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 may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 16-April-2020 to 30-April- 2020, patients with suspected or confirmed for COVID-19 indicated for in-patient treatment with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir to the Sarawak General Hospital were monitored with KardiaMobile smartphone electrocardiogram (AliveCor®, Mountain View, CA) or standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. The baseline and serial QTc intervals were monitored till the last dose of medications or until the normalization of the QTc interval.

RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, and 20 (66.7%) patients received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir therapy. The maximum QTc interval was significantly prolonged compared to baseline (434.6±28.2msec vs. 458.6±47.1msec, p=0.001). The maximum QTc interval (456.1±45.7msec vs. 464.6±45.2msec, p=0.635) and the delta QTc (32.6±38.5msec vs. 26.3±35.8msec, p=0.658) were not significantly different between patients on hydroxychloroquine or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Five (16.7%) patients had QTc of 500msec or more. Four (13.3%) patients required discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and 3 (10.0%) patients required discontinuation of lopinavirritonavir due to QTc prolongation. However, no torsade de pointes was observed.

METHODS: HIV-positive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database who had used second-line ART for ≥6 months were included. ART use and rates and predictors of second-line treatment failure were evaluated.

RESULTS: There were 302 eligible patients. Most were male (76.5%) and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact (71.5%). Median age at second-line initiation was 39.2 years, median CD4 cell count was 146 cells per cubic millimeter, and median HIV viral load was 16,224 copies per milliliter. Patients started second-line ART before 2007 (n = 105), 2007-2010 (n = 147) and after 2010 (n = 50). Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and atazanavir accounted for the majority of protease inhibitor use after 2006. Median follow-up time on second-line therapy was 2.3 years. The rates of treatment failure and mortality per 100 patient/years were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 7.1 to 10.9) and 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.9), respectively. Older age, high baseline viral load, and use of a protease inhibitor other than lopinavir or atazanavir were associated with a significantly shorter time to second-line failure.

METHODS: Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122.

FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen.