RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Deoxymikanolide (DEO) was isolated from Mikania micrantha Bunge and identified as a novel antibacterial compound previously. However, the mode of antimicrobial mechanism of DEO was not clear but hypothesized to affect the morphology and physiology of Ralstonia solanacearum cells. In this study, we confirmed our hypothesis via transmission electron microscopy (TEM) observation and comprehensive physiological analyses, including electric conductivity, glycan and phosphorus metabolism, activities of antioxidant enzymes (catalase, peroxidase, and superoxide dismutase), intrabacterial reactive oxygen species (ROS), and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels. We found that glycan and phosphorus metabolism, electric conductivity, intracellular ROS and MDA levels of R. solanacearum cells were significantly increased, while the activities of three antioxidant enzymes were significantly inhibited by DEO treatment. Moreover, TEM analysis showed that DEO treatment led to an early-stage of cell shrinkage, intermediate-stages of cytoplasmic damage, and a final-stage of cell disruption. Altogether, our data presented here indicate that DEO could adversely affect the physiology and morphology of R. solanacearum cells and be treated as an alternative antibacterial treatment in the future.
