Efficacy analysis of Arbidol treatment in patients with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study

Efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID‐19 treatment.

Methods

A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.

Results

Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non‐antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR‐PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78–1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96–1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR‐NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: −0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06–4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR‐PCR on Day 7 and PCR‐NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05).

Conclusion

The present meta‐analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non‐antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID‐19 disease. High‐quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID‐19.