洛匹那韦/利托那韦与羟氯喹治疗轻至中度COVID-19的疗效比较:一项回顾性观察研究

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Jeong Eun Lee, S. Lee, J. Heo, D. Kim, M. Park, Hyunjin Son, Dongkeun Kim, K. Kim, Shinwon Lee, S. H. Lee
{"title":"洛匹那韦/利托那韦与羟氯喹治疗轻至中度COVID-19的疗效比较:一项回顾性观察研究","authors":"Jeong Eun Lee, S. Lee, J. Heo, D. Kim, M. Park, Hyunjin Son, Dongkeun Kim, K. Kim, Shinwon Lee, S. H. Lee","doi":"10.1177/13596535211039394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both being used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their relative effectiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 with LPV/r or HCQ. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted at 2 hospitals in Busan, South Korea, where approximately 90% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised during February/March 2020. All patients aged ≥15 years that were hospitalised with mild or moderately severe COVID-19 received LPV/r or HCQ as their initial treatment and were included in the analysis. Results Among the 72 patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity on admission, 45 received LPV/r and 27 received HCQ as their initial therapy. A higher proportion of the LPV/r group had pneumonia on admission (LPV/r, 49% vs HCQ, 15%), but there were no other significant differences in the demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. Switching therapy due to clinical failure was significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (41% [11/27] and 2% [1/45], respectively, P = .001). Disease progression was also significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (44% [12/27] and 18% [8/45], respectively, P = .030). Conclusion Based on our study results, HCQ shows no apparent advantage compared to LPV/r for preventing progression to severe disease in patients with COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":8364,"journal":{"name":"Antiviral Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 with mild-to-moderate severity: A retrospective observational study\",\"authors\":\"Jeong Eun Lee, S. Lee, J. Heo, D. Kim, M. Park, Hyunjin Son, Dongkeun Kim, K. Kim, Shinwon Lee, S. H. Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13596535211039394\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both being used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their relative effectiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 with LPV/r or HCQ. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted at 2 hospitals in Busan, South Korea, where approximately 90% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised during February/March 2020. All patients aged ≥15 years that were hospitalised with mild or moderately severe COVID-19 received LPV/r or HCQ as their initial treatment and were included in the analysis. Results Among the 72 patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity on admission, 45 received LPV/r and 27 received HCQ as their initial therapy. A higher proportion of the LPV/r group had pneumonia on admission (LPV/r, 49% vs HCQ, 15%), but there were no other significant differences in the demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. Switching therapy due to clinical failure was significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (41% [11/27] and 2% [1/45], respectively, P = .001). Disease progression was also significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (44% [12/27] and 18% [8/45], respectively, P = .030). Conclusion Based on our study results, HCQ shows no apparent advantage compared to LPV/r for preventing progression to severe disease in patients with COVID-19.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antiviral Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antiviral Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13596535211039394\",\"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":"Antiviral Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13596535211039394","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: 1

摘要

背景洛匹那韦/利托那韦(LPV/r)和羟氯喹(HCQ)均用于治疗2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎),但其相对有效性尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较接受LPV/r或HCQ治疗的新冠肺炎患者的临床结果。方法在韩国釜山的2家医院进行回顾性观察性研究,2020年2月/3月期间,约90%的新冠肺炎患者住院。所有因轻度或中度新冠肺炎住院的年龄≥15岁的患者均接受LPV/r或HCQ作为初始治疗,并纳入分析。结果在72例入院时病情较轻至中度的患者中,45例接受LPV/r治疗,27例接受HCQ治疗。LPV/r组入院时有肺炎的比例较高(LPV/r,49%vs HCQ,15%),但两组之间的人口统计学或临床特征没有其他显著差异。HCQ组因临床失败而进行的转换治疗明显比LPV/r组更常见(分别为41%[11/27]和2%[1/45],P=0.001)。HCQ组的疾病进展也明显比LPV/r组更普遍(分别为44%[12/27]和18%[8/45],P=.030)。结论根据我们的研究结果,与LPV/r相比,HCQ在预防新冠肺炎患者进展为严重疾病方面没有显示出明显优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 with mild-to-moderate severity: A retrospective observational study
Background Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both being used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their relative effectiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 with LPV/r or HCQ. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted at 2 hospitals in Busan, South Korea, where approximately 90% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised during February/March 2020. All patients aged ≥15 years that were hospitalised with mild or moderately severe COVID-19 received LPV/r or HCQ as their initial treatment and were included in the analysis. Results Among the 72 patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity on admission, 45 received LPV/r and 27 received HCQ as their initial therapy. A higher proportion of the LPV/r group had pneumonia on admission (LPV/r, 49% vs HCQ, 15%), but there were no other significant differences in the demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. Switching therapy due to clinical failure was significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (41% [11/27] and 2% [1/45], respectively, P = .001). Disease progression was also significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (44% [12/27] and 18% [8/45], respectively, P = .030). Conclusion Based on our study results, HCQ shows no apparent advantage compared to LPV/r for preventing progression to severe disease in patients with COVID-19.
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
Antiviral Therapy
Antiviral Therapy 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
35
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Antiviral Therapy (an official publication of the International Society of Antiviral Research) is an international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to publishing articles on the clinical development and use of antiviral agents and vaccines, and the treatment of all viral diseases. Antiviral Therapy is one of the leading journals in virology and infectious diseases. The journal is comprehensive, and publishes articles concerning all clinical aspects of antiviral therapy. It features editorials, original research papers, specially commissioned review articles, letters and book reviews. The journal is aimed at physicians and specialists interested in clinical and basic research.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信