Department of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ophthalmology, GMCH, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Indian J Pharmacol. 2020 Sep-Oct;52(5):414-421. doi: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_998_20.
Multiple options are being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection since its pandemic started. Favipiravir (FPV) is one of drugs, which is also being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FPV in published literature. Comparative randomized or nonrandomized controlled clinical trials comparing FPV to the standard of care (SOC)/control or other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 12 databases were searched and identify four studies which were further used for final analysis. The data analysis was done as pooled prevalence using a random effect model by "RevMan manager version 5.4.1 and "R" software. The point estimate, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous data. In the present study, the marginal beneficial effect was seen in the FPV group in overall clinical improvement comparison to SOC/control, i.e., (4 studies, log OR [95% CI] (-0.19 [-0.51, 0.13]). However, in all other outcomes, it was found to be comparable to the SOC/control arm namely "clinical improvement on day 7-10" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.63 [1.07, 2.48]) while "clinical improvement on day 10-14" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.37 [0.24, 7.82]) and viral negativity was seen (4 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.91 [0.91, 4.01]). No difference in efficacy was found between FPV versus lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol groups. Regarding adverse effects, except for the occurrence of rash (higher in the FPV group), safety was comparable to SOC. In our study, there was a marginal difference between the FPV and the SOC arm in terms of "clinical improvement" on day 7-10 or 10-14, and "virological negativity" on day 10-14." However, some benefit was observed in a few studies, but it was also comparable to the control drugs or SOC.
自 2019 年冠状病毒病大流行以来,已经尝试了多种方法来治疗 2019 年冠状病毒病感染。法匹拉韦(FPV)是一种药物,也正在尝试用于治疗 2019 年冠状病毒病感染。本研究旨在评估 FPV 在已发表文献中的疗效和安全性。纳入比较 FPV 与标准治疗(SOC)/对照或其他抗病毒药物/联合治疗的随机或非随机对照临床试验。共搜索了 12 个数据库,确定了 4 项研究,进一步用于最终分析。数据分析采用“RevMan Manager 版本 5.4.1 和“R”软件进行随机效应模型的汇总患病率。二分类数据采用点估计、比值比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)计算。本研究中,与 SOC/对照相比,FPV 组在总体临床改善方面显示出边际有益效果,即(4 项研究,对数 OR [95%CI](-0.19[-0.51, 0.13])。然而,在所有其他结局中,与 SOC/对照臂相比,它被发现是可比的,即“第 7-10 天临床改善”(3 项研究,OR [95%CI] 1.63[1.07, 2.48]),而“第 10-14 天临床改善”(3 项研究,OR [95%CI] 1.37[0.24, 7.82])和病毒学阴性(4 项研究,OR [95%CI] 1.91[0.91, 4.01])。FPV 与洛匹那韦/利托那韦或阿比多尔组之间的疗效无差异。关于不良反应,除皮疹发生率较高(FPV 组)外,安全性与 SOC 相当。在我们的研究中,FPV 组和 SOC 组在第 7-10 天或第 10-14 天的“临床改善”以及第 10-14 天的“病毒学阴性”方面存在差异。然而,一些研究观察到了一些益处,但与对照药物或 SOC 相比,这也是相当的。