Top
Overview
Introduction
Results
RCTs
Unreported RCTs
Exclusions
Heterogeneity
Pooled Effects
Discussion
Perspective
Conclusion
 
Study Notes
Methods and Data
Supplementary
References
 
All studies
Mortality
Ventilation
ICU admission
Recovery
COVID‑19 cases
Viral clearance
Peer reviewed
Exclusions
All RCTs
RCT mortality
 
Feedback
Home
c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchHydrogen PeroxideHydrogen Per.. (more..)
Melatonin Meta
Metformin Meta
Azvudine Meta
Bromhexine Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Budesonide Meta
Colchicine Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Famotidine Meta Paxlovid Meta
Favipiravir Meta Quercetin Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Remdesivir Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Thermotherapy Meta
Ivermectin Meta

Loading...
More

Hydrogen Peroxide for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 7 studies

@CovidAnalysis, April 2024, Version 4V4
 
0 0.5 1 1.5+ All studies 38% 7 921 Improvement, Studies, Patients Relative Risk Mortality 75% 2 132 Ventilation 75% 2 132 ICU admission 41% 2 168 Recovery 19% 3 177 Cases 93% 1 552 Viral clearance 33% 4 192 RCTs 59% 4 300 RCT mortality 75% 2 132 Peer-reviewed 28% 5 817 Prophylaxis 93% 1 552 Early 34% 3 161 Late 51% 3 208 Hydrogen Peroxide for COVID-19 c19early.org April 2024 after exclusions Favorshydrogen peroxide Favorscontrol
Abstract
Statistically significant lower risk is seen for viral clearance. 2 studies from 2 independent teams in 2 countries show statistically significant improvements.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 38% [5‑59%] lower risk. Results are better for Randomized Controlled Trials and higher quality studies and slightly worse for peer-reviewed studies.
Currently there is limited data, with only 921 patients and only 16 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
4 RCTs with 323 patients have not reported results (up to 2 years late).
No treatment or intervention is 100% effective. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments may be more effective. Hydrogen Peroxide may be detrimental to the natural microbiome, raising concern for side effects, especially with prolonged or excessive use.
All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix.
Evolution of COVID-19 clinical evidence Hydrogen Peroxide p=0.029 Acetaminophen p=0.00000029 2020 2021 2022 2023 Effective Harmful c19early.org April 2024 meta analysis results (pooled effects) 100% 50% 0% -50%
Highlights
Hydrogen Peroxide reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high confidence for viral clearance, high confidence for pooled analysis, low confidence for mortality, ventilation, and cases, and very low confidence for recovery.
21st treatment shown effective with ≥3 clinical studies in May 2021, now with p = 0.029 from 7 studies.
We show outcome specific analyses and combined evidence from all studies, incorporating treatment delay, a primary confounding factor for COVID-19.
Real-time updates and corrections, transparent analysis with all results in the same format, consistent protocol for 69 treatments.
A
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2+ Mukhtar (RCT) 86% 0.14 [0.01-2.69] death 0/46 3/46 CT​1 Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Jayaraman 50% 0.50 [0.23-1.08] viral+ 3/6 6/6 Short term viral Pablo-Marcos 12% 0.88 [0.48-1.58] viral load 17 (n) 40 (n) MOR Jacox (DB RCT) unknown, >2 years late 129 (total) Xie (DB RCT) unknown, >2 years late 90 (est. total) GARGLES Khan (DB RCT) unknown, >1.5 years late 50 (est. total) AMPoL Gansky (DB RCT) unknown, >1.5 years late 54 (total) Tau​2 = 0.04, I​2 = 16.5%, p = 0.14 Early treatment 34% 0.66 [0.38-1.14] 3/69 9/92 34% lower risk Di Domê.. (DB RCT) 50% 0.50 [0.05-5.08] ICU 1/20 2/20 Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Di Domê.. (DB RCT) 34% 0.66 [0.10-4.55] ICU 2/77 2/51 HOPE in COVID-19 Agrawal (DB RCT) 67% 0.33 [0.04-2.94] death 1/20 3/20 Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.26 Late treatment 51% 0.49 [0.14-1.68] 4/117 7/91 51% lower risk Amoah 93% 0.07 [0.00-1.13] cases 94 (n) 458 (n) Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.061 Prophylaxis 93% 0.07 [0.00-1.13] 94 (n) 458 (n) 93% lower risk All studies 38% 0.62 [0.41-0.95] 7/280 16/641 38% lower risk 7 hydrogen peroxide COVID-19 studies (+4 unreported RCTs) c19early.org April 2024 Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.029 Effect extraction pre-specified(most serious outcome, see appendix) 1 CT: study uses combined treatment Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2+ Mukhtar (RCT) 86% death CT​1 Improvement Relative Risk [CI] Jayaraman 50% viral- Short term viral Pablo-Marcos 12% viral- MOR Jacox (DB RCT) n/a >2 years late Xie (DB RCT) n/a >2 years late GARGLES Khan (DB RCT) n/a >1.5 years late AMPoL Gansky (DB RCT) n/a >1.5 years late Tau​2 = 0.04, I​2 = 16.5%, p = 0.14 Early treatment 34% 34% lower risk Di Dom.. (DB RCT) 50% ICU admission Di Dom.. (DB RCT) 34% ICU admission HOPE in COVID-19 Agrawal (DB RCT) 67% death Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.26 Late treatment 51% 51% lower risk Amoah 93% case Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.061 Prophylaxis 93% 93% lower risk All studies 38% 38% lower risk 7 hydrogen peroxide C19 studies c19early.org April 2024 Tau​2 = 0.00, I​2 = 0.0%, p = 0.029 Protocol pre-specified/rotate for details1 CT: study uses combined treatment Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
B
Loading..
Figure 1. A. Random effects meta-analysis. This plot shows pooled effects, see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes. Analysis validating pooled outcomes for COVID-19 can be found below. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported. For details see the appendix. B. Timeline of results in hydrogen peroxide studies. The marked dates indicate the time when efficacy was known with a statistically significant improvement of ≥10% from ≥3 studies for pooled outcomes and one or more specific outcome. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 5.8 months, compared to using pooled outcomes.
SARS-CoV-2 infection typically starts in the upper respiratory tract, and specifically the nasal respiratory epithelium. Entry via the eyes and gastrointestinal tract is possible, but less common, and entry via other routes is rare. Infection may progress to the lower respiratory tract, other tissues, and the nervous and cardiovascular systems. The primary initial route for entry into the central nervous system is thought to be the olfactory nerve in the nasal cavity Dai. Progression may lead to cytokine storm, pneumonia, ARDS, neurological issues Duloquin, Hampshire, Scardua-Silva, Yang, cardiovascular complications Eberhardt, organ failure, and death. Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended. Logically, stopping replication in the upper respiratory tract should be simpler and more effective. Early or prophylactic nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment can avoid the consequences of viral replication in other tissues, and avoid the requirement for systemic treatments with greater potential for side effects.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 50+ host and viral proteins and other factors Note A, Malone, Murigneux, Lv, Lui, Niarakis, providing many therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity. Scientists have predicted that over 7,000 compounds may reduce COVID-19 risk c19early.org, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
We analyze all significant controlled studies of hydrogen peroxide for COVID-19. Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA answers, and statistical methods are detailed in Appendix 1. We present random effects meta-analysis results for all studies, studies within each treatment stage, individual outcomes, peer-reviewed studies, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and higher quality studies.
Figure 2 shows stages of possible treatment for COVID-19. Prophylaxis refers to regularly taking medication before becoming sick, in order to prevent or minimize infection. Early Treatment refers to treatment immediately or soon after symptoms appear, while Late Treatment refers to more delayed treatment.
Figure 2. Treatment stages.
Table 1 summarizes the results for all stages combined, for Randomized Controlled Trials, for peer-reviewed studies, after exclusions, and for specific outcomes. Table 2 shows results by treatment stage. Figure 3 plots individual results by treatment stage. Figure 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 show forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ventilation, ICU admission, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and peer reviewed studies.
Table 1. Random effects meta-analysis for all stages combined, for Randomized Controlled Trials, for peer-reviewed studies, after exclusions, and for specific outcomes. Results show the percentage improvement with treatment and the 95% confidence interval. * p<0.05  **** p<0.0001.
Improvement Studies Patients Authors
All studies38% [5‑59%]
*
7 921 72
After exclusions57% [21‑77%]
**
6 864 66
Peer-reviewed studiesPeer-reviewed28% [-22‑57%]5 817 44
Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs59% [-27‑87%]4 300 42
Mortality75% [-42‑96%]2 132 24
VentilationVent.75% [-42‑96%]2 132 24
ICU admissionICU41% [-160‑87%]2 168 18
Recovery19% [-10‑41%]3 177 26
Viral33% [11‑50%]
**
4 192 42
RCT mortality75% [-42‑96%]2 132 24
Table 2. Random effects meta-analysis results by treatment stage. Results show the percentage improvement with treatment, the 95% confidence interval, and the number of studies for the stage.treatment and the 95% confidence interval. * p<0.05  **** p<0.0001.
Early treatment Late treatment Prophylaxis
All studies34% [-14‑62%]51% [-68‑86%]93% [-13‑100%]
After exclusions54% [3‑78%]
*
51% [-68‑86%]93% [-13‑100%]
Peer-reviewed studiesPeer-reviewed12% [-58‑52%]51% [-68‑86%]93% [-13‑100%]
Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs86% [-169‑99%]51% [-68‑86%]
Mortality86% [-169‑99%]67% [-194‑96%]
VentilationVent.86% [-169‑99%]67% [-194‑96%]
ICU admissionICU41% [-160‑87%]
Recovery19% [-10‑41%]
Viral21% [0‑37%]
*
45% [33‑55%]
****
RCT mortality86% [-169‑99%]67% [-194‑96%]
Loading..
Figure 3. Scatter plot showing the most serious outcome in all studies, and for studies within each stage. Diamonds shows the results of random effects meta-analysis.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 4. Random effects meta-analysis for all studies. This plot shows pooled effects, see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes. Analysis validating pooled outcomes for COVID-19 can be found below. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported. For details see the appendix.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 5. Random effects meta-analysis for mortality results.
Loading..
Figure 6. Random effects meta-analysis for ventilation.
Loading..
Figure 7. Random effects meta-analysis for ICU admission.
Loading..
Figure 8. Random effects meta-analysis for recovery.
Loading..
Figure 9. Random effects meta-analysis for cases.
Loading..
Figure 10. Random effects meta-analysis for viral clearance.
Loading..
Figure 11. Random effects meta-analysis for peer reviewed studies. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported, see the appendix for details. Analysis validating pooled outcomes for COVID-19 can be found below. Zeraatkar et al. analyze 356 COVID-19 trials, finding no significant evidence that preprint results are inconsistent with peer-reviewed studies. They also show extremely long peer-review delays, with a median of 6 months to journal publication. A six month delay was equivalent to around 1.5 million deaths during the first two years of the pandemic. Authors recommend using preprint evidence, with appropriate checks for potential falsified data, which provides higher certainty much earlier. Davidson et al. also showed no important difference between meta analysis results of preprints and peer-reviewed publications for COVID-19, based on 37 meta analyses including 114 trials.
Figure 12 shows a comparison of results for RCTs and non-RCT studies. Random effects meta analysis of RCTs shows 59% improvement, compared to 42% for other studies. Figure 13 and 14 show forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of all Randomized Controlled Trials and RCT mortality results. RCT results are included in Table 1 and Table 2.
Loading..
Figure 12. Results for RCTs and non-RCT studies.
Loading..
Figure 13. Random effects meta-analysis for all Randomized Controlled Trials. This plot shows pooled effects, see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes. Analysis validating pooled outcomes for COVID-19 can be found below. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported. For details see the appendix.
Loading..
Figure 14. Random effects meta-analysis for RCT mortality results.
RCTs help to make study groups more similar and can provide a higher level of evidence, however they are subject to many biases Jadad, and analysis of double-blind RCTs has identified extreme levels of bias Gøtzsche. For COVID-19, the overhead may delay treatment, dramatically compromising efficacy; they may encourage monotherapy for simplicity at the cost of efficacy which may rely on combined or synergistic effects; the participants that sign up may not reflect real world usage or the population that benefits most in terms of age, comorbidities, severity of illness, or other factors; standard of care may be compromised and unable to evolve quickly based on emerging research for new diseases; errors may be made in randomization and medication delivery; and investigators may have hidden agendas or vested interests influencing design, operation, analysis, reporting, and the potential for fraud. All of these biases have been observed with COVID-19 RCTs. There is no guarantee that a specific RCT provides a higher level of evidence.
RCTs are expensive and many RCTs are funded by pharmaceutical companies or interests closely aligned with pharmaceutical companies. For COVID-19, this creates an incentive to show efficacy for patented commercial products, and an incentive to show a lack of efficacy for inexpensive treatments. The bias is expected to be significant, for example Als-Nielsen et al. analyzed 370 RCTs from Cochrane reviews, showing that trials funded by for-profit organizations were 5 times more likely to recommend the experimental drug compared with those funded by nonprofit organizations. For COVID-19, some major philanthropic organizations are largely funded by investments with extreme conflicts of interest for and against specific COVID-19 interventions.
High quality RCTs for novel acute diseases are more challenging, with increased ethical issues due to the urgency of treatment, increased risk due to enrollment delays, and more difficult design with a rapidly evolving evidence base. For COVID-19, the most common site of initial infection is the upper respiratory tract. Immediate treatment is likely to be most successful and may prevent or slow progression to other parts of the body. For a non-prophylaxis RCT, it makes sense to provide treatment in advance and instruct patients to use it immediately on symptoms, just as some governments have done by providing medication kits in advance. Unfortunately, no RCTs have been done in this way. Every treatment RCT to date involves delayed treatment. Among the 69 treatments we have analyzed, 63% of RCTs involve very late treatment 5+ days after onset. No non-prophylaxis COVID-19 RCTs match the potential real-world use of early treatments. They may more accurately represent results for treatments that require visiting a medical facility, e.g., those requiring intravenous administration.
Evidence shows that non-RCT studies can also provide reliable results. Concato et al. found that well-designed observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment compared to RCTs. Anglemyer et al. summarized reviews comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for significant differences in effect estimates. Lee et al. showed that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Evaluation of studies relies on an understanding of the study and potential biases. Limitations in an RCT can outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment delays, or Internet survey bias may have a greater effect on results. Ethical issues may also prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more on issues with RCTs see Deaton, Nichol.
Currently, 44 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. Of these, 28 have been confirmed in RCTs, with a mean delay of 5.7 months. When considering only low cost treatments, 23 have been confirmed with a delay of 6.9 months. For the 16 unconfirmed treatments, 3 have zero RCTs to date. The point estimates for the remaining 13 are all consistent with the overall results (benefit or harm), with 10 showing >20%. The only treatments showing >10% efficacy for all studies, but <10% for RCTs are sotrovimab and aspirin.
We need to evaluate each trial on its own merits. RCTs for a given medication and disease may be more reliable, however they may also be less reliable. For off-patent medications, very high conflict of interest trials may be more likely to be RCTs, and more likely to be large trials that dominate meta analyses.
4 hydrogen peroxide RCTs have not reported results Gansky, Jacox, Khan, Xie. The trials report a total of 323 patients, with 2 trials having actual enrollment of 183, and the remainder estimated. The results are delayed from 1.5 years to over 2 years.
To avoid bias in the selection of studies, we analyze all non-retracted studies. Here we show the results after excluding studies with major issues likely to alter results, non-standard studies, and studies where very minimal detail is currently available. Our bias evaluation is based on analysis of each study and identifying when there is a significant chance that limitations will substantially change the outcome of the study. We believe this can be more valuable than checklist-based approaches such as Cochrane GRADE, which can be easily influenced by potential bias, may ignore or underemphasize serious issues not captured in the checklists, and may overemphasize issues unlikely to alter outcomes in specific cases (for example certain specifics of randomization with a very large effect size and well-matched baseline characteristics).
The studies excluded are as below. Figure 15 shows a forest plot for random effects meta-analysis of all studies after exclusions.
Pablo-Marcos, unadjusted results with no group details.
Loading..
Figure 15. Random effects meta-analysis for all studies after exclusions. This plot shows pooled effects, see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes. Analysis validating pooled outcomes for COVID-19 can be found below. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported. For details see the appendix.
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
The time between infection or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example an antiviral may be very effective when used early but may not be effective in late stage disease, and may even be harmful. Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective for influenza when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours McLean, Treanor. Baloxavir studies for influenza also show that treatment delay is critical — Ikematsu et al. report an 86% reduction in cases for post-exposure prophylaxis, Hayden et al. show a 33 hour reduction in the time to alleviation of symptoms for treatment within 24 hours and a reduction of 13 hours for treatment within 24-48 hours, and Kumar et al. report only 2.5 hours improvement for inpatient treatment.
Table 3. Studies of baloxavir for influenza show that early treatment is more effective.
Treatment delayResult
Post-exposure prophylaxis86% fewer cases Ikematsu
<24 hours-33 hours symptoms Hayden
24-48 hours-13 hours symptoms Hayden
Inpatients-2.5 hours to improvement Kumar
Figure 16 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 69 treatments, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.
Loading..
Figure 16. Early treatment is more effective. Meta-regression showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 69 treatments.
Details of the patient population including age and comorbidities may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19 studies with relatively young low-comorbidity patients show all patients recovering quickly with or without treatment. In such cases, there is little room for an effective treatment to improve results, for example as in López-Medina et al.
Efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by patients. Risk varies significantly across variants Korves, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics Faria, Karita, Nonaka, Zavascki. Different mechanisms of action may be more or less effective depending on variants, for example the degree to which TMPRSS2 contributes to viral entry can differ across variants Peacock, Willett.
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including supplements, other medications, or other interventions such as prone positioning. Treatments may be synergistic Alsaidi, Andreani, De Forni, Fiaschi, Jeffreys, Jitobaom, Jitobaom (B), Ostrov, Said, Thairu, Wan, therefore efficacy may depend strongly on combined treatments.
The quality of medications may vary significantly between manufacturers and production batches, which may significantly affect efficacy and safety. Williams et al. analyze ivermectin from 11 different sources, showing highly variable antiparasitic efficacy across different manufacturers. Xu et al. analyze a treatment from two different manufacturers, showing 9 different impurities, with significantly different concentrations for each manufacturer.
Across all studies there is a strong association between different outcomes, for example improved recovery is strongly associated with lower mortality. However, efficacy may differ depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment may be more effective against secondary complications and have minimal effect on viral clearance.
The distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta analysis. Consider a simplified example where everything is equal except for the treatment delay, and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with increasing delay. If there are many studies using very late treatment, the outcome may be negative, even though early treatment is very effective. All meta analyses combine heterogeneous studies, varying in population, variants, and potentially all factors above, and therefore may obscure efficacy by including studies where treatment is less effective. Generally, we expect the estimated effect size from meta analysis to be less than that for the optimal case. Looking at all studies is valuable for providing an overview of all research, important to avoid cherry-picking, and informative when a positive result is found despite combining less-optimal situations. However, the resulting estimate does not apply to specific cases such as early treatment in high-risk populations. While we present results for all studies, we also present treatment time and individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.
For COVID-19, delay in clinical results translates into additional death and morbidity, as well as additional economic and societal damage. Combining the results of studies reporting different outcomes is required. There may be no mortality in a trial with low-risk patients, however a reduction in severity or improved viral clearance may translate into lower mortality in a high-risk population. Different studies may report lower severity, improved recovery, and lower mortality, and the significance may be very high when combining the results. "The studies reported different outcomes" is not a good reason for disregarding results.
We present both specific outcome and pooled analyses. In order to combine the results of studies reporting different outcomes we use the most serious outcome reported in each study, based on the thesis that improvement in the most serious outcome provides comparable measures of efficacy for a treatment. A critical advantage of this approach is simplicity and transparency. There are many other ways to combine evidence for different outcomes, along with additional evidence such as dose-response relationships, however these increase complexity.
Another way to view pooled analysis is that we are using more of the available information. Logically we should, and do, use additional information. For example dose-response and treatment delay-response relationships provide significant additional evidence of efficacy that is considered when reviewing the evidence for a treatment.
Trials with high-risk patients may be restricted due to ethics for treatments that are known or expected to be effective, and they increase difficulty for recruiting. Using less severe outcomes as a proxy for more serious outcomes allows faster collection of evidence.
For many COVID-19 treatments, a reduction in mortality logically follows from a reduction in hospitalization, which follows from a reduction in symptomatic cases, which follows from a reduction in PCR positivity. We can directly test this for COVID-19.
Analysis of the the association between different outcomes across studies from all 69 treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19. Figure 17 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001). Similarly, Figure 18 shows that improved recovery is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001). Considering the extremes, Singh et al. show an association between viral clearance and hospitalization or death, with p = 0.003 after excluding one large outlier from a mutagenic treatment, and based on 44 RCTs including 52,384 patients. Figure 19 shows that improved viral clearance is strongly associated with fewer serious outcomes. The association is very similar to Singh et al., with higher confidence due to the larger number of studies. As with Singh et al., the confidence increases when excluding the outlier treatment, from p = 0.0000045 to p = 0.0000000067.
Loading..
Figure 17. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 18. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 17. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Currently, 44 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 85% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 3.7 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 54% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 5.8 months. Figure 20 shows when treatments were found effective during the pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 20. The time when studies showed that treatments were effective, defined as statistically significant improvement of ≥10% from ≥3 studies. Pooled results typically show efficacy earlier than specific outcome results. Results from all studies often shows efficacy much earlier than when restricting to RCTs. Results reflect conditions as used in trials to date, these depend on the population treated, treatment delay, and treatment regimen.
Pooled analysis could hide efficacy, for example a treatment that is beneficial for late stage patients but has no effect on viral clearance may show no efficacy if most studies only examine viral clearance. In practice, it is rare for a non-antiviral treatment to report viral clearance and to not report clinical outcomes; and in practice other sources of heterogeneity such as difference in treatment delay is more likely to hide efficacy.
Analysis validates the use of pooled effects and shows significantly faster detection of efficacy on average. However, as with all meta analyses, it is important to review the different studies included. We also present individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.
Analysis of short-term changes in viral load using PCR may not detect effective treatments because PCR is unable to differentiate between intact infectious virus and non-infectious or destroyed virus particles. For example Alemany, Tarragó‐Gil perform RCTs with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash that show no difference in PCR viral load, however there was significantly increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, indicating viral lysis. CPC inactivates SARS-CoV-2 by degrading its membrane, exposing the nucleocapsid of the virus. To better estimate changes in viral load and infectivity, methods like viral culture or antigen detection that can differentiate intact vs. degraded virus are preferred.
Studies to date use a variety of administration methods to the respiratory tract, including nasal and oral sprays, nasal irrigation, oral rinses, and inhalation. Table 4 shows the relative efficacy for nasal, oral, and combined administration. Combined administration shows the best results, and nasal administration is more effective than oral. Precise efficacy depends on the details of administration, e.g., mucoadhesion and sprayability for sprays.
Table 4. Respiratory tract administration efficacy. Relative efficacy of nasal, oral, and combined nasal/oral administration for treatments administered directly to the respiratory tract, based on studies for povidone-iodine, iota-carrageenan, alkalinization, hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide, chlorhexidine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and phthalocyanine. Results show random effects meta analysis for the most serious outcome reported for all prophylaxis and early treatment studies.
Nasal/oral administration to the respiratory tract ImprovementStudies
Oral spray/rinse38% [25‑49%]8
Nasal spray/rinse56% [44‑65%]12
Nasal & oral94% [74‑99%]6
Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatments may not be highly selective. In addition to inhibiting or disabling SARS-CoV-2, they may also be harmful to beneficial microbes, disrupting the natural microbiome in the oral cavity and nasal passages that have important protective and metabolic roles Brookes. This may be especially important for prolonged use or overuse. Table 5 summarizes the potential for common nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatments to affect the natural microbiome.
Table 5. Potential effect of treatments on the nasophyrngeal/oropharyngeal microbiome.
TreatmentMicrobiome disruption potentialNotes
Iota-carrageenanLowPrimarily antiviral, however extended use may mildly affect the microbiome
Nitric OxideLow to moderateMore selective towards pathogens, however excessive concentrations or prolonged use may disrupt the balance of bacteria
AlkalinizationModerateIncreases pH, negatively impacting beneficial microbes that thrive in a slightly acidic environment
Cetylpyridinium ChlorideModerateQuaternary ammonium broad-spectrum antiseptic that can disrupt beneficial and harmful bacteria
PhthalocyanineModerate to highPhotodynamic compound with antimicrobial activity, likely to affect the microbiome
ChlorhexidineHighPotent antiseptic with broad activity, significantly disrupts the microbiome
Hydrogen PeroxideHighStrong oxidizer, harming both beneficial and harmful microbes
Povidone-IodineHighPotent broad-spectrum antiseptic harmful to beneficial microbes
Publishing is often biased towards positive results, however evidence suggests that there may be a negative bias for inexpensive treatments for COVID-19. Both negative and positive results are very important for COVID-19, media in many countries prioritizes negative results for inexpensive treatments (inverting the typical incentive for scientists that value media recognition), and there are many reports of difficulty publishing positive results Boulware, Meeus, Meneguesso, twitter.com. For hydrogen peroxide, there is currently not enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.
One method to evaluate bias is to compare prospective vs. retrospective studies. Prospective studies are more likely to be published regardless of the result, while retrospective studies are more likely to exhibit bias. For example, researchers may perform preliminary analysis with minimal effort and the results may influence their decision to continue. Retrospective studies also provide more opportunities for the specifics of data extraction and adjustments to influence results.
Figure 21 shows a scatter plot of results for prospective and retrospective studies. The median effect size for retrospective studies is 93% improvement, compared to 50% for prospective studies, suggesting a potential bias towards publishing results showing higher efficacy.
Loading..
Figure 21. Prospective vs. retrospective studies. The diamonds show the results of random effects meta-analysis.
Funnel plots have traditionally been used for analyzing publication bias. This is invalid for COVID-19 acute treatment trials — the underlying assumptions are invalid, which we can demonstrate with a simple example. Consider a set of hypothetical perfect trials with no bias. Figure 22 plot A shows a funnel plot for a simulation of 80 perfect trials, with random group sizes, and each patient's outcome randomly sampled (10% control event probability, and a 30% effect size for treatment). Analysis shows no asymmetry (p > 0.05). In plot B, we add a single typical variation in COVID-19 treatment trials — treatment delay. Consider that efficacy varies from 90% for treatment within 24 hours, reducing to 10% when treatment is delayed 3 days. In plot B, each trial's treatment delay is randomly selected. Analysis now shows highly significant asymmetry, p < 0.0001, with six variants of Egger's test all showing p < 0.05 Egger, Harbord, Macaskill, Moreno, Peters, Rothstein, Rücker, Stanley. Note that these tests fail even though treatment delay is uniformly distributed. In reality treatment delay is more complex — each trial has a different distribution of delays across patients, and the distribution across trials may be biased (e.g., late treatment trials may be more common). Similarly, many other variations in trials may produce asymmetry, including dose, administration, duration of treatment, differences in SOC, comorbidities, age, variants, and bias in design, implementation, analysis, and reporting.
Figure 22. Example funnel plot analysis for simulated perfect trials.
Pharmaceutical drug trials often have conflicts of interest whereby sponsors or trial staff have a financial interest in the outcome being positive. Hydrogen Peroxide for COVID-19 lacks this because it is off-patent, has multiple manufacturers, and is very low cost. In contrast, most COVID-19 hydrogen peroxide trials have been run by physicians on the front lines with the primary goal of finding the best methods to save human lives and minimize the collateral damage caused by COVID-19. While pharmaceutical companies are careful to run trials under optimal conditions (for example, restricting patients to those most likely to benefit, only including patients that can be treated soon after onset when necessary, and ensuring accurate dosing), not all hydrogen peroxide trials represent the optimal conditions for efficacy.
Summary statistics from meta analysis necessarily lose information. As with all meta analyses, studies are heterogeneous, with differences in treatment delay, treatment regimen, patient demographics, variants, conflicts of interest, standard of care, and other factors. We provide analyses for specific outcomes and by treatment delay, and we aim to identify key characteristics in the forest plots and summaries. Results should be viewed in the context of study characteristics.
Some analyses classify treatment based on early or late administration, as done here, while others distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe cases. Viral load does not indicate degree of symptoms — for example patients may have a high viral load while being asymptomatic. With regard to treatments that have antiviral properties, timing of treatment is critical — late administration may be less helpful regardless of severity.
Details of treatment delay per patient is often not available. For example, a study may treat 90% of patients relatively early, but the events driving the outcome may come from 10% of patients treated very late. Our 5 day cutoff for early treatment may be too conservative, 5 days may be too late in many cases.
Comparison across treatments is confounded by differences in the studies performed, for example dose, variants, and conflicts of interest. Trials with conflicts of interest may use designs better suited to the preferred outcome.
In some cases, the most serious outcome has very few events, resulting in lower confidence results being used in pooled analysis, however the method is simpler and more transparent. This is less critical as the number of studies increases. Restriction to outcomes with sufficient power may be beneficial in pooled analysis and improve accuracy when there are few studies, however we maintain our pre-specified method to avoid any retrospective changes.
Studies show that combinations of treatments can be highly synergistic and may result in many times greater efficacy than individual treatments alone Alsaidi, Andreani, De Forni, Fiaschi, Jeffreys, Jitobaom, Jitobaom (B), Ostrov, Said, Thairu, Wan. Therefore standard of care may be critical and benefits may diminish or disappear if standard of care does not include certain treatments.
This real-time analysis is constantly updated based on submissions. Accuracy benefits from widespread review and submission of updates and corrections from reviewers. Less popular treatments may receive fewer reviews.
No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Efficacy may vary significantly with different variants and within different populations. All treatments have potential side effects. Propensity to experience side effects may be predicted in advance by qualified physicians. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can compare all options, provide personalized advice, and provide details of risks and benefits based on individual medical history and situations.
1 of 7 studies combine treatments. The results of hydrogen peroxide alone may differ. 1 of 4 RCTs use combined treatment.
Multiple reviews cover hydrogen peroxide for COVID-19, presenting additional background on mechanisms and related results, including O’Donnell, Ting.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex interplay of 50+ host and viral proteins and other factors Lui, Lv, Malone, Murigneux, Niarakis, providing many therapeutic targets. Over 7,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19 risk c19early.org, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications. Figure 23 shows an overview of the results for hydrogen peroxide in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Figure 24 shows a plot of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Loading..
Figure 23. Scatter plot showing results within the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments. Diamonds shows the results of random effects meta-analysis. 0.6% of 7,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy c19early.org (B).
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 24. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
SARS-CoV-2 infection typically starts in the upper respiratory tract. Progression may lead to cytokine storm, pneumonia, ARDS, neurological issues, organ failure, and death. Stopping replication in the upper respiratory tract, via early or prophylactic nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment, can avoid the consequences of progression to other tissues, and avoid the requirement for systemic treatments with greater potential for side effects.
Statistically significant lower risk is seen for viral clearance. 2 studies from 2 independent teams in 2 countries show statistically significant improvements. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 38% [5‑59%] lower risk. Results are better for Randomized Controlled Trials and higher quality studies and slightly worse for peer-reviewed studies.
Currently there is limited data, with only 921 patients and only 16 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
Hydrogen Peroxide may be detrimental to the natural microbiome, raising concern for side effects, especially with prolonged or excessive use.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality 67% Improvement Relative Risk Ventilation 67% Oxygen time 46% Recovery time, dyspnea 36% Recovery time, fever 39% Recovery time, cough 30% Time to viral- 45% Hydrogen Peroxide  HOPE in COVID-19  LATE TREATMENT  DB RCT Is late treatment with hydrogen peroxide beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 40 patients in India Lower need for oxygen therapy (p<0.0001) and faster recovery (p<0.0001) c19early.org Agrawal et al., J. South Asian Federat.., Apr 2022 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Agrawal: RCT 40 patients in India, showing improved recovery with nebulized hydrogen peroxide.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Case, both periods comb.. 93% Improvement Relative Risk Case, Jan-Mar 2021 93% Case, May-Dec 2020 98% Hydrogen Peroxide  Amoah et al.  Prophylaxis Does hydrogen peroxide reduce COVID-19 infections? Retrospective 552 patients in Ghana (May 2020 - December 2021) Fewer cases with hydrogen peroxide (not stat. sig., p=0.061) c19early.org Amoah et al., J. Hospital Infection, Aug 2022 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Amoah: Retrospective 458 healthcare workers in Ghana, showing lower COVID-19 cases with hydrogen peroxide prophylaxis (oral and nasal rinse), without statistical significance.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ ICU admission 34% Improvement Relative Risk Recovery -1% PASC 31% Hydrogen Peroxide  Di Domênico et al.  LATE TREATMENT  DB RCT Is late treatment with hydrogen peroxide beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 128 patients in Brazil Lower PASC with hydrogen peroxide (not stat. sig., p=0.54) c19early.org Di Domênico et al., Epidemiology and H.., Aug 2021 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Di Domênico: RCT very late treatment (>9 days from onset) comparing hydrogen peroxide + mint essence with water + mint essence, showing no significant differences.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ ICU admission 50% Improvement Relative Risk Improvement 6% Time to discharge 7% Hydrogen Peroxide  Di Domênico et al.  LATE TREATMENT  DB RCT Is late treatment with hydrogen peroxide beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 40 patients in Brazil Trial underpowered for serious outcomes c19early.org Di Domênico et al., Epidemiology and H.., May 2021 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Di Domênico (B): RCT very late treatment (>10 days from onset) comparing hydrogen peroxide + mint essence with water + mint essence, showing no significant differences.
Gansky: 54 patient hydrogen peroxide early treatment RCT with results not reported over 1.5 years after completion.
Jacox: 129 patient hydrogen peroxide early treatment RCT with results not reported over 2 years after completion.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Viral clearance 50% Improvement Relative Risk Hydrogen Peroxide  Jayaraman et al.  EARLY TREATMENT Does hydrogen peroxide reduce short-term viral load for COVID-19? Prospective study of 12 patients in India Improved viral clearance with hydrogen peroxide (not stat. sig., p=0.18) c19early.org Jayaraman et al., medRxiv, March 2021 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Jayaraman: Study of SARS-CoV-2 burden in whole mouth fluid and respiratory droplets with povidone iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine mouthwashes in 36 hospitalized COVID-19 patients using PCR and rapid antigen testing. There were significant reductions in SARS-CoV-2 burden with all treatments in both respiratory droplets and whole mouth fluid.

Analysis of short-term changes in viral load using PCR may not detect effective treatments because PCR is unable to differentiate between intact infectious virus and non-infectious or destroyed virus particles. For example Alemany, Tarragó‐Gil perform RCTs with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash that show no difference in PCR viral load, however there was significantly increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, indicating viral lysis. CPC inactivates SARS-CoV-2 by degrading its membrane, exposing the nucleocapsid of the virus. To better estimate changes in viral load and infectivity, methods like viral culture or antigen detection that can differentiate intact vs. degraded virus are preferred. .

Authors perform antigen testing for 6 hydrogen peroxide patients, showing that 50% became negative after treatment.
Khan: Estimated 50 patient hydrogen peroxide early treatment RCT with results not reported over 1.5 years after estimated completion.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality 86% Improvement Relative Risk Ventilation 86% Viral clearance, day 15 18% Viral clearance, day 5 14% Hydrogen Peroxide  Mukhtar et al.  EARLY TREATMENT  RCT Is early treatment with hydrogen peroxide + chlorhexidine gluconate beneficial for COVID-19? RCT 92 patients in Qatar Lower mortality (p=0.24) and ventilation (p=0.24), not sig. c19early.org Mukhtar et al., medRxiv, November 2020 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Mukhtar: RCT for mouthwash containing hydrogen peroxide 2% and chlorhexidine gluconate, showing higher discharge, shorter hospital stay, less intubation, and lower mortality with treatment.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Viral load, mid-recovery 12% Improvement Relative Risk Viral load, 4th PCR -64% Hydrogen Peroxide  Pablo-Marcos et al.  EARLY TREATMENT Is early treatment with hydrogen peroxide beneficial for COVID-19? Prospective study of 71 patients in Spain (May - November 2020) No significant difference in viral clearance c19early.org Pablo-Marcos et al., Enfermedades Infe.., Oct 2021 Favors hydrogen peroxide Favors control
Pablo-Marcos: Small prospective study with 31 patients gargling povidone-iodine, 17 hydrogen peroxide, and 40 control patients, showing lower viral load mid-recovery with povidone-iodine, without reaching statistical significance. Oropharyngeal only, and only every 8 hours for two days. Results may be better with the addition of nasopharyngeal use, more frequent use, and without the two day limit.

Authors report only one of the 7 previous trials for PVP-I and COVID-19. Non-randomized study with no adjustments or group details. Some results in Figure 1 appear to be switched compared to the text and the labels in the figure. The viral clearance figures do not match the group sizes - for example authors report 62% PCR- for PVP-I at the 3rd test, however there is no number of 31 patients that rounds to 62%.
Xie: Estimated 90 patient hydrogen peroxide early treatment RCT with results not reported over 2 years after estimated completion.
We perform ongoing searches of PubMed, medRxiv, Europe PMC, ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Research Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press, the reference lists of other studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19early.org. Search terms are hydrogen peroxide and COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. Automated searches are performed twice daily, with all matches reviewed for inclusion. All studies regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide for COVID-19 that report a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis is performed, excluding studies with major issues, epidemiological studies, and studies with minimal available information. This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.
We extracted effect sizes and associated data from all studies. If studies report multiple kinds of effects then the most serious outcome is used in pooled analysis, while other outcomes are included in the outcome specific analyses. For example, if effects for mortality and cases are both reported, the effect for mortality is used, this may be different to the effect that a study focused on. If symptomatic results are reported at multiple times, we used the latest time, for example if mortality results are provided at 14 days and 28 days, the results at 28 days have preference. Mortality alone is preferred over combined outcomes. Outcomes with zero events in both arms are not used, the next most serious outcome with one or more events is used. For example, in low-risk populations with no mortality, a reduction in mortality with treatment is not possible, however a reduction in hospitalization, for example, is still valuable. Clinical outcomes are considered more important than viral test status. When basically all patients recover in both treatment and control groups, preference for viral clearance and recovery is given to results mid-recovery where available. After most or all patients have recovered there is little or no room for an effective treatment to do better, however faster recovery is valuable. If only individual symptom data is available, the most serious symptom has priority, for example difficulty breathing or low SpO2 is more important than cough. When results provide an odds ratio, we compute the relative risk when possible, or convert to a relative risk according to Zhang. Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available, using adjusted values when provided. If multiple types of adjustments are reported propensity score matching and multivariable regression has preference over propensity score matching or weighting, which has preference over multivariable regression. Adjusted results have preference over unadjusted results for a more serious outcome when the adjustments significantly alter results. When needed, conversion between reported p-values and confidence intervals followed Altman, Altman (B), and Fisher's exact test was used to calculate p-values for event data. If continuity correction for zero values is required, we use the reciprocal of the opposite arm with the sum of the correction factors equal to 1 Sweeting. Results are expressed with RR < 1.0 favoring treatment, and using the risk of a negative outcome when applicable (for example, the risk of death rather than the risk of survival). If studies only report relative continuous values such as relative times, the ratio of the time for the treatment group versus the time for the control group is used. Calculations are done in Python (3.12.2) with scipy (1.12.0), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (1.26.4), statsmodels (0.14.1), and plotly (5.20.0).
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta Deng with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (the fixed effect assumption is not plausible in this case) and inverse variance weighting. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Mixed-effects meta-regression results are computed with R (4.1.2) using the metafor (3.0-2) and rms (6.2-0) packages, and using the most serious sufficiently powered outcome. For all statistical tests, a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Grobid 0.8.0 is used to parse PDF documents.
We have classified studies as early treatment if most patients are not already at a severe stage at the time of treatment (for example based on oxygen status or lung involvement), and treatment started within 5 days of the onset of symptoms. If studies contain a mix of early treatment and late treatment patients, we consider the treatment time of patients contributing most to the events (for example, consider a study where most patients are treated early but late treatment patients are included, and all mortality events were observed with late treatment patients). We note that a shorter time may be preferable. Antivirals are typically only considered effective when used within a shorter timeframe, for example 0-36 or 0-48 hours for oseltamivir, with longer delays not being effective McLean, Treanor.
We received no funding, this research is done in our spare time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political parties.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit updates and corrections at the bottom of this page.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit updates and corrections at https://c19early.org/hpmeta.html.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above and gives priority to more serious outcomes. For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may differ from the effect a paper focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
Gansky, 9/10/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, trial NCT04409873 (history) (AMPoL). 54 patient RCT with results unknown and over 1.5 years late.
Jacox, 10/20/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, trial NCT04584684 (history) (MOR). 129 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late.
Jayaraman, 3/1/2021, prospective, India, preprint, 12 authors. risk of no viral clearance, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.18, treatment 3 of 6 (50.0%), control 6 of 6 (100.0%), NNT 2.0, antigen results.
Khan, 7/31/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, trial NCT04341688 (history) (GARGLES). Estimated 50 patient RCT with results unknown and over 1.5 years late.
Mukhtar, 11/30/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Qatar, preprint, 16 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with chlorhexidine gluconate) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial ISRCTN10197987. risk of death, 85.7% lower, RR 0.14, p = 0.24, treatment 0 of 46 (0.0%), control 3 of 46 (6.5%), NNT 15, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), including third control death on day 54.
risk of mechanical ventilation, 85.7% lower, RR 0.14, p = 0.24, treatment 0 of 46 (0.0%), control 3 of 46 (6.5%), NNT 15, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of no viral clearance, 18.1% lower, RR 0.82, p = 0.16, treatment 28 of 43 (65.1%), control 35 of 44 (79.5%), NNT 6.9, day 15.
risk of no viral clearance, 14.0% lower, RR 0.86, p = 0.01, treatment 37 of 43 (86.0%), control 44 of 44 (100.0%), NNT 7.2, day 5.
Pablo-Marcos, 10/25/2021, prospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, mean age 43.0, 6 authors, study period May 2020 - November 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. relative viral load, 12.5% better, RR 0.88, p = 0.67, treatment mean 2.1 (±2.5) n=17, control mean 2.4 (±2.4) n=40, 3rd PCR (mid-recovery).
relative viral load, 63.6% worse, RR 1.64, p = 0.16, treatment mean 1.8 (±2.5) n=31, control mean 1.1 (±1.6) n=40, 4th PCR (most patients recovered).
Xie, 2/28/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04931004 (history). Estimated 90 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above and gives priority to more serious outcomes. For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may differ from the effect a paper focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
Agrawal, 4/5/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 47.0, 8 authors, trial CTRI/2020/08/027038 (HOPE in COVID-19). risk of death, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.60, treatment 1 of 20 (5.0%), control 3 of 20 (15.0%), NNT 10.0.
risk of mechanical ventilation, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.60, treatment 1 of 20 (5.0%), control 3 of 20 (15.0%), NNT 10.0.
oxygen time, 46.3% lower, relative time 0.54, p < 0.001, treatment mean 4.74 (±1.62) n=19, control mean 8.82 (±1.59) n=17.
recovery time, 35.7% lower, relative time 0.64, p < 0.001, treatment mean 4.58 (±1.12) n=19, control mean 7.12 (±1.05) n=17, dyspnea.
recovery time, 38.9% lower, relative time 0.61, p < 0.001, treatment mean 2.84 (±1.01) n=19, control mean 4.65 (±1.22) n=17, fever.
recovery time, 29.8% lower, relative time 0.70, p = 0.001, treatment mean 4.79 (±1.84) n=19, control mean 6.82 (±1.51) n=17, cough.
time to viral-, 45.2% lower, relative time 0.55, p < 0.001, treatment mean 5.16 (±1.21) n=19, control mean 9.41 (±1.97) n=17.
Di Domênico, 8/3/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Brazil, peer-reviewed, survey, 9 authors. risk of ICU admission, 33.8% lower, RR 0.66, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 77 (2.6%), control 2 of 51 (3.9%), NNT 76.
risk of no recovery, 1.0% higher, HR 1.01, p = 0.97, treatment 63, control 43, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment.
risk of PASC, 31.4% lower, RR 0.69, p = 0.54, treatment 6 of 51 (11.8%), control 6 of 35 (17.1%), NNT 19, antibody positive.
Di Domênico (B), 5/1/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Brazil, peer-reviewed, survey, 9 authors, average treatment delay 10.72 days. risk of ICU admission, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 20 (5.0%), control 2 of 20 (10.0%), NNT 20.
improvement, 5.7% lower, HR 0.94, p = 0.91, treatment 18, control 17, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment.
time to discharge, 7.0% lower, relative time 0.93, p = 0.61, treatment mean 3.86 (±1.6) n=18, control mean 4.15 (±1.77) n=17.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above and gives priority to more serious outcomes. For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may differ from the effect a paper focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
Amoah, 8/31/2022, retrospective, Ghana, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, study period May 2020 - December 2021. risk of case, 93.0% lower, RR 0.07, p = 0.06, treatment 94, control 458, both periods combined.
risk of case, 92.6% lower, RR 0.07, p = 0.22, treatment 0 of 94 (0.0%), control 10 of 372 (2.7%), NNT 37, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), Jan - Mar 2021.
risk of case, 98.4% lower, RR 0.02, p = 0.60, treatment 0 of 8 (0.0%), control 62 of 458 (13.5%), NNT 7.4, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), May - Dec 2020.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. c19early involves the extraction of 100,000+ datapoints from thousands of papers. Community updates help ensure high accuracy. Treatments and other interventions are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit