Multicentre randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19

Phase II, Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Investigating the Efficacy of Mebendazole in the Management of Symptomatic COVID-19 Patients

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world, affecting almost all nations and territories. The current double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mebendazole as an adjuvant therapy for outpatients with COVID-19. The patients were recruited and divided into two groups: a Mebendazole-treated group and placebo group. The mebendazole and placebo groups were matched for age, sex, and complete blood count (CBC) with differential and liver and kidney function tests at baseline. On the third day, the C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were lower (2.03 ± 1.45 vs. 5.45 ± 3.95, p < 0.001) and the cycle threshold (CT) levels were higher (27.21 ± 3.81 vs. 24.40 ± 3.09, p = 0.046) significantly in the mebendazole group than in the placebo group on the third day. Furthermore, CRP decreased and CT dramatically increased on day three compared to the baseline day in the mebendazole group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant inverse correlation between lymphocytes and CT levels in the mebendazole group (r = -0.491, p = 0.039) but not in the placebo group (r = 0.051, p = 0.888). Mebendazole therapy increased innate immunity and returned inflammation to normal levels in COVID-19 outpatients faster than it did in the placebo group in this clinical trial. Our findings add to the growing body of research on the clinical and microbiological benefits of repurposing antiparasitic therapy, specifically mebendazole, for SARS-CoV-2 infection and other viral infections.

Use of anti-viral therapies in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the United Arab Emirates: a cost-effectiveness and health-care resource use analysis

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the antiviral remdesivir, as recommended in the 2021 COVID treatment guidelines for the United Arab Emirates, compared to standard of care (SOC), but also favipiravir (FAVI), which was also recommended for the treatment of hospitalized COVID patients.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was built using published efficacy data for RDV, FAVI and SOC as well as local epidemiology data. The outcomes measured included hospital bed days averted, mortality, costs and cost per outcome over one year. One-way, probabilistic and scenario analyses were undertaken to reflect uncertainty in the estimates.

RESULTS

When modelled over one year, the results indicated that treatment of adults in need of supplemental oxygen with RDV + SOC could result in 11,338 fewer general ward bed days, 7,003 fewer ICU days and 5,451 fewer ICU + MIV bed days compared to SOC alone and similar results when compared with FAVI + SOC. The model results also showed that there were 374 fewer deaths associated with the use of RDV + SOC compared to SOC alone. The model also estimates substantial potential cost-savings associated with RDV + SOC treatment compared with SOC alone (USD 3,454 per patient). The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was sensitive to estimates of length of stay and the cost of hospitalization. Despite this, the model predicted cost-savings in all scenarios versus all comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

The model estimated that using RDV + SOC could result in substantial reductions in HCRU and cost savings regardless of the comparator. However, it should be noted that reliable clinical information on FAVI was limited therefore it is challenging to interpret these results. All the potential benefits modelled here for RDV + SOC can have implications not only for the health of the UAE population but for improving hospital capacity to deal with other conditions.

Overview of Clinical Outcome and Therapeutic Effectiveness of Favipiravir in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Unit, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background

Prior to the availability of the current COVID-19 vaccine, the need to control the pandemic worldwide was focused on management of the disease using previously approved antivirals, including Favipiravir which inhibits viral replication through the RNA dependent RNA polymerase enzyme. Favipiravir’s efficacy against different viral infections has made it a potential treatment for COVID-19. We are aiming in this study to assess the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treating critically ill patients admitted with COVID-19 to Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study was conducted in five tertiary hospitals in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The studied sample was randomized from a huge pool of data collected primarily for critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to (ICUs) during the period between April 2020 to March 2021. Two groups of patients matched 1: 1 for age and body mass index (BMI) was enrolled in the study; one group received Favipiravir and another comparison group received other antimicrobial medications, not including Favipiravir.

Results

A total data of 538 COVID-19 patients were analyzed, 269 (50.%) received Favipiravir and 269 (50%) the control group received different treatments. More than two-thirds 201 (74.7%) were Saudi citizens, the majority 177 (65.8%) were males and the mean age and (BMI) were; (57.23 ± 15.16) years and (31.61 ± 7.33) kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent symptoms of presentation were shortness of breath (SOB), fever, and cough, and the most frequent comorbidity was diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease.

In the supplemental therapy, corticosteroid, tocilizumab and chloroquine were statistically significant (P = 0.001) when combined in the FVP group more than in the comparison group. Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was more frequent among Favipiravir group, while the overall mortality rate among the Favipiravir group was not statistically significant (p-value 0.4).

Conclusion

According to the study’s results revealing FVP is not superior to other antivirals, patients who received Favipiravir presented with more severe symptoms, more comorbidities, more complications, and is not effective in controlling the cytokine storm which negatively impact the efficacy of Favipiravir.

FVP therapy had no influence on ICU and hospital length of stay in comparison with the control group as well as in the overall mortality rate among the FVP group was not statistically significant. further research is needed to understand how FVP along with other treatments can improve the length of stay among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Experience of Rwanda on COVID-19 Case Management: From Uncertainties to the Era of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies

The management of COVID-19 in Rwanda has been dynamic, and the use of COVID-19 therapeutics has gradually been updated based on scientific discoveries. The treatment for COVID-19 remained patient-centered and entirely state-sponsored during the first and second waves. From the time of identification of the index case in March 2020 up to August 2021, three versions of the clinical management guidelines were developed, with the aim of ensuring that the COVID-19 patients treated in Rwanda were receiving care based on the most recent therapeutic discoveries. As the case load increased and imposed imminent heavy burdens on the healthcare system, a smooth transition was made to enable that the asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 cases could continue to be closely observed and managed while they remained in their homes. The care provided to patients requiring facility-based interventions mainly focused on the provision of anti-inflammatory drugs, anticoagulation, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, management of hyperglycemia and the provision of therapeutics with a direct antiviral effect such as favipiravir and neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. The time to viral clearance was observed to be shortest among eligible patients treated with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (bamlanivimab). Moving forward, as we strive to continue detecting COVID-19 cases as early as possible, and promptly initiate supportive interventions, the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies constitutes an attractive and cost-effective therapeutic approach. If this approach is used strategically along with other measures in place (i.e., COVID-19 vaccine roll out, etc.), it will enable us to bring this global battle against the COVID-19 pandemic under full control and with a low case fatality rate.

Risk factors for prolonged nucleic acid conversion time in patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

The time for PCR positivity to negativity is defined as nucleic acid conversion time (NCT) and is very important in terminating the isolation of patients and determining infectiousness in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this study is to determine the median NCT and to evaluate the clinical and laboratory parameters affecting it in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study included 318 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 diagnosed with PCR positivity retrospectively.

RESULTS

The median NCT was 11 days. Patients were divided into 2 groups as early (<11 days) and late conversion (≥11 days). Older age, sore throat, onset fever, fever 72 h after hospitalization, history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus without a mask, and moderated disease were significantly more common in the late conversion group. In addition, favipiravir use was higher in early conversion group and hydroxychloroquine use was higher in late conversion group. In multivariate analysis, sore throat (OR = 2.570; 95% CI: 1.051-6.284, P = 0.039) and hydroxychloroquine use (OR = 3.518, 95% CI: 1.163-10.635, P = 0,026) were independent risk factors for late conversion. Favipiravir use (OR = 0.062, 95% CI: 0.021-0.184, P = 0.0001) negatively affected the late conversion.

CONCLUSION

NCT was longer in patients with COVID-19 who had sore throat at admission and were treated with hydroxychloroquine instead of favipiravir.