Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34044777›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2021

Favipiravir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Toshie Manabe, Dan Kambayashi, Hiroyasu Akatsu, Koichiro Kudo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Efficacy of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Hydrogen-Bond-Assisted Hydroxylation ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  18. Adverse drug reactions associated with COVID-19 management.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Toshie ManabeNagoya City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya City, Aichi, 467-8601, Japan. manabe@kklabo.gr.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8208-8071
Dan KambayashiNagoya City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya City, Aichi, 467-8601, Japan.
Hiroyasu AkatsuNagoya City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya City, Aichi, 467-8601, Japan.
Koichiro KudoYurin Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Japan Science and Technology Agency 20345310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFavipiravir possesses high utility for treating patients with COVID-19. However, research examining the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19 is limited.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of published studies reporting the efficacy of favipiravir against COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MedRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to September 2020) to identify eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed to measure viral clearance and clinical improvement as the primary outcomes.

resultsAmong 11 eligible studies, 5 included a comparator group. Comparing to the comparator group, the favipiravir group exhibited significantly better viral clearance on day 7 after the initiation of treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-5.22), whereas no difference was noted on day 14 (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.69-6.95). Although clinical improvement was significantly better in the favipiravir group on both days 7 and 14, the improvement was better on day 14 (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.17-7.80) than on day 7 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.03-2.49). The estimated proportions of patients with viral clearance in the favipiravir arm on days 7 and 14 were 65.42 and 88.9%, respectively, versus 43.42 and 78.79%, respectively, in the comparator group. The estimated proportions of patients with clinical improvement on days 7 and 14 in the favipiravir group were 54.33 and 84.63%, respectively, compared with 34.40 and 65.77%, respectively, in the comparator group.

conclusionsFavipiravir induces viral clearance by 7 days and contributes to clinical improvement within 14 days. The results indicated that favipiravir has strong possibility for treating COVID-19, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate illness. Additional well-designed studies, including examinations of the dose and duration of treatment, are crucial for reaching definitive conclusions.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmidesAntiviral AgentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPyrazinesSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeViral LoadYoung AdultAmidesAntiviral AgentsfavipiravirPyrazinesClinical improvementCOVID-19FavipiravirSARS-CoV-2Viral clearance

Identifiers

PMID34044777
PMCPMC8159019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.