Favipiravir versus arbidol for clinical recovery rate in moderate and severe adult COVID-19 patients: a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled …
Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021•frontiersin.org
Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of
favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a
prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with
COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in
a 1: 1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg* 3/day) or favipiravir (1600 …
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of
favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a
prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with
COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in
a 1: 1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg* 3/day) or favipiravir (1600 …
Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients.
Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days.
Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: −0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014).
Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable.
Frontiers