Favipiravir versus Arbidol for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
By Chang Chen, Yi Zhang, Jianying Huang, P. Yin, Zhenshun Cheng, Jianyuan Wu, Song Chen, Yongxi Zhang, Bo Chen, Mengxin Lu and 4 more. medRxiv, 2020
714 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Background No clinically proven effective antiviral strategy exists for the epidemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Umifenovir (Arbidol) (200mg*3/day) or Favipiravir (1600mg*2/first day followed by 600mg*2/day) for 10 days. The primary outcome was clinical recovery rate of Day 7. Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough, the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive Favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). Clinical recovery rate of Day 7 does not significantly differ between Favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (P=0.1396, difference of recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305 to 0.2213). Favipiravir led to shorter latencies to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, P<0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, P<0.0001). No difference was observed of AOT or NMV rate (both P>0.05). The most frequently observed Favipiravir-associated adverse event was raised serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, P=0.0014). Conclusions Among patients with COVID-19, Favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinically recovery rate at Day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relief for pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused Favipiravir are mild and manageable. This trial is registered with Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000030254).
Subfields: Epidemiology, Infectious Diseases
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b19a640248b92d4bb66369571d30a8dafe6b9c77
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Epidemiology
Citations in the corpus
- A Review of SARS-CoV-2 and the Ongoing Clinical Trials (2020, background): “In a randomized clinical trial aimed at comparing arbidol with favipiravir (ChiCTR2000030254), the latter was demonstrated to be far more superior in treatment outcome [65].”
- Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review. (2020, neutral): “Male 30 (73) 67 (68) 75 (54) 35 (67) 9 (50) 8 (67) 637 (58)”
- Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (2020, background): “9 In severe illness, one uncontrolled study of five patients given convalescent plasma suggested a possible benefit, although the patients already had detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies before receipt of the plasma.”