RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Favipiravir versus Arbidol for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.03.17.20037432
DO 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037432
A1 Chang Chen
A1 Jianying Huang
A1 Ping Yin
A1 Yi Zhang
A1 Zhenshun Cheng
A1 Jianyuan Wu
A1 Song Chen
A1 Yongxi Zhang
A1 Bo Chen
A1 Mengxin Lu
A1 Yongwen Luo
A1 Jingyi Zhang
A1 Xinghuan Wang
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/08/2020.03.17.20037432.abstract
AB Importance No clinically proven effective antiviral strategy exist for the emerging epidemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and arbidol to treat COVID-19 patients.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 latency, 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, clinical recovery rate of day 7 does not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (61.20% (71/116)) and the arbidol group (51.67% (62/120)) (P=0.1396, OR: 1.47). The latency to fever reduction and cough relief in favipiravir group was significantly shorter than that in arbidol group (both P<0.0001). No statistical difference was observed of auxiliary oxygen therapy or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rate (both P>0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse events were abnormal LFT (10/116, 8.62%, OR: 0.86, P=0.7156), psychiatric symptom reactions (5/116, 4.31%, OR: 5.17, P=0.1149), digestive tract reactions (16/116, 13.79%, OR: 0.97, P=0.6239) and raised serum uric acid (16/116, 13.79%, OR: 5.52, P=0.0014).Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with confirmed COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinically recovery rate by 7 days. Favipiravir significantly improved time-to-relief for fever and cough. Antiviral-associated adverse effects associated with favipiravir are mild and manageable.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 Among patients with confirmed COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinically recovery rate by 7 days. Favipiravir treatment significantly improved time-to-relief for fever and cough, and is associated with manageable adverse effects.Meaning For COVID-19 patients, favipiravir is a safe and at least similarly effective option compared to arbidol.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis study is registered with Chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2000030254.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFC0844400).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWith the permission of the corresponding author, we can provide participant data, statistical analysis.