Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID‐19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID‐19. Objectives To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID‐19. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. Selection criteria We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID‐19. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty‐two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all‐cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in‐hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2‐point reduction in patients’ admission status on the WHO’s ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir ma...
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID‐19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID‐19. Objectives To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID‐19. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. Selection criteria We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID‐19. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty‐two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all‐cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in‐hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2‐point reduction in patients’ admission status on the WHO’s ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Favipiravir ma...
This sub‐study sought to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of favipiravir (FPV) within Thai adults and quantitatively assess differences in exposure to those previously reported in other populations as a basis to understand putative differences in efficacy between studies conducted in different regions. It was nested within a prospective trial of adults with symptomatic COVID‐19 infection without pneumonia receiving 1800 mg FPV twice‐daily on day 1 and 800 mg twice‐daily thereafter. Individual PK profiles were fitted with a one‐compartment disposition model (first‐order absorption). Eight adults (seven female) with a median age of 39 years and BMI of 27.9 kg/m2 were included. Seven adults achieved plasma concentrations above the EC90 in vitro target (25 mg/L), with minimum–maximum concentrations decreasing with repeat dosing. The mean FPV apparent clearance observed in this study was 1.1 L/h (coefficient of variation [CV]: 60%), apparent volume of distribution 20.6 L (CV: 40%), absorption rate constant 6.1 h (CV: 100%), and 2.4 daily % change in apparent clearance (CV: 315%). Higher exposures were observed in these Thai adults compared with data from previous studies in Chinese, Japanese, and Turkish populations, respectively. Current FPV doses recommended in Thailand achieved target plasma concentrations with higher exposures than those described previously in other populations. The limited sample size prohibits firm conclusions from being drawn but the presented data warrants confirmation with a view to interrogate the appropriateness of doses used in randomized clinical trials that failed to demonstrate efficacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.