LDH levels (adjusted hazard ratio = 5.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 14.50) were associated with a more unfavorable composite disease progression outcome among COVID-19 patients treated with Azvudine, after accounting for potential confounding variables.

Conclusion

High-LDH levels predict a worse composite disease progression outcome in COVID-19 patients treated with Azvudine.

Efficacy of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir versus Azvudine for COVID-19 Treatment in Tibet: A Retrospective Study

Background

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, also known as paxlovid, is a widely used antiviral drug against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azvudine, a drug previously used to treat human immunodeficiency virus-1, has also been used to treat COVID-19 in China. However, only a few clinical studies have evaluated the effects of azvudine. Additionally, studies comparing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with azvudine have been limited in number.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective case‒control analysis at the Third People's Hospital of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Eighty-two eligible patients with COVID-19 who received azvudine treatment were included. A total of 145 control patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment were selected by propensity score matching for age, sex, the severity of disease, and initial cycle threshold values. A comparison of the nucleic acid test negative conversion time, the length of hospitalization, and mortality rate was conducted.

Results

Overall, the mean nucleic acid test negative conversion time was comparable between the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and azvudine groups (7.0 [11.0, 15.0] vs 9.0 [6.0, 12.0] days, P=0.064). However, for patients with mild COVID-19, the nucleic acid test negative conversion time was significantly shorter in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group than in the azvudine group (6.0 [5.0, 8.0] vs 8.0 [6.0, 11.0] days, P=0.029). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and the azvudine group did not differ significantly in length of hospitalization (8.0 [5.5,10.5] vs 8.0 [5.0,10.0] days, P=0.378). Regarding the mortality rate, there were 4 (2.8%) deaths in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 3 (3.7%) in the azvudine group (P=0.706).

Conclusion

Azvudine is generally as effective as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, but for patients with mild COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir could suppress the virus more rapidly. For those who cannot be treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, azvudine might be an effective therapy for COVID-19.

Is Azvudine Comparable to Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Real-World Efficacy and Safety for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19? A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Azvudine 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

This 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.

CONCLUSION

Azvudine probably possessed comparable efficacy and safety to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, although it was less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for some outcomes.