Abstract
Importance WHO has made the assessment that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be characterized as a pandemic. So far, there is no clinically proven effective antiviral drug for COVID-19.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and arbidol to treat COVID-19 patients on clinical recovery rate of day 7.
Design Prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized superiority trial in February, 2020.
Setting Multicenter study.
Participants Patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 3 hospitals from Feb. 20, 2020 to Mar. 12, 2020.
Interventions Conventional therapy + favipiravir or arbidol.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical recovery rate of day 7. Duration of fever, cough relief time and auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate were the secondary outcomes. The patients with chest CT imaging and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, aged 18 years or older were randomly assigned to receive favipiravir or arbidol. Safety data were collected for further follow-up for a week.
Results 120 patients were assigned to favipiravir group (116 assessed) and 120 to arbidol group (120 assessed). In full analysis set (FAS) cohort, for moderate patients with COVID-19, clinical recovery rate of day 7 was 55.86% in the arbidol group and 71.43% in the favipiravir group (P=0.0199). For moderate COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, the latency to fever reduction and cough relief in favipiravir group was significantly shorter than that in arbidol group (both P<0.001), but there was no statistical difference was observed of auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate (both P>0.05). The most frequently observed treatment-associated adverse events were abnormal LFT, psychiatric symptom reactions, digestive tract reactions and raised serum uric acid (3 [2.50%] in arbidol group vs 16 [13.79%] in favipiravir group, P<0.0001).
Conclusions and Relevance In moderate COVID-19 patients untreated with antiviral previously, favipiravir can be considered as a preferred treatment compared to arbidol because of superior clinical recovery rate of day 7 and more effectively reduced incidence of fever, cough besides some manageable antiviral-associated adverse effects.
Trial Registration This study is registered with Chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2000030254.
Question How about the efficacy and safety of favipiravir to treat COVID-19 patients?
Findings Compared to arbidol, in moderate COVID-19 patients untreated with antiviral previously, favipiravir shown superior efficacy in terms of clinical recovery rate of day 7 and reduced incidence of fever, cough with manageable antiviral-associated adverse effects.
Meaning Favipiravir can be considered as a preferred treatment approach to moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.
Introduction
Beginning from Dec. 2019, an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus occurred in Wuhan, followed has spread rapidly throughout China. As of Mar. 14, 2020, the WHO reported 146,181 confirmed cases across more than 130 countries [1]. The global mortality rate of COVID-19 is 3.4% [2], whereas its mortality rate in Wuhan is 4.3% [3], as the proportion of severe cases in Wuhan is relatively high. A study has demonstrated that patient with hypertension and/or diabetes had a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 [4]. So far, there are no clinically proven effective antiviral drugs for COVID-19. 80% patients were moderate, without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [2]. Without effective treatment, moderate patients could convert into severe patients and develop ARDS and multi-organ failure. Because most, if not all, death cases arise from severe patients, it is of great significance to carry out effective antiviral treatment in the 80% moderate patients with COVID-19, which can reduce the risk for moderate patients converting into severe cases.
At the moment, there is no specific treatment for COVID-19, so healthcare providers treat the clinical symptoms (e.g. fever, difficulty breathing) of patients. Supportive care (e.g. fluid management, oxygen therapy, etc.) can be highly effective for patients with symptoms. Specifically, there are currently no antiviral drugs recommended or licensed by WHO or any government regulatory department for COVID-19. Clinical studies of some drugs (human interferon alpha-2b, ribavirin, chloroquine phosphate, lopinavir and arbidol) were currently undergoing to test the efficacy and safety of these drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 [5].
SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses have a similar disease presentation. Both clinical manifestations are dominated by respiratory symptoms, which present as a wide range of illness from asymptomatic or mild through to severe disease and death. Importantly, both viruses are RNA virus and depends on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) to replicate. Although no antiviral drugs were proven effective for COVID-19, clinically assessible antiviral options exist for influenza. Arbidol is an antiviral treatment for influenza infection used in Russia and China and has been proposed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 [6]. Favipiravir, an antiviral drug targeting the influenza viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) [7], approved in Japan for influenza, could serve as a potential candidate to treat COVID-19. Although arbidol is currently widely used in China, there are no randomized controlled comparative study to show antiviral efficacy for COVID-19.
We hypothesized that favipiravir would be non-inferior to arbidol in terms of efficacy for moderate symptoms, and improves outcomes clinical recovery of fever, cough, and breathing difficulties compared with antiviral efficacy of arbidol. We therefore assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir versus arbidol as treatment for COVID-19.
Methods
Study design and participants
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-labelled, randomized superiority trial in 240 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at three hospitals (120 from Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 88 from Wuhan Leishenshan Hospital, 32 from The Third People’s Hospital of Hubei Province). Patients were prospectively enrolled and followed-up from Feb. 20 to Mar. 12, 2020. According to the proportion of 1:1 between the experimental group (favipiravir) and the control group (arbidol), the randomized open label was produced by professional statistical software SAS9.4. Additional details are in the Trial Protocol, approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Nr. 2020040) and written informed consents were obtained from all participants or their authorized representatives.
Patients criteria: (1) Aged 18 years or older; (2) Voluntarily signed informed consent; (3) Initial symptoms were within 12 days; (4) Diagnosed as COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients excluded: (1) Allergic to fabiravir or arbidol; (2) ALT/AST increased to over 6 times of normal upper range, or with Child-Pugh C; (3) Severe patients whose expected survival time<48 hours; (4) Female in pregnancy; (5) HIV infection; (6) Considered unsuitable by researchers.
Procedures
Arbidol is the recommended drug in Chinese Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia [8]. The experimental group (famiravir) was treated with routine treatment+famiravir tablets (1600mg/time on the first day, twice a day; 600mg/time from the second day to the end of the experiment, twice a day). The control group (arbidol) was treated with routine therapy + arbidol (200 mg each time, 3 times a day, from the first day to the end of the trial). The course of treatment in both groups was 7-10 days. If necessary, the treatment time could be extended to 10 days according to the judgment of researchers. Except arbidol and famiravir, some other drugs were used for conventional therapy and symptomatic treatment to improve adverse reactions. The details of drugs use were listed in Supplementary Table S1.
Definitions
The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at 7 days or the end of treatment. Results were stratified for moderate patients with COVID-19, severe patients with COVID-19, COVID-19 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes. Clinical recovery was defined as continuous (>72 hours) recovery of body temperature, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and cough relief after treatment. It needs to meet several conditions: axillary temperature≤36.6°C; respiratory frequency≤24 times/min; Oxygen saturation≥98% without oxygen inhalation; mild or no cough. The armpit temperature, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation without oxygen, oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) were recorded in daily follow-up. Repeated measurements were made at least twice in each follow-up. The measurements were taken after 15 minutes rest at room temperature (23±2°C).
Secondary outcomes included the time from randomization to fever reduction (patients with fever at the time of enrollment), the time from randomization to cough relief (patients with moderate or severe cough at the time of enrollment), the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation during the trial, the all-cause mortality during the trial, the rate of respiratory failure during the trial (defined as SPO2≤90% or PaO2/FiO2<300mmHg without oxygen inhalation, and requires oxygen therapy or higher respiratory support).
Blood biochemistry, urine routine, coagulation function, C-reactive protein, nucleic acid and CT were examined on the third day (D3±1 day) and the seventh day (D7±1 day) after taking the drug, and the adverse events and concomitant medication were observed.
Classification criteria of moderate COVID-19 patients and severe COVID-19 patients: (1) Moderate COVID-19 patients: has a fever, respiratory symptom, can be observed by imageology methods. (2) Severe COVID-19 patients: meeting any of the following case: a. dyspnea, RR>30 times/min; b. the SpO2<93% in the resting state; c. PaO2/FiO2<300mmHg (1mmHg=0.133kPa). PaO2/FiO2 should be corrected according to the formula: PaO2/FiO2 × [atmospheric pressure (mmHg)/760]. The pulmonary imaging showed that the lesions progressed more than 50% within 24-48 hours, and the patients were classified as severe patients.
Statistical Analysis
Sample size estimation: the expected clinical recovery rate at day 7 of the experimental group is 70%, the clinical recovery of the control group is 50%, α=0.025 (single side), β=0.20, power=0.80. According to the distribution ratio of 1:1 between the experimental group and the control group, the statistical sample size is 92 participants in each group. The sample size increased about 20% considering factors such as shedding/elimination. The trial was designed to include 240 participants in the group, including 120 in the experimental group and 120 in the control group.
SAS9.4 software was used for statistical analysis. For the main efficacy indicator/primary outcome (clinical recovery rate after 7 days or the end of treatment), the comparison between the experimental group and the control group adopts the optimal test. We calculated the bilateral 95% CI of the difference between the clinical recovery rate of the experimental group and the control group. If the lower limit was > 0, it was considered the experimental group is superior to the control group. Log rank test was used to compare the recovery latency between the two groups. For the secondary efficacy indicators/secondary outcomes, T-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test (if T-test was not applicable) was performed for safety indicators and continuous variables, Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for grade variables. Frequency or composition (%) were used for statistical description of classification indexes, and Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison between groups. For all statistical tests, P value <0.05 (bilateral) were considered as statistically significant.
Results
Basic characteristics of patients
A total of 236 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in the full analysis set (FAS), 116 in the favipiravir group and 120 in the arbidol group (Table 1). In the favipiravir group, 59 were males and 57 were females, 87 (75.00%) were <65 years and 29 (25.00%) were ≥65 years, 36 (31.03%) were with hypertension and 14 (12.07%) with diabetes. In the arbidol group, 51 were males and 69 were females, 79 (65.83%) were <65 years and 41 (34.17%) were ≥65 years, 30 (25.00%) were with hypertension and 13 (10.83%) with diabetes.
Basic characteristics of the participants.
At the time of enrollment, the main signs and symptoms were fever (P=0.5911), fatigue (P=0.0579), dry cough (P=0.3393), myalgia (P=1.0000), dyspenea (P=0.2285), expectoration (P=0.7619), sore throat (P=0.1726), diarrhoea (P=0.2354), dizziness (P=0.2306), insomnia (P=0.0426) and conjunctivitis (P=1.0000). No significant difference of basic characteristics of patients between the two groups was observed.
Comparison of clinical recovery rate of day 7 of favipiravir and arbidol in COVID-19 patients
For 116 cases in favipiravir group, 98 were classified as moderate COVID-19 patients and 18 were severe COVID-19 patients, 42 COVID-19 patients were with hypertension and/or diabetes. For 120 cases in arbidol group, the moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were 111, 9 respectively; 35 were with hypertension and/or diabetes.
The clinical recovery rate was 51.67% (62/120) in the arbidol group and 61.21% (71/116) in the favipiravir group after a 7 day’s antiviral treatment (P=0.1396), with the difference of recovery rate between two groups (95% CI) was 0.0954 (−0.0305, 0.2213). Concretely, for moderate patients with COVID-19, clinical recovery rate of day 7 was 55.86% (62/111) in the arbidol group and 71.43% (70/98) in the favipiravir group (P=0.0199), with the difference of recovery rate between two groups (95% CI) was 0.1557 (0.0271, 0.2843); for severe patients, clinical recovery rate was 0 (0/9) in the arbidol group and 5.56% (1/18) in the favipiravir group (P=0.4712), with the difference of recovery rate between two groups (95% CI) was 0.0556 (−0.0503, 0.1614); for patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, clinical recovery rate was 51.43% (18/35) in the arbidol group and 54.76% (23/42) in the favipiravir group (P=0.7704), with the difference of recovery rate between two groups (95% CI) was 0.0333 (−0.1904, 0.2571) (Table 2).
The comparison of clinical recovery rate of day 7 between two group.
Comparison of duration of fever, cough relief time and auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate
Table 3 displayed duration of fever, cough relief time and auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate between the favipiravir and arbidol groups. For 98 moderate patients in the favipiravir group, 57 had a fever and 60 had a cough; for 111 moderate patients in the arbidol group, 65 had a fever and 64 had a cough. For moderate patients, the time of fever reduction and cough relief in the favipiravir group was significantly shorter than that in the arbidol group (P<0.0001).
Comparison of duration of fever, cough relief time and other secondary outcomes between two groups.
For 42 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes in the favipiravir group, 28 had a fever and 25 had a cough; of 35 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes in the arbidol group, 24 had a fever and 23 had a cough. For patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, the time of fever reduction and cough relief in the favipiravir group was also significantly shorter than that in the arbidol group (P<0.0001).
For moderate patients, auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate was 17.12% (19/111) in the arbidol group and 8.16% (8/98) in the favipiravir group (P=0.0541), with the difference of recovery rate between 2 groups (95% CI) was −0.0895 (−0.1781, −0.0009); for severe patients, auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate was 88.89 (8/9) in the arbidol group and 72.22% (13/18) in the favipiravir group (P=0.3261), with the difference of recovery rate between 2 groups (95% CI) was −0.1667 (−0.4582, 0.1248); for patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate was 28.57% (10/35) in the arbidol group and 21.43% (9/42) in the favipiravir group (P=0.4691), with the difference of recovery rate between two groups (95% CI) was −0.0714 (−0.2658, 0.1230). No statistical difference was observed of auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate between 2 groups (both P>0.05). For all cases enrolled in this study, the all-cause mortality was 0. The rate of new dyspnea in arbidol group was 11.67% (14/120) and in favipiravir group was 3.45% (4/116) with P=0.0174. The cases of respiratory failure in the two group were both 4.
Comparison of antiviral-associated adverse effects
During this trial, we detected some antiviral-associated adverse effects. 37 adverse effects cases in the favipiravir group and 28 cases in the arbidol group were observed.
Raised serum uric acid (3 [2.50 %] vs 16 [13.79%], P=0.0014) were more common in patients of the favipiravir group than those in the arbidol group. No statistical difference was observed for the frequency of abnormal LFT (ALT and/or AST were elevated) (12 [10.00%] in the arbidol group vs 9 [7.76%] in the favipiravir group, P =0.5455), psychiatric symptom reactions (1 [0.83%] vs 2 [1.72%]; P=0.6171) and digestive tract reactions (nausea, anti-acid, flatulence [9]) (14 [11.67%] vs 16 [13.79%]; P=0.6239) (Table 4). These adverse reactions disappeared when most patients were discharged from hospital.
Comparison of antiviral-associated adverse effects between two groups.
Discussion
So far, there are no clinically proven effective antiviral drugs for COVID-19. In China, although arbidol has been officially recommended [8], its clinically assessed efficacy and safety were not very optimistic. Efficacy of influenza-directed antiviral agents such as favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 remain unclear. We conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-labeled, randomized superiority clinical trial and hypothesized that favipiravir would be non-inferior to arbidol in terms of efficacy for moderate symptoms, and would accelerate the clinical recovery of fever, cough, and breathing difficulties compared with arbidol.
In moderate patients, favipiravir has higher clinical recovery rate of day 7 (71.43%) than arbidol (55.86%), and the time of cough relief and fever reduction of fabiravir was significantly shorter than that of arbidol. For patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, the clinical recovery rate was 54.76% in the favipiravir group, which is not different from the rate of 51.43% in the arbidol group (P=0.7704). It may be related to SpO2 in the 7 day’s clinical recovery without oxygen inhalation. Hypertension and diabetes are chronic diseases, which have a certain impact on the recovery of lung function. Therefore, it needed more time (>7 days) that SpO2 could recover to more than 98% without oxygen inhalation. It indicated that fabiravir could be used in the treatment of moderate COVID-19 patients to halt disease progress into ARDS, shock and multiple organ failure. For moderate patients, auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate was 17.12% in the arbidol group and 8.16% in the favipiravir group (P=0.0541); for patients with hypertension and/or diabetes, auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate was 28.57% in the arbidol group and 21.43% in the favipiravir group (P=0.4691). It was suggested that the lung tolerance to hypoxia was low in patients with hypertension and diabetes, which makes them more suspectable to develop into severe cases. For the patients with hypertension and diabetes, the early improvement of symptoms is the key, because the “spike protein” attacked by SARS-CoV-2 attacked the ACE2 target protein on the surface of pulmonary epithelial cells [4], and the patients with hypertension and/or diabetes accounted for 32.6% of all cases.
Limitations
(1) For COVID-19, there is no clinically proven effective antiviral drug to serve as the control arm. Although Chinese guideline had recommended several: recombinant human interferon alfa-2b, ribavirin, chloroquine phosphate, lopinavir and arbidol [8], no RCT results on these drugs were reported. Clinical studies were currently undergoing to test the efficacy and safety of these drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. Despite the antiviral effect of arbidol, there is no exact data in the literature to support its effectiveness. Arbidol was widely used by Chinese doctors in the initial stage of antiviral epidemic of COVID-19 (Jan. 1 to Jan. 30, 2020) [10]. Hence, for ethical reasons, we chose arbidol as the positive control drug, and adopted the optimal experimental design.
(2) Observation time frame was limited due to the urgency of this matter. For the same reason, no relapse (including nucleic acid conversion to positive, fever and cough again) tracking were performed for the discharged patients.
(3) In the inclusion criteria, we did not include the positive nucleic acid test. The accuracy of nucleic acid kit and throat swab sampling would affect the judgment of results. We collected the number of nucleic acid positive cases in the screening period, 54 (46.55%) in favipiravir group and 46 (38.33%) in arbidol group. The clinical diagnosis and CT results suggested that there might be negative nucleic acid in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In the screening period, patients with contact history, typical CT imaging results of COVID-19 and obvious clinical symptoms had negative nucleic acid test, which was related to the previous treatment, onset time, sampling and detection kit.
(4) Among all participants, there were 18 severe patients in the favipiravir group and 9 severe patients in the arbidol group. Because of the imbalance of the proportion of severe patients between the two groups, it had an important impact on the primary outcome (clinical recovery rate of day 7), secondary outcomes and combined medication. According to the severity of COVID-19 and whether it is combined with hypertension and/or diabetes, a stratified analysis was conducted.
Conclusions
In moderate COVID-19 patients untreated with antiviral previously, favipiravir can be considered as a preferred treatment because of the higher clinical recovery rate of day 7 and more effectively reduced incidence of fever, cough except manageable antiviral-associated adverse effects.
Data Availability
With the permission of the corresponding author, we can provide participant data, statistical analysis.
Author contributions
Dr. Wang had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: C. Chen, Huang, Cheng, Wu, Wang.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: C. Chen, Huang, Cheng, Wu, Y. Zhang, Yin, Wang.
Drafting of the manuscript: C. Chen, Huang, S. Chen, Lu, Luo, B. Chen, J. Zhang, Yin, Wang.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: C. Chen, Huang, Wu, S. Chen, Lu, Luo, J. Zhang, B. Chen.
Statistical analysis: C. Chen, S. Chen, Yin. Obtained funding: Wang.
Administrative, technical, or material support: C. Chen, Huang, Wang. Study supervision: Huang, Yin, Wang.
Declaration of Interest
All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Data sharing Statement
With the permission of the corresponding author, we can provide participant data, statistical analysis.
Role of the Funder/Sponsors
The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFC0844400).
