Is Azvudine Comparable to Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Real-World Efficacy and Safety for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19? A Retrospective Cohort Study
Qinqin Zhao, Bei Zheng, Bing Han, Pinpin Feng, Zhongni Xia, Hong Jiang, Ying Yin, Jun Zhu, Cheng Fei, Junlei Xiang, Lingli Shen, Qiliang Luo, Yinhuan Wu, Ayiguzhali Wusiman, Chuanwei Xin, Meiling Zhang, Gonghua Li, Xiang Li
Abstract
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. 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. 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. Azvudine probably possessed comparable efficacy and safety to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, although it was less effective than nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for some outcomes.