Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir–ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19–related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir). A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir–ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19–related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%). Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir–ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus standard–of–care (SOC) compared with SOC alone in adult patients with COVID–19. Design: Multicenter, open–label, randomized controlled trial. Setting: 16 government–designated COVID–19 treatment centers in China through 11 to 29 in February 2020. Participants: 150 patients hospitalized with laboratory confirmed COVID–19 were included in the intention to treat analysis. 75 patients were assigned to HCQ plus SOC and 75 to SOC alone. Interventions: HCQ was administrated with a loading dose of 1, 200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintained dose of 800 mg daily for the remaining days (total treatment duration: 2 or 3 weeks for mild/moderate or severe patients, respectively). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was whether participants had a negative conversion of SARS–CoV–2 by 28 days, and was analyzed according to the intention–to–treat principle. Adverse events were analyzed in the safety population in which HCQ recipients were participants who actually received at least one dose of HCQ and HCQ non–recipients were those actually managed with SOC alone. Results: Among 150 patients, 148 were with mild to moderate disease and 2 were with severe disease. The mean days (± standard deviation, min to max) from symptoms onset to randomization was 16.6 (±10.5 days, 3 to 41 days). The negative conversion probability by 28 days in SOC plus HCQ group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the SOC group 81.3% (95%CI 71.2% to 89.6%). Between–group difference was 4.1% (95%CI –10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7 (8.8%) HCQ non–recipients (N=80) and in 21 (30%) HCQ recipients (N=70). The most common adverse event in the HCQ recipients was diarrhea, reported in 7 (10%) patients. Two HCQ recipients reported serious adverse events. Conclusions: The administration of HCQ did not result in a significantly higher negative conversion probability than SOC alone in patients mainly hospitalized with persistent mild to moderate COVID–19. Adverse events were higher in HCQ recipients than in HCQ non–recipients. Trial registration: ChiCTR2000029868 What is already known on this topic: — The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) imposes substantial burdens on individuals, communities, health–care facilities, markets, governments, etc. globally. — There is no specific treatment approved for COVID–19 or vaccine to prevent infection with the novel coronavirus. — During the urgent pandemic, media headlines the utility of drugs without solid evidence but buries the side–effects of these drugs. What this study adds: — In this randomized clinical trial of patients mainly with persistent mild to moderate COVID–19, exposure to hydroxychloroquine led to a similar probability of virus elimination comparing to the current standard–of–care. — Adverse events, mostly gastrointestinal related, were significantly increased in patients who received hydroxychloroquine. — Overall, the results from our trial do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with persistent mild to moderate COVID–19. Print Study question: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus standard–of–care (SOC) compared with SOC alone in adult patients with COVID–19. Methods: This is a multicenter, open–label, randomized controlled trial conducted in 16 government–designated COVID–19 treatment centers in China through 11 to 29 in February 2020. A total of 150 patients hospitalized with laboratory confirmed COVID–19 were included in the intention to treat analysis. Among them, 75 patients were assigned to HCQ plus SOC and 75 to SOC alone. HCQ was administrated with a loading dose of 1, 200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintained dose of 800 mg daily for the remaining days (total treatment duration: 2 or 3 weeks for mild/moderate or severe patients, respectively). The primary outcome was whether participants had a negative conversion of SARS–CoV–2 by 28 days, and was analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analyzed in the safety population in which HCQ recipients were participants who actually received at least one dose of HCQ and HCQ non–recipients were those actually managed with SOC alone. Study answer and limitations: Among 150 patients, 148 were with mild to moderate disease and 2 were with severe disease. The mean days (± standard deviation, min to max) from symptoms onset to randomization was 16.6 (±10.5 days, 3 to 41 days). The negative conversion probability by 28 days in SOC plus HCQ group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the SOC group 81.3% (95%CI 71.2% to 89.6%). Between–group difference was 4.1% (95%CI –10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7 (8.8%) HCQ non–recipients (N=80) and in 21 (30%) HCQ recipients (N=70) with two serious adverse events. The most common adverse event in the HCQ recipients was diarrhea, reported in 7 (10%) patients. Two HCQ recipients reported serious adverse events. What this study adds: Our trial does not support the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with persistent mild to moderate COVID–19 due to limited effects on virus eliminating and significantly increased adverse events. Funding, competing interests, data sharing: This work was supported by the Emergent Projects of National Science and Technology (2020YFC0844500), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81970020, 81770025), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0901104), Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty...

Background: The effect of nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) versus interferon (IFN) on the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is controversial. We assessed whether antiviral strategy affected HCC development in CHB patients at different HCC risks. Methods: 1112 CHB patients with antiviral therapy were included in this retrospective study. Patients treated with NAs only were classified into NAs group (n = 682) while those received IFN treatment with or without NAs were defined as IFN group (n = 430). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to minimize baseline differences. Results: Totally, 31 patients developed HCC during follow-up (median 5.41 years). The cumulative HCC incidence at 10 years was significantly lower in the IFN group than NAs group (2.7% vs 8.0%, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the PSM-cohort. Patients with IFN-based treatment were less likely to develop HCC than those with NAs (Hazard ratio = 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.66; p = 0.012). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that this superiority of IFN in reducing HCC development was obvious in patients at high- but not low-risk of HCC. Conclusions: Reduction of HCC development was more significant in CHB patients at higher HCC risk with IFN-based therapy than NAs treatment.