Azvudine versus Paxlovid in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.

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/ .

Azvudine versus paxlovid for oral treatment of COVID-19 in Chinese patients.

PURPOSE: To explore the effect of azvudine as compared to paxlovid for oral treatment of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shandong provincial hospital between February 15 and March 15, 2023. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery through Day 28 and secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants who died from any cause by Day 28, the average hospitilization time and expenses, the changes in liver and kidney function and adverse events. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between azvudine and paxlovid in terms of time to sustained clinical recovery (p = 0.429) and death rates (p = 0.687). As for hospitalization time and fee, no significant differences were observed between azvudine group and paxlovid group (Hospitalization time: p = 0.633; Hospitalization fee: p = 0.820). In addition, there were no significant differences in the effects of the two drugs on liver and kidney function (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among adults who were hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection, azvudine was noninferior to paxlovid in terms of time to sustained clinical recovery, death rates, hospitalization time and cost, with few safety concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300071309; Registered 11 May 2023. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective cohort study.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus azvudine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the omicron wave in Beijing: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Two 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: After 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). CONCLUSION: Among 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.

Oral azvudine for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in high risk, nonhospitalized adults: Results of a real-world study.

Azvudine is recommended by Chinese health authorities for COVID-19 treatment but has not been tested in real-world clinical studies. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of Azvudine among COVID-19 nonhospitalized patients. This was a retrospective cohort study, looking at nonhospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Patients admitted between December 19, 2022 and January 5, 2023 were included. Those who received Azvudine treatment were in the Azvudine group, while those who received supportive treatment were the control group. The primary outcome was the disease progression rate by Day 28. Secondary outcomes were individual disease progression outcomes (death or COVID-19-related hospitalization) and duration of fever. The safety outcomes were assessed based on adverse events (AEs) overall, as well as AEs that were considered to be related to the drug. A total of 804 patients with high risk for progression were enrolled in our study. Among them, 317 (39.43%) received treatment with Azvudine. Our study found that Azvudine could reduce the rate of disease progression, as well as rate of COVID-19-related hospitalization in patients comparing the control group. Furthermore, if taken within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, it could also shorten the duration of fever. Despite a higher incidence of drug-related AEs compared to supportive treatment, the majority of these were mild. Azvudine has been found to be effective in reducing the rate of disease progression of COVID-19, albeit with a slight increase in AEs.

Azvudine therapy of common COVID-19 in hemodialysis patients.

There is no antiviral study on hemodialysis patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially on the application of 2'-deoxy-2'-ß -fluoro-4'-azidocytidine (Azvudine, FNC) antiviral therapy. We conducted a multicenter observational study involving 1008 hemodialysis patients. After matching for age, sex, and other factors, 182 patients in the basic treatment group and 182 in the FNC group were included. The negative nucleic acid conversion rate of the FNC group was significantly higher than that of the basic treatment group, and viral loads, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein were significantly lower than those of the basic treatment group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in liver function, renal function, or the number of adverse events between the two groups (p > 0.05). In conclusion, our study has provided novel evidence suggesting that the FNC scheme may be safe and effective compared to the basic treatment of hemodialysis patients with common COVID-19.

Real-world effectiveness of Azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

Chinese guidelines prioritize the use of Azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, the real-world effectiveness of Azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is still lacking, despite clinical trials showing their effectiveness compared with matched controls. To compare the effectiveness of Azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatments in real-world clinical practice, we identified 2118 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with a follow-up of up to 38 days. After exclusions and propensity score matching, we included 281 Azvudine recipients and 281 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients who did not receive oxygen therapy at admission. The lower crude incidence rate of composite disease progression outcome (7.83 vs. 14.83 per 1000 person-days, p = 0.026) and all-cause death (2.05 vs. 5.78 per 1000 person-days, p = 0.052) were observed among Azvudine recipients. Azvudine was associated with lower risks of composite disease progression outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.94) and all-cause death (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-1.04). In subgroup analyses, the results of composite outcome retained significance among patients aged <65 years, those having a history of disease, those with severe COVID-19 at admission, and those receiving antibiotics. These findings suggest that Azvudine treatment showed effectiveness in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in terms of composite disease progression outcome.

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 molecules in the race of COVID-19 drug development.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is spreading worldwide, regardless of different continents, increasing the death toll to almost five million, with more than 300 million reported cases. Researchers have been fighting the greatest threats to human civilization. This report provides a glimpse of ongoing small-molecule research on COVID-19 drugs to save millions of lives, which may provide researchers with a better understanding of rigorously investigated therapeutic agents. This report emphasizes the chemical structures and mechanisms of activity along with drug target information for several small molecules, including marketable drugs and agents under investigation.

Adherence and recommended optimal treatment to Azvudine application for the treatment of outpatient COVID-19 patients: A real-world retrospective study.

Background: Azvudine was approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China and has been widely used since the outbreak in December 2022. However, real-world research on the adherence of Azvudine is lacking. Additionally, limited research exists on determining the optimal duration for Azvudine treatment. Methods: We studied adult patients with COVID-19 who got Azvudine or supportive treatment at an outpatient department between December 19, 2022 and January 5, 2023. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the Azvudine group, which received Azvudine, and the control group, which only received supportive care. We recorded their information and analyzed it using descriptive statistics. The primary outcome of this study was the compliance of outpatients with Azvudine, and the secondary outcome of this study was the optimal duration of Azvudine. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address the imbalance between groups when comparing the optimal duration of Azvudine, and Cox regression to evaluate the effect of Azvudine on the 28-day disease progression rate. Results: We enrolled a total of 882 patients, of which 382 received Azvudine. Among the patients, 94.0 % (359) had good compliance, and non-compliance was primarily attributed to dosage errors. Azvudine appeared to have a beneficial therapeutic effect when administered for at least 7 days. Conclusions: Outpatients have relatively good compliance with Azvudine, and optimal therapeutic effects were observed with the recommended duration of at least 7 days.

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 against severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Xinjiang, China: a single-center, retrospective, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the end of 2022, Azvudine was widely used to treat hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China. However, data on the real-world effectiveness of Azvudine against severe outcomes and post-COVID-19-conditions (PCC) among patients infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variants was limited. This study evaluates the effectiveness of Azvudine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during a SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 dominance period. METHODS: From 1 November 2022 to 1 July 2023, an SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 dominant period, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study based on hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from a tertiary hospital in Shihezi, China. Patients treated with Azvudine and usual care were propensity-score matched (PSM) at a 1:1 ratio to a control group in which patients received usual care only, with matching based on covariates such as sex, age, ethnicity, number of preexisting conditions, antibiotic use at admission, and baseline complete blood cell count. The primary outcomes were all-cause death and short-term (60 days) PCC post discharge. The secondary outcomes included the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation and PCC at long-term post discharge (120 days). Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression models were employed to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) of Azvudine treatment for both all-cause death and invasive mechanical ventilation, and logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) for short-term and long-term PCC. Subgroup analyses were performed based on a part of the matched covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2,639 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were initially identified, and 2,069 ineligible subjects were excluded from analyses. After matching, 297 Azvudine recipients and 297 matched controls were eligible for analyses. The incidence rate of all-cause death was relatively lower in the Azvudine group than in control group (0.007 per person, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.001, 0.024 vs 0.128, 95% CI: 0.092, 0.171), and the use of Azvudine was associated with a significantly lower risk of death (HR: 0.049, 95% CI: 0.012, 0.205). Subgroup analyses suggested protection of Azvudine against the risks of all-cause death among men, age over 65, patients without the preexisting conditions, and patients with antibiotics dispensed at admission. Statistical differences were not observed between the Azvudine group and the control group for the risks of invasive mechanical ventilation or short and long-term PCC. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that Azvudine was associated with lower risk of all-cause death among hospitalized patients with Omicron BA.5 infection in a real-world setting. Further investigation is needed to explore the effectiveness of Azvudine against the PCC after discharge.

This study aims to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of Azvudine among hospitalized COVID-19 patients during a SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 dominant epidemic phase. Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression models were employed to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause death. We found that the use of Azvudine was associated with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause death among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Azvudine for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Pre-Existing Cardiovascular Diseases: A Single-Center, Real-World Experience.

COVID-19 can lead to adverse outcomes in patients with pre-existing diseases. Azvudine has been approved for treating COVID-19 in China, but the real-world data is limited. It is aimed to investigate the efficacy of Azvudine in patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular diseases. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular diseases are retrospectively enrolled. The primary outcome is all-cause death during hospitalization. Overall, 351 patients are included, with a median age of 74 years, and 44% are female. 212 (60.6%) patients are severe cases. Azvudine is used in 106 (30.2%) patients and not in 245 (69.8%). 72 patients died during hospitalization. After multivariate adjustment, patients who received Azvudine a lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio: 0.431; 95% confidence interval: 0.252-0.738; p = 0.002) than controls. Azvudine therapy is also associated with lower risks of shock and acute kidney injury. For sensitivity analysis in the propensity score-matched cohort (n = 90 for each group), there is also a significant difference in all-cause death between the two groups (hazard ratio: 0.189; 95% confidence interval: 0.071-0.498; p < 0.001). This study indicated that Azvudine therapy is associated with better outcomes in COVID-19 patients with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases.

Efficacy and Safety of Azvudine in Patients With COVID-19 in China: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Azvudine (FNC) is a novel small molecule antiviral drug for treating COVID-19 that is available only on the Chinese market. Despite being recommended for treating COVID-19 by the Chinese guidelines, its efficacy and safety are still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of FNC on COVID-19 outcomes and its safety. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to evaluate studies on the effectiveness of FNC in treating COVID-19 in China, focusing on mortality and overall outcomes. Additionally, its impact on the length of hospital stay (LOHS), time to first nucleic acid negative conversion (T-FNANC), and adverse events was evaluated. The inclusion criterion was that the studies were published from July 2021 to April 10, 2024. This study uses the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias risk and employs the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 24 retrospective studies involving a total of 11 830 patients. Low-certainty evidence revealed no significant difference in mortality (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76-1.08) or LOHS (WMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35) between FNC and Paxlovid in COVID-19 patients. Low-certainty evidence shows that the T-FNANC was longer (WMD = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.36-3.53). Compared with the Paxlovid group, low-certainty evidence shows the FNC group exhibited a worse composite outcome (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.95) and fewer adverse events (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.85). Compared with supportive treatment, low certainty shows FNC significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74) and decreased the composite outcome (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91), and very low certainty evidence shows significantly decreased the T-FNANC (WMD = -4.62, 95% CI: -8.08 to -1.15). However, in very low certainty, there was no significant difference in LOHS (WMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -3.32 to 1.91) or adverse events (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.48-8.17). CONCLUSIONS: FNC appears to be a safe and potentially effective treatment for COVID-19 in China, but further research with larger, high-quality studies is necessary to confirm these findings. Due to the certainty of the evidence and the specific context of the studies conducted in China, caution should be exercised when considering whether the results are applicable worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD42024520565.

A Retrospective Analysis of Azvudine in Patients with COVID-19 and Pre-existing Cancer.

Objectives: Azvudine has been recommended as a potential treatment for the recently discovered Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in 2019. However, the effectiveness of Azvudine in individuals who have both COVID-19 and pre-existing cancer remains uncertain. Consequently, we undertook a retrospective analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Azvudine therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing cancer. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, selected from patients admitted to a specialist oncology hospital between June 1, 2022 to June 31, 2023 with positive RT-PCR and pre-existing cancer. After exclusion and propensity score matching, patients in the test group treated with Azvudine and control patients treated with standard antiviral therapy were included. The primary outcome is the interval time from the first dose of Azvudine to the attainment of the first negative result for nucleic acid. Secondary outcomes included the rate of nucleic acid conversion, the duration of hospitalization, and the admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the hazard ratio (HR) of event outcomes and to assess whether cancer types and Azvudine treatment will affect the course of COVID-19, specifically the time it takes for primary symptoms to alleviate. Results: In this study, a total of 84 patients were included for analysis. Among them, 42 patients received Azvudine treatment after hospitalization, and the rest were treated with standard antiviral therapy. The results expressed that the time taken for the first negative nucleic acid test was significantly shorter in the Azvudine group compared to the control group [5 (IQR3-7) d vs 12 (IQR9-15) d], p<0.0001. This difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, a multivariate COX analysis indicated that Azvudine treatment could effectively reduce the time required for nucleic acid conversion in cancer patients (HR 1.994, 95% CI 1.064-3.736, p=0.031). And the type of cancer also had an impact on the course of COVID-19 in patients. (HR 3.442, 95%CI 1.214-9.756, p=0.020; HR 3.246, 95% CI 1.925-7.209, p=0.036). Conclusion: Azvudine was correlated with a reduced duration for achieving nucleic acid conversion in individuals diagnosed with cancer. And different types of cancer have a certain impact on the course of COVID-19 for patients.

Pharmacological Insights: Mitochondrial ROS Generation by FNC (Azvudine) in Dalton's Lymphoma Cells Revealed by Super Resolution Imaging.

Nucleoside analogs are a common form of chemotherapy that disrupts DNA replication and repair, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) production is a significant mechanism through which these drugs exert their anticancer effects. This study investigated a new nucleoside analog called FNC or Azvudine, and its impact on ROS production and cell viability in Dalton's lymphoma (DL) cells. The study found that FNC treatment resulted in a time- and dose-dependent increase in ROS levels in DL cells. After 15 and 30 min of treatment with 2 and 1 mg/ml of FNC, mitochondrial ROS production was observed in DL cells. Furthermore, prolonged exposure to FNC caused structural alterations and DNA damage in DL cells. The results suggest that FNC's ability to impair DL cell viability may be due to its induction of ROS production and indicate a need for further investigation.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid against mortality and viral clearance among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection during the omicron wave in China: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess clinical effectiveness and viral clearance following the use of molnupiravir, azvudine and paxlovid in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China dominated by the omicron BA.5.2 and BF.7 subvariant of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Enrolled patients were assigned to the molnupiravir group or the azvudine group or the paxlovid group or the control group (not taking any antiviral drugs). The primary outcome of the cohort study was viral clearance and viral burden rebound after treatment and the secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The four groups were propensity score-matched (1:1). We plotted viral load trends for each antiviral drug intervention using locally weighted regression (LOWESS) smoothed data. Multivariate logistic regression (stepwise algorithm) models were used to determine any risk factors for 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1537 patients receiving any treatment, 886 (57.6 %) received molnupiravir, 390 (25.4 %) received azvudine, 94 (6.1 %) received paxlovid, and 167 (10.9 %) did not use any antiviral drugs. Our data analysis showed that age (OR = 1.05, 95 % CI: 1.03-1.07, P < 0.001), Charlson comorbidty index (OR = 1.32, 95 % CI: 1.18-1.48, P < 0.001), severity of COVID-19 (P < 0.001), gamma globulin (OR = 2.04, 95 % CI: 1.03-3.99, P = 0.039) and corticosteroids use (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI: 1.19-4.69, P = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors for 28-day mortality in COVID-19 patients. After propensity score matching (PSM), the paxlovid recipients (OR = 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.05-0.83, P = 0.036) or azvudine recipients (OR = 0.27, 95 % CI: 0.07-0.91, P = 0.046) had lower 28-day mortality compared to their matched controls. Viral rebound occurred in the control group around days 9-16, while no viral rebound was found in any of the three oral antiviral groups. We found that molnupiravir group performed comparably in terms of the rate of nucleic acid conversion negative compared with the paxlovid group, while azvudine group performed slightly worse compared with the paxlovid group or molnupiravir group. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the wave of omicron strain, the molnupiravir, paxlovid and azvudine recipients showed a faster and more stable decrease in viral load and rare virus rebound in response to antiviral treatments when compared to the controls. The study supported that initiation treatment with paxlovid and azvudine was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death within 28 days.

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.