4.7 Article

Arbidol monotherapy is superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 81, 期 1, 页码 E21-E23

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.060

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV2; Ct value; Antiviral therapy; Pneumonia

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20180183]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Changzhou [CJ20179030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol have been previously used to treat acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in clinical practice; nevertheless, their effectiveness remains controversial. In this study, we evaluated the antiviral effects and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol in patients with the 2019-nCoV disease (COVID-19). Fifty patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were divided into two groups: including lopinavir/ritonavir group (34 cases) and arbidol group (16 cases). Lopinavir/ritonavir group received 400 mg/100mg of Lopinavir/ritonavir, twice a day for a week, while the arbidol group was given 0.2 g arbidol, three times a day. Data from these patients were retrospectively analyzed. The cycle threshold values of open reading frame lab and nucleocapsid genes by RT-PCR assay were monitored during antiviral therapy. None of the patients developed severe pneumonia or ARDS. There was no difference in fever duration between the two groups (P=0.61). On day 14 after the admission, no viral load was detected in arbidol group, but the viral load was found in 15(44.1%) patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. Patients in the arbidol group had a shorter duration of positive RNA test compared to those in the lopinavir/ritonavir group (P<0.01). Moreover, no apparent side effects were found in both groups. In conclusion, our data indicate that arbidol monotherapy may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据