Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China, both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) and azvudine have been granted approval to treat adult SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with moderate symptoms. Information about the clinical effect of the two available agents among inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19 is scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of Paxlovid and azvudine among adult inpatients with severe or critical COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in two large medical centres after the epidemic control measures were lifted in China. A new propensity score matched-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort was constructed to evaluate the in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and safety. RESULTS: A total of 955 individuals were in the cohort. The antiviral therapy strategies were decided by the senior physician and the supplies of the pharmacy. A total of 451 patients were in the Paxlovid group, and 504 patients were in the azvudine group. Compared with Paxlovid, the effects of azvudine on in-hospital all-cause mortality were not significantly different, and the OR (95% CI) was 1.084 (0.822 to 1.430), and the average hospital length of stay of patients discharged alive was also similar in the azvudine group, and the difference (day) and (95% CI) was 0.530 (-0.334 to 1.393). After 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in the SOFA score was greater in the Paxlovid group than in the azvudine group (p<0.001). The change in glomerular filtration rate was not significantly different (p=0.824). CONCLUSION: Paxlovid and azvudine had similar effectiveness on in-hospital all-cause mortality and hospital length of stay. Compared with the azvudine group, after 7 days of therapy, the degree of decline in SOFA score was significantly higher in the Paxlovid group. These findings need to be verified in larger prospective studies or randomised controlled trials.