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.

Public Health Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic Reduce the Spread of Other Respiratory Infectious Diseases.

Background: Public health measures (such as wearing masks, physical distancing, and isolation) have significantly reduced the spread of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of public health measures on other respiratory infectious diseases is unclear. Objective: To assess the correlation between public health measures and the incidence of respiratory infectious diseases in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We collected the data from the National Health and Construction Commission in China on the number of patients with six respiratory infectious diseases (measles, tuberculosis, pertussis, scarlet fever, influenza, and mumps) from 2017 to 2020 and assessed the correlation between public health measures and the incidence of respiratory infectious diseases. Finally, we used the data of the six respiratory infectious diseases in 2021 to verify our results. Results: We found public health measures significantly reduced the incidence of measles (p = 0.002), tuberculosis (p = 0.002), pertussis (p = 0.004), scarlet fever (p = 0.002), influenza (p = 0.034), and mumps (p = 0.002) in 2020, and prevented seasonal peaks. Moreover, the effects of public health measures were most marked during the peak seasons for these infections. Of the six respiratory infectious diseases considered, tuberculosis was least affected by public health measures. Conclusion: Public health measures were very effective in reducing the incidence of respiratory infectious diseases, especially when the respiratory infectious diseases would normally have been at their peak.

Effects of entecavir and lamivudine for hepatitis B decompensated cirrhosis: meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effects of entecavir (ETV) and lamivudine (LAM) for the treatment of hepatitis B decompensated cirrhosis using a meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for all eligible studies published prior to May 30, 2013 using PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the VIP database, the Wanfang database and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ETV with LAM for the treatment of hepatitis B decompensated cirrhosis were included. The data were analyzed with Review Manager Software 5.0.2. We used RR as an effect measure, and reported its 95%CI. The meta-analysis was performed using either a fixed-effect or random-effect model, based on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. The analysis was executed using the main outcome parameters including hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA undetectability, HBV DNA level, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, albumin level, total bilirubin (TBIL) level, prothrombin time activity (PTA) level, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, mortality, drug-resistance, and adverse reactions. Meta-analysis of the included trials and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre-specified characteristics and the therapeutic effects of the two agents. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible trials (873 patients in total) were included and evaluated for methodological quality and heterogeneity. Of these studies, all had baseline comparability, 12 of them reported baseline values of the two treatment groups in detail. Following various treatment durations (12, 24, 36, 48 and > 48 wk), both ETV and LAM significantly reduced HBV DNA level, however, reductions were greater in the ETV group (MD = -0.66, 95%CI: -0.83-0.50, P < 0.00001), (MD = -0.93, 95%CI: -1.36-0.51, P < 0.0001), (MD = -1.4, 95%CI: -1.78-1.01, P < 0.00001), (MD = -1.18, 95%CI: -1.90-0.46, P = 0.001), (MD = -0.14, 95%CI: -0.17-0.11, P < 0.00001, respectively). At 12, 24 and 48 wk of treatment, ETV had a significant effect on the rate of HBV DNA undetectability (RR = 1.55, 95%CI: 1.22-1.99, P = 0.0004), (RR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.13-1.38, P < 0.0001), (RR = 1.2, 95%CI: 1.10-1.32, P < 0.0001, respectively). Although HBeAg seroconversion in the ETV group was more pronounced than that in the LAM group at 24 wk (27.90% vs 26.19%) and 48 wk (31.52% vs 25.00%) of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between them (RR = 1.49, 95%CI: 0.98-2.28, P = 0.07), (RR = 1.27, 95%CI: 0.98-1.65, P = 0.07, respectively). Following various treatment durations, both the ETV group and the LAM group showed significantly improved liver function (ALT, AIB, TBIL, PTA and CTP levels) and reduced mortality (ETV 6.37%, LAM 7.89%). The effects in the ETV group (0.33%) were statistically lower than those in the LAM group (14.33%) regarding the rate of drug-resistance (RR = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.04-0.24, P ≤ 0.00001). In addition, no severe adverse reactions were observed in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: ETV and LAM significantly improved liver function and reduced mortality. Both drugs produced similar serological responses, and were safe and well tolerated. However, ETV resulted in a better virological response and lower drug-resistance, but is more expensive.

Effects of telbivudine and entecavir for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effects of telbivudine (LDT) and entecavir (ETV) in treatment of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B by meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP database, the Wanfang database and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for all relevant articles published before April 1, 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDT with ETV for treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B were included. The data was analyzed with Review Manager Software 5.0. We used relative risk (RR) as an effect measure, and reported its 95% CI. Meta-analysis was performed using either a fixed-effect or random-effect model, based on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. The analysis was executed using the main outcome parameters including hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA undetectability, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, HBeAg loss, HBeAg seroconversion, drug-resistance, and adverse reactions. Meta-analysis of the included trials and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre-specified characteristics with the therapeutic effects of the two agents. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible trials (3925 patients in total) were included and evaluated for methodological quality and heterogeneity. In various treatment durations of 4 wk, 8 wk, 12 wk, 24 wk, 36 wk, 48 wk, 52 wk, 60 wk and 72 wk, the rates of HBV DNA undetectability and ALT normalization in the two groups were similar, without statistical significance. At 4 wk and 8 wk of the treatment, no statistical differences were found in the rate of HBeAg loss between the two groups, while the rate in the LDT group was higher than in the ETV group at 12 wk, 24 wk, 48 wk and 52 wk, respectively (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.16, 7.03, P = 0.02; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16, 1.82, P = 0.001; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11, 1.89, P = 0.006; and RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04, 3.32, P = 0.04). At 4 wk, 8 wk, 60 wk and 72 wk of the treatment, there were no significant differences in the rate of HBeAg seroconversion between the two groups, while at 12 wk, 24 wk, 48 wk and 52 wk, the rate in the LDT group was higher than in the ETV group (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.36, 3.24, P = 0.0008; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.29, 2.28, P = 0.0002; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.36, 2.54, P < 0.0001; and RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.21, 2.90, P = 0.005). The rate of drug-resistance was higher in the LDT group than in the ETV group (RR 3.76, 95% CI 1.28, 11.01, P = 0.02). In addition, no severe adverse drug reactions were observed in the two groups. And the rate of increased creatine kinase in the LDT group was higher than in the ETV group (RR 5.58, 95% CI 2.22, 13.98, P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: LDT and ETV have similar virological and biomedical responses, and both are safe and well tolerated. However, LDT has better serological response and higher drug-resistance.