Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Favipiravir versus other antiviral or standard of care for COVID-19 treatment: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Favipiravir versus other antiviral or standard of care for COVID-19 treatment: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Favipiravir versus other antiviral or standard of care for COVID-19 treatment: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Favipiravir versus other antiviral or standard of care for COVID-19 treatment: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis
2020
Overview
Background
The COVID-19 causing coronavirus is an enveloped RNA virus that utilizes an enzyme RNA dependent RNA polymerase for its replication. Favipiravir (FVP) triphosphate, a purine nucleoside analog, inhibits that enzyme. We have conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of the drug FVP as a treatment for COVID-19.
Methods
Databases like Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, preprint sites, and clinicaltirals.gov were searched. The studies with the standard of care (SOC) and FVP as a treatment drug were considered as the treatment group and the SOC with other antivirals and supportive care as the control group. Quantitative synthesis was done using RevMan 5.4. Clinical improvement, negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), adverse effects, and oxygen requirements were studied.
Results
We identified a total of 1798 studies after searching the electronic databases. Nine in the qualitative studies and four studies in the quantitative synthesis met the criteria. There was a significant clinical improvement in the FVP group on the 14th day compared to the control group (RR 1.29, 1.08–1.54). Clinical deterioration rates were less likely in the FVP group though statistically not significant (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30–1.14) at the endpoint of study (7–15 days). The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups on viral clearance (day 14: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84–1.33), non-invasive ventilation or oxygen requirement (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42–1.39), and adverse effects (OR 0.69, 0.13–3.57). There are 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in different parts of the world focusing FVP for COVID-19 treatment.
Conclusion
There is a significant clinical and radiological improvement following treatment with FVP in comparison to the standard of care with no significant differences on viral clearance, oxygen support requirement and side effect profiles.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
/ Analysis
/ Bias
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Coronaviruses: emerging and re-emerging pathogens in humans and animals
/ COVID-19
/ Enzymes
/ Oxygen
/ reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
/ RNA
/ Severe acute respiratory syndrome
/ Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
/ Virology
/ Viruses
