Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36528039›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2023

Favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (PIONEER trial): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care.

Pallav L Shah, Christopher M Orton, Beatriz Grinsztejn, Gavin C Donaldson, Brenda Crabtree Ramírez, James Tonkin, Breno R Santos, Sandra W Cardoso, Andrew I Ritchie, Francesca Conway and 14 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04373733 (A Randomised Controlled Trial of Early Intervention in Patients HospItalised With COVID-19), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT04373733 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Early Intervention in Patients HospItalised With COVID-19: Favipiravir and StaNdard Care vErsEs Standard CaRe

TypeinterventionalSponsorChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation TrustRan2020 to 2021Enrolled502ConditionsCoronavirus InfectionArmsFavipiravir, Standard of care management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Antivirals in COVID-19: A Focus on Pediatric Cardiac Patients.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Adverse drug reactions associated with COVID-19 management.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  17. Structural and virologic mechanism of the emergence of resistance to MProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 1 institution in 5 countries.

Pallav L ShahChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: pallav.shah@imperial.ac.uk.
Christopher M OrtonChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Beatriz GrinsztejnInstituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Gavin C DonaldsonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Brenda Crabtree RamírezInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición, Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico.
James TonkinChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Breno R SantosDepartamento de Infectología, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição-Grupo Hospitalar Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Sandra W CardosoInstituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Andrew I RitchieDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Francesca ConwayChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Maria P D RiberioInstituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Dexter J WisemanDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Anand TanaChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Bavithra VijayakumarChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Cielito CanejaChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Craig LeaperChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bobby MannChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anda SamsonDepartment of Infection, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Pankaj K BhavsarNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Marta BoffitoChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mark R JohnsonChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anton PozniakChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Michael PellyChelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
PIONEER trial group
University of Hull · GB

Funding

The FIOCRUZ Therapeutic and Prevention HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (FioTrials)UM1AI069476 · NIAID · FUNDACAO OSWALDO CRUZ · PI BEATRIZ GRINSZTEJN · 2012 to 2026
$26.3M
The FIOCRUZ Therapeutic and Prevention HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (FioTrials)U01AI069476 · NIAID · FUNDACAO OSWALDO CRUZ · PI GRINSZTEJN, BEATRIZ · 2008 to 2011
$14.0M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI069476NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI069476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

methodsWe conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.

findingsBetween May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).

interpretationFavipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.

fundingLifeArc and CW+.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedAmidesHumansMiddle AgedPyrazinesSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeAmidesfavipiravirPyrazines

Identifiers

PMID36528039
PMCPMC9891737
OpenAlexW4311451747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.