Evaluate clinical effectiveness of Azvudine with data rather than speculation

Li, Daishi; Liu, Yihuang; Shen, Minxue; Deng, Guangtong

doi:10.1002/jmv.28926

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After removing duplicates and screening by title and abstract, 26 eligible studies remained for full-text investigation. Five studies were excluded due to the lack of a control group and other reasons [ 12 , 21 – 24 ]. Ultimately, meta-analyses were conducted on 21 articles, [ 6 – 8 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 25 – 38 ] including 18 retrospective cohort studies and three RCTs involving 10,011 patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Amani,

Amani

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). Methods A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data. Results Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to—0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate. Conclusions The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.

show abstract