法非拉韦在 COVID-19 中的疗效:两中心回顾性对比研究

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Infection in Developing Countries Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.3855/jidc.18039
Elif Tukenmez Tigen, Malgorzata Mikulska, Buket Erturk Sengel, Alessio Signori, Silvia Dettori, Stefania Tutino, Abdullah Emre Guner, Zekaver Odabasi, Volkan Korten, Matteo Bassetti
{"title":"法非拉韦在 COVID-19 中的疗效:两中心回顾性对比研究","authors":"Elif Tukenmez Tigen, Malgorzata Mikulska, Buket Erturk Sengel, Alessio Signori, Silvia Dettori, Stefania Tutino, Abdullah Emre Guner, Zekaver Odabasi, Volkan Korten, Matteo Bassetti","doi":"10.3855/jidc.18039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Favipiravir (FVP) is an antiviral, targeting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FVP as a treatment for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study in two centers (San Martino University Hospital in Genova, Italy, and Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Turkey). Adult patients (inpatients) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and June 2020 were included. All patients in the Italian center received the standard of care (SoC) treatment, while in the Turkish center patients received FVP in addition to SoC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred-nineteen patients were analyzed (225 from Turkey, all treated with FVP, and 394 from Italy, none treated with FVP). Propensity score-matching was done in 142 patients (71 from the SoC group vs. 71 from the SoC + FVP group). A Higher requirement of NIV/CPAP (n = 38; 53.5%) was registered in the SoC group compared to the SoC + FVP group (n = 9; 12.7%). A higher frequency of intubation was registered in the SoC + FVP group (n = 25; 35.2% vs n = 13, 18.3%). There was a trend towards better survival in SoC + FVP treated patients with HR = 0.64 (95% CI 0.30-1.34). At 28 days the OS was, respectively, 70.3% (95% CI: 53.2-82.1) vs 80.3% (95% CI: 69.0-87.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The addition of FVP to SoC did not show a significant difference in survival and invasive and noninvasive (CPAP/NIMV) mechanical ventilation compared to standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19-infected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","volume":"18 9","pages":"1313-1319"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of favipiravir in COVID-19: A retrospective two center comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Elif Tukenmez Tigen, Malgorzata Mikulska, Buket Erturk Sengel, Alessio Signori, Silvia Dettori, Stefania Tutino, Abdullah Emre Guner, Zekaver Odabasi, Volkan Korten, Matteo Bassetti\",\"doi\":\"10.3855/jidc.18039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Favipiravir (FVP) is an antiviral, targeting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FVP as a treatment for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study in two centers (San Martino University Hospital in Genova, Italy, and Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Turkey). Adult patients (inpatients) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and June 2020 were included. All patients in the Italian center received the standard of care (SoC) treatment, while in the Turkish center patients received FVP in addition to SoC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred-nineteen patients were analyzed (225 from Turkey, all treated with FVP, and 394 from Italy, none treated with FVP). Propensity score-matching was done in 142 patients (71 from the SoC group vs. 71 from the SoC + FVP group). A Higher requirement of NIV/CPAP (n = 38; 53.5%) was registered in the SoC group compared to the SoC + FVP group (n = 9; 12.7%). A higher frequency of intubation was registered in the SoC + FVP group (n = 25; 35.2% vs n = 13, 18.3%). There was a trend towards better survival in SoC + FVP treated patients with HR = 0.64 (95% CI 0.30-1.34). At 28 days the OS was, respectively, 70.3% (95% CI: 53.2-82.1) vs 80.3% (95% CI: 69.0-87.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The addition of FVP to SoC did not show a significant difference in survival and invasive and noninvasive (CPAP/NIMV) mechanical ventilation compared to standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19-infected patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"volume\":\"18 9\",\"pages\":\"1313-1319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.18039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.18039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介法维拉韦(FVP)是一种抗病毒药物,以依赖于RNA的RNA聚合酶为靶点。我们旨在评估 FVP 治疗 COVID-19 的疗效:我们在两个中心(意大利热那亚圣马蒂诺大学医院和土耳其马尔马拉大学彭迪克培训与研究医院)开展了一项回顾性研究。研究对象包括 2020 年 3 月至 6 月期间确诊为 COVID-19 的成年患者(住院病人)。意大利中心的所有患者都接受了标准护理(SoC)治疗,而土耳其中心的患者除接受标准护理治疗外,还接受了FVP治疗:结果:分析了 69 名患者(土耳其 225 人,全部接受了 FVP 治疗;意大利 394 人,无一人接受 FVP 治疗)。对 142 名患者进行了倾向评分匹配(SoC 组 71 人与 SoC + FVP 组 71 人)。与 SoC + FVP 组(9 人;12.7%)相比,SoC 组对 NIV/CPAP 的需求更高(38 人;53.5%)。SoC + FVP 组的插管频率更高(n = 25; 35.2% vs n = 13, 18.3%)。SoC+FVP治疗组患者的存活率呈上升趋势,HR=0.64(95% CI 0.30-1.34)。28天的OS分别为70.3% (95% CI: 53.2-82.1) vs 80.3% (95% CI: 69.0-87.8):结论:在中度和重度COVID-19感染患者的SoC中添加FVP与标准护理相比,在生存率、有创和无创(CPAP/NIMV)机械通气方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficacy of favipiravir in COVID-19: A retrospective two center comparative study.

Introduction: Favipiravir (FVP) is an antiviral, targeting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FVP as a treatment for COVID-19.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in two centers (San Martino University Hospital in Genova, Italy, and Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Turkey). Adult patients (inpatients) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and June 2020 were included. All patients in the Italian center received the standard of care (SoC) treatment, while in the Turkish center patients received FVP in addition to SoC.

Results: Six hundred-nineteen patients were analyzed (225 from Turkey, all treated with FVP, and 394 from Italy, none treated with FVP). Propensity score-matching was done in 142 patients (71 from the SoC group vs. 71 from the SoC + FVP group). A Higher requirement of NIV/CPAP (n = 38; 53.5%) was registered in the SoC group compared to the SoC + FVP group (n = 9; 12.7%). A higher frequency of intubation was registered in the SoC + FVP group (n = 25; 35.2% vs n = 13, 18.3%). There was a trend towards better survival in SoC + FVP treated patients with HR = 0.64 (95% CI 0.30-1.34). At 28 days the OS was, respectively, 70.3% (95% CI: 53.2-82.1) vs 80.3% (95% CI: 69.0-87.8).

Conclusions: The addition of FVP to SoC did not show a significant difference in survival and invasive and noninvasive (CPAP/NIMV) mechanical ventilation compared to standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19-infected patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
239
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries (JIDC) is an international journal, intended for the publication of scientific articles from Developing Countries by scientists from Developing Countries. JIDC is an independent, on-line publication with an international editorial board. JIDC is open access with no cost to view or download articles and reasonable cost for publication of research artcles, making JIDC easily availiable to scientists from resource restricted regions.
期刊最新文献
Clinical characteristics, depression, anxiety, and stress of medical workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Clinical profile of patients with surgical brain abscesses and etiology in a reference hospital. Constructing a predictive model based on peripheral blood signs to differentiate infectious mononucleosis from chronic active EBV infection. Correlation of the severity of the clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with respiratory function parameters in the post-COVID period. Distribution of vectors and arboviruses, and healthcare workers' knowledge of vector-borne diseases in Armenia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1