Dataset Information

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8^th, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2^nd, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.

Results

Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR = 1.60, p = 0.02), defervescence at day 3-4 (RR = 1.99, p <0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR = 1.33, p <0.01), hospital discharge at day 10-11 (RR = 1.19, p <0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD = -1.18, p = 0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR = 9.42, p <0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR = 1.35, p <0.01) but lower rates of nausea (RR = 0.42, p <0.01) and vomiting (R R= 0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR = 1.11, p = 0.25). On nonhospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported.

Conclusions

Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.

SUBMITTER: Hung DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9023375 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies.

Hung Dang The DT Ghula Suhaib S Aziz Jeza Muhamad Abdul JMA Makram Abdelrahman M AM Tawfik Gehad Mohamed GM Abozaid Ali Ahmed-Fouad AA Pancharatnam Rohan Andrew RA Ibrahim Amr Mohamed AM Shabouk Muhammad Besher MB Turnage Morgan M Nakhare Saloni S Karmally Zahra Z Kouz Basel B Le Tran Nhat TN Alhijazeen Suleiman S Phuong Nguyen Quoc NQ Ads Alaa Mohamed AM Abdelaal Ali Hussein AH Nam Nguyen Hai NH Iiyama Tatsuo T Kita Kyoshi K Hirayama Kenji K Huy Nguyen Tien NT

International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases 20220422

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8<sup>th</sup>, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 cas ...[more]

PMID: 35470021

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study examined the synthesis methods used in meta-analyses pooling data from observational studies (OSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from various medical disciplines.MethodsWe searched Medline via PubMed to identify reports of systematic reviews of interventions, including and pooling data from RCTs and OSs published in 110 high-impact factor general and specialised journals between 2015 and 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. To describe the synthesis methods used in the meta-analyses, we considered the first meta-analysis presented in each article.ResultsOverall, 132 reports were identified with a median number of included studies of 14 [9-26]. The median number of OSs was 6.5 [3-12] and that of RCTs was 3 [1-6]. The effect estimates recorded from OSs (i.e., adjusted or unadjusted) were not specified in 82% (n = 108) of the meta-analyses. An inverse-variance common-effect model was used in 2% (n = 3) of the meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used in 55% (n = 73), and both models were used in 40% (n = 53). A Poisson regression model was used in 1 meta-analysis, and 2 meta-analyses did not report the model they used. The mean total weight of OSs in the studied meta-analyses was 57.3% (standard deviation, ± 30.3%). Only 44 (33%) meta-analyses reported results stratified by study design. Of them, the results between OSs and RCTs had a consistent direction of effect in 70% (n = 31). Study design was explored as a potential source of heterogeneity in 79% of the meta-analyses, and confounding factors were investigated in only 10% (n = 13). Publication bias was assessed in 70% (n = 92) of the meta-analyses. Tau-square was reported in 32 meta-analyses with a median of 0.07 [0-0.30].ConclusionThe inclusion of OSs in a meta-analysis on interventions could provide useful information. However, considerations of several methodological and conceptual aspects of OSs, that are required to avoid misleading findings, were often absent or insufficiently reported in our sample.

Project description:The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

Project description:BackgroundHyperinflammation and coagulopathy are hallmarks of COVID-19 and synergistically contribute to illness progression. Antiplatelet agents have been proposed as candidate drugs for COVID-19 treatment on the basis of their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included early observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize and compare evidence on this issue.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify studies published up to Nov 7, 2021, and the results of registered clinical trials were followed up to Mar 30, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies assessing the effect of antiplatelet therapy in adult patients with COVID-19. Data on baseline patient characteristics, interventions, controls, and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, of which 23 observational studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, and the remaining four RCTs (ACTIV-4B, RECOVERY, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP) were narratively synthesized. Based on 23 observational studies of 87,824 COVID-19 patients, antiplatelet treatment favors a lower risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.85; I 2 = 87.0%, P < 0.01]. The narrative synthesis of RCTs showed conflicting evidence, which did not support adding antiplatelet therapy to the standard care, regardless of the baseline illness severity and concomitant anticoagulation intensity.ConclusionWhile the rationale for using antiplatelet treatment in COVID-19 patients is compelling and was supported by the combined result of early observational studies, evidence from RCTs did not confirm this approach. Several factors that could explain this inconsistency were highlighted alongside perspectives on future research directions.

Project description:BackgroundAzvudine (FNC) is a novel small molecule antiviral drug for treating COVID-19 that is available only on the Chinese market. Despite being recommended for treating COVID-19 by the Chinese guidelines, its efficacy and safety are still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of FNC on COVID-19 outcomes and its safety.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to evaluate studies on the effectiveness of FNC in treating COVID-19 in China, focusing on mortality and overall outcomes. Additionally, its impact on the length of hospital stay (LOHS), time to first nucleic acid negative conversion (T-FNANC), and adverse events was evaluated. The inclusion criterion was that the studies were published from July 2021 to April 10, 2024. This study uses the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias risk and employs the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 24 retrospective studies involving a total of 11 830 patients. Low-certainty evidence revealed no significant difference in mortality (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76-1.08) or LOHS (WMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35) between FNC and Paxlovid in COVID-19 patients. Low-certainty evidence shows that the T-FNANC was longer (WMD = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.36-3.53). Compared with the Paxlovid group, low-certainty evidence shows the FNC group exhibited a worse composite outcome (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.95) and fewer adverse events (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.85). Compared with supportive treatment, low certainty shows FNC significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74) and decreased the composite outcome (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91), and very low certainty evidence shows significantly decreased the T-FNANC (WMD = -4.62, 95% CI: -8.08 to -1.15). However, in very low certainty, there was no significant difference in LOHS (WMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -3.32 to 1.91) or adverse events (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.48-8.17).ConclusionsFNC appears to be a safe and potentially effective treatment for COVID-19 in China, but further research with larger, high-quality studies is necessary to confirm these findings. Due to the certainty of the evidence and the specific context of the studies conducted in China, caution should be exercised when considering whether the results are applicable worldwide.Trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42024520565.

Project description:Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review published and unpublished efficacy studies of agomelatine in people with depression.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesLiterature search (Pubmed, Embase, Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory file for agomelatine, manufacturers of agomelatine (Servier).Eligibility criteriaDouble blind randomised placebo and comparator controlled trials of agomelatine in depression with standard depression rating scales.Data synthesisStudies were pooled by using a random effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights for comparisons with placebo and comparator antidepressant. The primary efficacy measure (change in rating scale score) was summarised with standardised mean difference (SMD; a measure of effect size) and secondary outcome measures with relative risks. All results were presented with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by visual inspection of funnel plots and by the I(2) statistic. Moderators of effect were explored by meta-regression.ResultsWe identified 20 trials with 7460 participants meeting inclusion criteria (11 in the published literature, four from the European Medicines Agency file, and five from the manufacturer). Almost all studies used the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (score 0-50). Agomelatine was significantly more effective than placebo with an effect size (SMD) of 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.35) and relative risk of response 1.25 (1.11 to 1.4). Compared with other antidepressants, agomelatine showed equal efficacy (SMD 0.00, -0.09 to 0.10). Significant heterogeneity was uncovered in most analyses, though risk of bias was low. Published studies were more likely than unpublished studies to have results that suggested advantages for agomelatine.ConclusionsAgomelatine is an effective antidepressant with similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. Published trials generally had more favourable results than unpublished studies.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.Selection criteriaWe searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.Methods and findingsSearches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.ConclusionsEmpirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Dataset Information

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets