Favipiravir for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia; a propensity score-matched cohort study
Rattachement africain : qa. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
We retrospectively investigated the clinical outcomes of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who between 23 May 2020 and 18 July 2020 received ≥ 24 h of favipiravir were assigned to the favipiravir group, while those who did not formed the non-favipiravir group. The primary outcome was 28-day clinical improvement, defined as two-category improvement from baseline on an 8-point ordinal scale. Propensity scores (PS) for favipiravir therapy were used for 1:1 matching. The unmatched cohort included 1493 patients, of which 51.7% were in the favipiravir group, and 48.3% were not receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline. Significant baseline differences between the two unmatched groups existed, but not between the PS-matched groups (N = 774). After PS-matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the proportion with 28-day clinical improvement (93.3% versus 92.8%, P 0.780), or 28-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 3.1%, P 0.360). Favipiravir was associated with more viral clearance by day 28 (79.8% versus 64.1%, P < 0.001). Adverse events were common in both groups, but the 93.9% were Grades 1-3. Favipiravir therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia is well tolerated but is not associated with an increased likelihood of clinical improvement or reduced all-cause mortality by 28 days.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Favipiravir for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia; a propensity score-matched cohort study
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2022
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.