Peginterferon Lambda for COVID-19: real-time meta-analysis of 5 studies

@CovidAnalysis, November 2026, Version 8V8 (V1 2022)

Media coverage of peginterferon lambda for COVID‑19

c19early.org
November 2026

Media covered none of the 3 negative studies

1 positive peginterferon lambda study was covered

50%

No negative peginterferon lambda studies were covered

0%
Abstract
Meta-analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 15% [-36‑107%] higher risk, without reaching statistical significance. Results are consistent with early treatment being more effective than late treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 9 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
The primary positive trial1 has major anomolies2. Results from NCT04967430 have not been reported and contact information was deleted in the registry.
All data and sources to reproduce this analysis are in the appendix.
Download PDF
Evolution of COVID-19 clinical evidence Meta-analysis results over time Peginterferon Lambda p=0.66 Vitamin D p<0.0000000001 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Lowerrisk Higherrisk c19early.org November 2026 50% 0% -50%

Peginterferon Lambda for COVID-19

Highlights
  • Meta-analysis of studies to date shows no significant improvements with peginterferon lambda.
  • Real-time updates and corrections with a consistent protocol for 227 treatments. Outcome specific analysis and combined evidence from all studies including treatment delay, a primary confounding factor.
A

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 studies

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Feld (DB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.07–15.26hosp.1/301/30ILIAD Cohort A Jagannat.. (SB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.15–6.87hosp.2/602/60COVID-Lambda Reis (DB RCT)27%0.73 · 0.21–2.58death4/9316/1,018TOGETHER
Early treatment17%0.83 · 0.31–2.217/1,0219/1,10817% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.71
Kim (SB RCT)−200%3.00 · 0.14–63.15ICU1/70/7 Kandel (DB RCT)−32%1.32 · 0.60–2.867-point status48 (n)46 (n)ILIAD Cohort B
Late treatment−38%1.38 · 0.66–2.891/550/5338% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.4
All studies−15%1.15 · 0.64–2.078/1,0769/1,16115% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.6600.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon
Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon
Lambda
increases risk →
B
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% Timeline of COVID-19 peginterferon lambda studies (pooled effects) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Favorspeg.. lambda Favorscontrol c19early.org November 2026
Fig. 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 peginterferon lambda studies.
Introduction
Fig. 2. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein fibrin binding leads to thromboinflammation and neuropathology, from3.
Immediate treatment recommended
SARS-CoV-2 infection primarily begins in the upper respiratory tract and may progress to the lower respiratory tract, other tissues, and the nervous and cardiovascular systems, which may lead to cytokine storm, pneumonia, ARDS, neurological injury4-20 and cognitive deficits7,12, cardiovascular complications21-27, DNA damage28-31, organ failure, and death. Even mild untreated infections may result in persistent cognitive deficits32—the spike protein binds to fibrin leading to fibrinolysis-resistant blood clots, thromboinflammation, and neuropathology. Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended.
Many treatments are expected to modulate infection
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 500+ host and viral proteins and other factorsA,33-40, providing many therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity. Scientists have predicted that over 12,000 compounds may reduce COVID-19 risk41, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
Analysis
We analyze all significant controlled studies of peginterferon lambda 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, and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Treatment timing
Fig. 3 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.
Prophylaxis pre-exposure post-exposure Early treatment Late treatment Treatment delay viral load disease severity exposed symptom onset hospitalized ICU Expected benefit of antiviral therapy −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time relative to symptom onset (days) trajectories vary widely immediately or soon after symptoms after disease progression
Fig. 3. Treatment stages.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the results for all studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials, for specific outcomes, and by treatment stage. Fig. 4 plots individual results by treatment stage. Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 show forest plots for random-effects meta-analysis of all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ICU admission, hospitalization, progression, recovery, and viral clearance.

Peginterferon Lambda for COVID-19: meta-analysis results

c19early.org
November 2026
All stages
Early treatment
Late treatment
All studies5 studies · 2,237 patients
All stages1.15 0.64–2.0715% higher risk
Early treatment0.83 0.31–2.2117% lower risk
Late treatment1.38 0.66–2.8938% higher risk
RCTs5 studies · 2,237 patients
All stages1.15 0.64–2.0715% higher risk
Early treatment0.83 0.31–2.2117% lower risk
Late treatment1.38 0.66–2.8938% higher risk
Hospitalization4 studies · 2,143 patients
All stages0.75 0.49–1.1425% lower risk
Early treatment0.61 0.37–1.0039% lower risk
Late treatment1.25 0.57–2.7325% higher risk
Viral3 studies · 193 patients
All stages0.56 0.27–1.1744% lower risk
Early treatment0.42 0.17–1.0658% lower risk
Late treatment0.88 0.31–2.4412% lower risk
RCT hospitalization4 studies · 2,143 patients
All stages0.75 0.49–1.1425% lower risk
Early treatment0.61 0.37–1.0039% lower risk
Late treatment1.25 0.57–2.7325% higher risk

Random-effects meta-analysis. Relative risk with 95% CI. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Table 1. Random-effects meta-analysis results for peginterferon lambda. Results show the relative risk and 95% confidence interval.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5+ All studies Late treatment Early treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 peginterferon lambda studies (pooled effects) Favors peg.. lambda Favors control c19early.org November 2026
Fig. 4. 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.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 studies

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Feld (DB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.07–15.26hosp.1/301/30ILIAD Cohort A Jagannat.. (SB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.15–6.87hosp.2/602/60COVID-Lambda Reis (DB RCT)27%0.73 · 0.21–2.58death4/9316/1,018TOGETHER
Early treatment17%0.83 · 0.31–2.217/1,0219/1,10817% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.71
Kim (SB RCT)−200%3.00 · 0.14–63.15ICU1/70/7 Kandel (DB RCT)−32%1.32 · 0.60–2.867-point status48 (n)46 (n)ILIAD Cohort B
Late treatment−38%1.38 · 0.66–2.891/550/5338% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.4
All studies−15%1.15 · 0.64–2.078/1,0769/1,16115% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.6600.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon
Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon
Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 5. 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.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 mortality results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Reis (DB RCT)27%0.73 · 0.21–2.584/9316/1,018TOGETHER
Early treatment27%0.73 · 0.21–2.584/9316/1,01827% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.64
All studies27%0.73 · 0.21–2.584/9316/1,01827% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.6400.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 6. Random-effects meta-analysis for mortality results.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 ICU results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Kim (SB RCT)−200%3.00 · 0.14–63.151/70/7
Late treatment−200%3.00 · 0.14–63.151/70/7200% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.49
All studies−200%3.00 · 0.14–63.151/70/7200% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.4900.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 7. Random-effects meta-analysis for ICU admission.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 hospitalization results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Feld (DB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.07–15.26hosp.1/301/30ILIAD Cohort A Jagannat.. (SB RCT)0%1.00 · 0.15–6.87hosp.2/602/60COVID-Lambda Reis (DB RCT)42%0.58 · 0.34–0.96hosp.21/93140/1,018TOGETHER
Early treatment39%0.61 · 0.37–1.0024/1,02143/1,10839% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.051
Kim (SB RCT)−25%1.25 · 0.57–2.73hosp. time7 (n)7 (n)
Late treatment−25%1.25 · 0.57–2.737 (n)7 (n)25% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.59
All studies25%0.75 · 0.49–1.1424/1,02843/1,11525% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.1800.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon
Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon
Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 8. Random-effects meta-analysis for hospitalization.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 progression results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Feld (DB RCT)75%0.25 · 0.03–2.111/304/30ILIAD Cohort A
Early treatment75%0.25 · 0.03–2.111/304/3075% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.2
All studies75%0.25 · 0.03–2.111/304/3075% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.200.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 9. Random-effects meta-analysis for progression.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 recovery results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Jagannat.. (SB RCT)−6%1.06 · 0.72–1.56no recov.60 (n)60 (n)COVID-Lambda
Early treatment−6%1.06 · 0.73–1.5560 (n)60 (n)6% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.76
All studies−6%1.06 · 0.73–1.5560 (n)60 (n)6% higher risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.7600.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon
Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon
Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 10. Random-effects meta-analysis for recovery.

Peginterferon lambda COVID-19 viral clearance results

c19early.org
November 2026
StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Feld (DB RCT)66%0.34 · 0.09–0.91viral+6/3011/30ILIAD Cohort A Jagannat.. (SB RCT)−14%1.14 · 0.14–9.17viral load60 (n)60 (n)COVID-Lambda
Early treatment58%0.42 · 0.17–1.066/9011/9058% lower risk
Tau² = 0.08, I² = 11.3%, p = 0.067
Kim (SB RCT)12%0.88 · 0.31–2.44viral+3/64/7
Late treatment12%0.88 · 0.31–2.443/64/712% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.81
All studies44%0.56 · 0.27–1.179/9615/9744% lower risk
Tau² = 0.09, I² = 20.7%, p = 0.1200.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Peginterferon
Lambda
reduces riskPeginterferon
Lambda
increases risk →
Fig. 11. Random-effects meta-analysis for viral clearance.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Currently all studies are RCTs.
Media Bias
Low-cost treatments were subject to bias and censorship during the pandemic. Scientific bias is seen in the design, analysis, presentation, and selective reporting of studies, which favored negative results. A similar bias is seen in the media coverage for low-cost treatments. However, the opposite is seen for high-profit treatments.
We analyze media coverage for the 227 treatments we cover using Altmetric42 and PlumX Metrics43. Altmetric covers ~14,000 news outlets44 and PlumX covers ~55,000 news sources45. The two services are complementary with coverage of different news sources and different methods for identifying articles not containing a DOI. We consider studies to have received significant media coverage if they were covered by at least 100 articles in either Altmetric of PlumX45,46. The most widespread study was covered by 1,047 outlets. Studies covered by major syndicated sources shows hundreds of news articles, while studies covered by few outlets typically appear in niche medical news sources or press releases.
Fig. 12 shows that the mainstream media did not cover any of the negative studies for peginterferon lambda . Fig. 13 and 14 analyze coverage for all low-cost treatments and all high-profit treatments, showing significant bias. For high-profit treatments media coverage favored positive results 3.8× more than negative results, whereas for low-cost treatments coverage favored negative results 5.4× more than positive results.
The media bias may result in widespread incorrect perceptions on the relative efficacy of high-profit and low-cost treatments. The impact is significant—increased cost limits the use of high-profit treatments and treatment equity. High-profit treatments were also more difficult to access, especially for earlier treatment which improves efficacy and minimizes community transmission.

Media coverage of peginterferon lambda for COVID‑19

c19early.org
November 2026

Media covered none of the 3 negative studies

1 positive peginterferon lambda study was covered

50%

No negative peginterferon lambda studies were covered

0%

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 5 studies for peginterferon lambda treatment, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively.

Fig. 12. Mainstream media did not cover any of the negative studies for peginterferon lambda.

Media bias for high-profit COVID‑19 treatments

c19early.org
November 2026

Media was 3.8× more likely to cover positive studies

19 positive studies were covered

11%

paxlovid 5, remdesivir 3, casirivimab/imdevimab 2, convalescent plasma 2, molnupiravir 2, one each: antiandrogens, peginterferon lambda, sargramostim, tixagevimab/cilgavimab, tocilizumab

Only 6 negative studies were covered

3%

remdesivir 3, one each: bamlanivimab/etesevimab, bebtelovimab, sotrovimab

3.8×
Positive bias for high-profit treatments
positive studies were 3.8 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 6,000+ studies for 227 treatments, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively. Media coverage was significantly higher for positive studies, p = 0.002 (Fisher's exact test). Studies during the pandemic (until May 5, 2023).

Fig. 13. For high-profit treatments, mainstream media coverage was biased towards positive results. When restricting to RCTs, the bias was even larger, with positive RCTs 12.0× more likely to be covered.

Media bias for low-cost COVID‑19 treatments

c19early.org
November 2026

Media covered only 0.8% of studies showing significantly lower COVID-19 risk

Only 5 positive studies were covered

0.8%

one each: budesonide, cannabidiol, fluvoxamine, HCQ, vitamin D

34 negative studies were covered

4%

HCQ 12, ivermectin 6, lopinavir/ritonavir 4, azithromycin 3, vitamin D 3, fluvoxamine 2, one each: ibuprofen, metformin, vitamin C, zinc

5.4×
Negative bias for low-cost treatments
negative studies were 5.4 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 6,000+ studies for 227 treatments, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively. Media coverage was significantly higher for negative studies, p < 0.001 (Fisher's exact test). Studies during the pandemic (until May 5, 2023).

Fig. 14. For low-cost treatments, mainstream media coverage was biased against positive results. When restricting to RCTs, the bias was even larger, with negative RCTs 6.9× more likely to be covered.
A combination of factors may have led to the very low media coverage of low-cost treatments:
•
Politicization
led to a media environment where coverage was often framed to support a political narrative rather than to provide objective scientific information. As Scott Alexander said:
"if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout 'horse dewormer!' at you and compare you to Josef Mengele."
There was strong social pressure to discredit low-cost treatments.
•
Censorship
of information conflicting with selected authorities. For example, individuals and organizations presenting conflicting science were often shadowbanned or completely banned on Twitter and YouTube if the science they were reporting conflicted with the opinions of specific authorities selected by those companies, including when the authorities had not even reviewed the scientific results in question.
•
FDA requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives"
in order to grant an EUA for novel high-profit interventions, creating an incentive for authorities to ignore or downplay existing low-cost treatments.
•
Regulatory capture
biases authorities towards high-profit interventions.
•
Authorities ignored most evidence for low-cost treatments
, for example the NIH references only 2% of studies in delayed, rarely-updated, biased commentaries with no quantitive analysis.
•
Media coverage of science is often not very accurate
, e.g., misunderstanding confounding issues. For example the media widely considered the RECOVERY HCQ RCT to be conclusive on efficacy, but very late treatment of late-stage patients (mostly on oxygen already) with an excessive toxic dose (shown dangerous in a dose comparison RCT) provides no information on the recommended early/prophylactic treatment. With difficulting in understanding basic confounders like treatment delay and dose, the media may favor deferring to authorities. Many studies for low-cost treatments require greater expertise to analyze.
•
Substantial funding from pharmaceutical advertising
biases editorial decisions towards high-profit interventions.
•
PR power
- companies/teams with strong PR presence are favored in the media, which correlates with high-profit and high conflict of interest studies.
•
The media was very negative in general
, inflating risk, and elevating fear and anxiety. A negative bias may improve ratings and revenue, increasing motivation to continue watching coverage.
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
Treatment delay
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 hours47,48. Baloxavir marboxil 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.

Early treatment is more effective: baloxavir marboxil

c19early.org
November 2026
Treatment delayResult
Post-exposure prophylaxis86% fewer cases49
<24 hours-33 hours symptoms50
24-48 hours-13 hours symptoms50
Inpatients-2.5 hours to improvement51
Table 2. Studies of baloxavir marboxil for influenza show that early treatment is more effective.
Fig. 15 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 227 treatments, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.
Loading..
Fig. 15. Early treatment is more effective. Meta-regression showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 227 treatments.
Patient demographics
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.
SARS-CoV-2 variants
Efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by patients. Risk varies significantly across variants53, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics54-57. 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 variants58,59.
Treatment regimen
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
Medication quality
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.
Other treatments
The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including supplements, other medications, or other interventions such as prone positioning. Treatments may be synergistic62-86, therefore efficacy may depend strongly on combined treatments.
Effect measured
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.
Meta-analysis
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.
Pooled Effects
Combining studies is required
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. Pooling the results of studies reporting different outcomes allows us to use more of the available information. Logically we should, and do, use additional information when evaluating treatments—for example dose-response and treatment delay-response relationships provide additional evidence of efficacy that is considered when reviewing the evidence for a treatment.
Specific outcome and pooled analyses
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.
Ethical and practical issues limit high-risk trials
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 and safer collection of evidence.
Validating pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19
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 227 treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19. Fig. 16 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.0000000001). Similarly, Fig. 17 shows that improved recovery is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.0000000001). 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. Fig. 18 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 = 0.0000000074 to p = 0.00000000015.
Loading..
Fig. 16. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Fig. 17. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Fig. 16. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Pooled outcomes identify efficacy 5 months faster (7 months for RCTs)
Currently, 59 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 4.6 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 53% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 7.5 months. Fig. 19 shows when treatments were found effective during the pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 19. 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.
Limitations
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 differences in treatment delay are more likely to hide efficacy.
Summary
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.
Discussion
Publication bias
Publishing is often biased towards positive results. Trials with patented drugs may have a financial conflict of interest that results in positive studies being more likely to be published, or bias towards more positive results. For example with molnupiravir, trials with negative results remain unpublished to date (CTRI/2021/05/033864 and CTRI/2021/08/0354242). For peginterferon lambda, there is currently not enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.
Limitations
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 alone62-86. 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.
Reviews
Kelleni et al. present a review covering peginterferon lambda for COVID-19.
Perspective
Results compared with other treatments
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex interplay of 500+ host and viral proteins and other factors33-40, providing many therapeutic targets. Over 12,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19 risk41, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications. Fig. 20 shows an overview of the results for peginterferon lambda in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Fig. 21 shows a plot of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Loading..
Fig. 20. Scatter plot showing results within the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments. Diamonds shows the results of random-effects meta-analysis. 0.5% of 12,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy88.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 21. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Conclusion
Meta-analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 15% [-36‑107%] higher risk, without reaching statistical significance. Results are consistent with early treatment being more effective than late treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 9 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
The primary positive trial1 has major anomolies2. Results from NCT04967430 have not been reported and contact information was deleted in the registry.
 
Contact.
Contact us on X at @CovidAnalysis.
Funding.
We have received no funding or compensation in any form, and do not accept donations. This is entirely volunteer work.
Conflicts of interest.
We have no conflicts of interest. We have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical companies, supplement companies, governments, political parties, or advocacy organizations.
AI.
We use AI models (Gemini, Grok, Claude, and ChatGPT) tasked with functioning as additional peer-reviewers to check for errors, suggest improvements, and review spelling and grammar. Any corrections are manually verified. Our preference for em dashes is independent of AI.
Updates.
Our COVID-19 meta-analyses involve the extraction of over 229,000 datapoints from thousands of papers for 227 treatments. We thank the thousands of scientists, physicians, and other contributors that have provided updates, suggestions, feedback, and corrections. These are all welcome and can be submitted at https://c19early.org/ilmeta.html.
Dedication.
This work is dedicated to top evidence-based physicians that worked tirelessly to analyze evidence and greatly reduce mortality and morbidity during the pandemic. In alphabetical order: Dr. Thomas J. Borody, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, Dr. Shankara Chetty, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Sabine Hazan, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Didier Raoult, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Jackie Stone, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Joseph Varon, and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.
Public domain.
This is a public domain work distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license, which dedicates the work to the public domain by waiving all rights worldwide under copyright law. You can distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon this work in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, without asking permission. Referenced material and third-party images retain any original copyrights or restrictions. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/.
Study Notes
Early treatmentRCT · NCT04354259 · 60 patients · Canada · May – Sep 2020
Peg.. Lambda for COVID-19
ILIAD Cohort A Feld et al. Lancet Respiratory Medicine · November 2020
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Hospitalization
0%1.00 · 0.07 to >9
ER visit
75%0.25 · 0.03–2.11
Viral clearance
66%0.34 · 0.09–0.91
00.511.52+
← Peginterferon
Lambda reduces riskIncreased risk →
Improved viral clearance with peginterferon lambda
p = 0.029
Small outpatient RCT with 30 peginterferon lambda and 30 control patients, showing improved viral clearance with treatment. Single subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda 180μg. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Early treatmentRCT · NCT04331899 · 120 patients · USA · Apr – Jul 2020
Peg.. Lambda for COVID-19
COVID-Lambda Jagannathan et al. Nature Communications
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Hospitalization
0%1.00 · 0.15–6.87
Duration of symptoms
-6%1.06 · 0.72–1.56
Change in viral load
-14%1.14 · 0.14–9.17
00.511.52+
← Peginterferon
Lambda reduces riskIncreased risk →
Trial underpowered for serious outcomes
RCT 120 outpatients with mild/moderate COVID-19, showing no significant differences with peginterferon lambda-1a treatment. 180μg subcutaneous peginterferon lambda-1a. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Late treatmentDouble-blind RCT · NCT04354259 · 94 patients · multinational
Peg.. Lambda for COVID-19
ILIAD Cohort B Kandel et al. Clin. Microbiology and Infection · Aug 2025
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
7-point scale
-32%1.32 · 0.60–2.86
00.511.52+
← Peginterferon
Lambda reduces riskIncreased risk →
Worse 7-point scale results with treatment
Not statistically significant · p = 0.49
RCT 97 hospitalized COVID-19 patients showing no significant benefit with peginterferon lambda. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Late treatmentRCT · NCT04343976 · 14 patients · USA · Jul 2020 – Jul 2021
Peg.. Lambda for COVID-19
Kim et al. Frontiers in Medicine · February 2023
Longer hospitalization with treatment
Not statistically significant · p = 0.59
Very small RCT with 14 hospitalized patients in the USA showing no significant differences with peginterferon lambda. Viral load was improved, however 86% of treatment versus 14% of control patients received remdesivir, and the median baseline viral load for treatment patients was 3.6 log10 copies/ml versus 0 for control. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Early treatmentRCT · 1,949 patients · Brazil · Jun 2021 – Feb 2022
Peg.. Lambda for COVID-19
TOGETHER Reis et al. New England J. Medicine · February 2023
Lower hospitalization and fewer hosp./ER visits
p = 0.039 (hospitalization) and p = 0.0027 (fewer hosp./ER visits)
Multiple critical issues, see discussion
High-risk outpatient RCT with 931 peginterferon lambda patients and 1,018 control patients, showing significantly lower hospitalization/ER visits with treatment. Single subcutaneous injection.

There were 85/931 and 286/1018 patients for which baseline SARS-CoV-2 status was unknown, p = 1.4e-27 (about 1 in 704 septillion).

The most frequent risk factors were more common in the placebo group, for example obesity 39.1% control vs. 34.5% treatment, p = 0.04.

Authors claim patients were unaware or the randomization assignments, however some patients received oral placebo in a trial of a treatment requiring subcutaneous injection.

The numbers in Table 1 and Table S1 do not match, e.g., the text and Table 1 indicate 931 ITT interferon patients, while Table S1 shows 916.

All deaths in the placebo arm were attributed to COVID-19, while only 50% were in the interferon arm. One placebo death is listed as both due to COVID-19 and due to acute myeloid leukemia (Table S6).

See also2.

The TOGETHER trial has extreme COI, impossible data, blinding failure, randomization failure, uncorrected errors, and many protocol violations. Authors do not respond to these issues and they have refused to release the data as promised. Some issues may apply only to specific arms. For more details see89-93.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
Appendix 1. Methods and Data
Search methods
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, which regularly receives notification of studies upon publication. Search terms are peginterferon lambda 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 peginterferon lambda for COVID-19 that report a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis. Studies with major unexplained data issues, for example major outcome data that is impossible to be correct with no response from the authors, are excluded.
Fig. 22. Mid-recovery results can more accurately reflect efficacy when almost all patients recover. Mateja et al. confirm that intermediate viral load results more accurately reflect hospitalization/death.
Effect extraction
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 reported then they are both used in specific outcome analyses, while mortality is used for pooled analysis. If symptomatic results are reported at multiple times, we use 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 outcomes. 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. An IPD meta-analysis confirms that intermediate viral load reduction is more closely associated with hospitalization/death than later viral load reduction94. 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.
Statistical methods
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta95 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. When results provide an odds ratio, we compute the relative risk when possible, or convert to a relative risk according to Zhang et al. Reported confidence intervals and p-values are used when available, and adjusted values are used 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 199. 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 (3.15.2) with scipy (1.18.1), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (2.5.4), statsmodels (0.15.0), and plotly (6.9.0). Mixed-effects meta-regression results are computed with R (4.4.0) using the metafor (4.6-0) and rms (6.8-0) 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 0.8.2 is used to parse PDF documents.
When evaluating potential effect modification across groups, we use an interaction test as described by Altman (C) et al. We compared the log-transformed relative risks using a z-test, deriving the standard error of the difference from the 95% confidence intervals. A two-sided interaction p-value of < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference in treatment effect between the groups.
Quality evaluation
Cochrane RoB 2/ROBINS-I are often used to evaluate studies, and have the advantage of providing standardized rules that can be applied with minimal understanding of the domain and study. However, the rules do not account for many real-world issues, often overemphasize or underemphasize others, and studies show low inter-rater reliability107. Certain domains are more applicable for these tools, however the time-sensitive nature of a pandemic, with significant mortality for every day of delay in evidence assessment, and the characteristics of COVID-19 make them inappropriate for this domain. This can be demonstrated with examples where expert RoB 2/ROBINS-I ratings do not match reality for COVID-19. Popp et al. use RoB 2 to classify Reis (B) et al. as low risk of bias, however this is the opposite of reality—the trial not only has very high risk of bias, but has very high actual known bias, refusing to release data despite pledging to, reporting multiple impossible numbers, having blinding and randomization failure, and many other issues89. Axfors et al. use RoB 2 to classify Horby et al. as low risk of bias, however this is the opposite of reality—the very late treatment and excessive dosage used produces results with no relevance to recommended usage. HCQ shows poor results with late treatment and excessive dosage, and the combination shows harmB. Hempenius et al. use ROBINS-I to classify 33 studies for HCQ. The two rated as having the lowest risk of bias105,106 are far from the most informative. Both involve very late treatment, providing no information on recommended usage, and ROBINS-I does a very poor job of accounting for the impact of confounding factorsC.
Our quality evaluation focuses on known issues and bias, and the potential impact on outcomes, rather than just the risk of bias. The estimated potential impact of each confounding factor, and the direction of the impact is considered. For example, consider a study that shows significantly lower risk, the value of the study varies significantly if confounding points to an underestimate or an overestimate of efficacy. In one case, the real effect may be null, while the other case provides stronger evidence of efficacy (which may be greater than the study shows). Analysis focusing on the risk of bias, while simpler, may penalize studies for theoretical or technical issues that have no or minimal impact on outcomes. Analysis also depends on the outcome, for example certain issues are less relevant for objective outcomes such as mortality. Inaccurate penalization, and inaccurate high-quality evaluation in the face of known major issues affecting outcomes, increases in significance during a pandemic when immediate recognition of new evidence is critical, and when considering all global studies, as required during a pandemic. Investigators in other countries may have different customs for design, analysis, and reporting, and different English language skills, however they may not be less diligent or have greater bias. Investigators in lower-pharmaceutical-profit countries may have lower bias towards profitable interventions.
Treatment time
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 effective47,48.
Living analysis
This is a living analysis and is updated regularly. Submit updates or corrections with the form below. We received no funding, this research is done in our spare time. We have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical companies, supplement companies, governments, political parties, or advocacy organizations.
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/ilmeta.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.
Feld, 11/12/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Canada, peer-reviewed, 35 authors, study period 18 May, 2020 - 4 September, 2020, average treatment delay 4.3 days, trial NCT04354259 (history) (ILIAD Cohort A).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of hospitalization, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 30 (3.3%), control 1 of 30 (3.3%).
risk of ER visit, 75.0% lower, RR 0.25, p = 0.35, treatment 1 of 30 (3.3%), control 4 of 30 (13.3%), NNT 10.0.
risk of no viral clearance, 66.4% lower, RR 0.34, p = 0.03, treatment 6 of 30 (20.0%), control 11 of 30 (36.7%), NNT 6.0, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, odds ratio converted to relative risk, adjusted for baseline viral load, day 7.
Jagannathan, 3/30/2021, Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, peer-reviewed, 27 authors, study period 25 April, 2020 - 17 July, 2020, average treatment delay 5.0 days, trial NCT04331899 (history) (COVID-Lambda).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of hospitalization, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 60 (3.3%), control 2 of 60 (3.3%), day 28.
duration of symptoms, 6.4% higher, HR 1.06, p = 0.76, treatment 60, control 60, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment.
relative change in viral load, 14.0% worse, RR 1.14, p = 0.91, treatment 60, control 60, day 14.
Reis, 2/9/2023, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 41 authors, study period 24 June, 2021 - 7 February, 2022, trial NCT04727424 (history) (TOGETHER).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of death, 27.1% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.76, treatment 4 of 931 (0.4%), control 6 of 1,018 (0.6%), NNT 626, all-cause, Table S6.
risk of death, 61.0% lower, RR 0.39, p = 0.32, treatment 1 of 931 (0.1%), control 4 of 1,018 (0.4%), adjusted per study, attributed to COVID, day 28.
risk of hospitalization, 42.0% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.04, treatment 21 of 931 (2.3%), control 40 of 1,018 (3.9%), NNT 60, adjusted per study, day 28.
hospitalization or ER >6hrs, 51.0% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.003, treatment 25 of 931 (2.7%), control 57 of 1,018 (5.6%), NNT 34, adjusted per study, day 28, primary outcome.
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.
Kandel, 8/14/2025, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 21 authors, trial NCT04354259 (history) (ILIAD Cohort B).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of 7-point scale, 31.6% higher, OR 1.32, p = 0.49, treatment 48, control 46, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, day 14, RR approximated with OR.
Kim, 2/24/2023, Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, peer-reviewed, median age 54.0, 9 authors, study period 14 July, 2020 - 16 July, 2021, trial NCT04343976 (history).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of ICU admission, 200.0% higher, RR 3.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 7 (14.3%), control 0 of 7 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
hospitalization time, 25.0% higher, relative time 1.25, p = 0.59, treatment median 5.0 IQR 4.0 n=7, control median 4.0 IQR 5.0 n=7.
risk of no viral clearance, 12.5% lower, RR 0.88, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 6 (50.0%), control 4 of 7 (57.1%), NNT 14, day 14.
risk of no viral clearance, 66.7% higher, RR 1.67, p = 0.59, treatment 5 of 7 (71.4%), control 3 of 7 (42.9%), day 7.
Footnotes
a.
Viral infection and replication involves attachment, entry, uncoating and release, genome replication and transcription, translation and protein processing, assembly and budding, and release. Each step can be disrupted by therapeutics.
b.
When administered late in infection, HCQ may enhance viral egress by further increasing lysosomal pH beyond the effect of ORF3a's water channel activity, thereby promoting lysosomal exocytosis, inactivating degradative enzymes, and facilitating the release of SARS-CoV-2 particles into the extracellular environment101,102. Research also suggests potential cardioprotective effects at lower doses, but cardiotoxicity with excessive dosage103. Bobrowski et al. also indicate negative effects if HCQ and remdesivir are combined.
c.
Peters et al. is subject to confounding by calendar-time (SOC evolved rapidly early in the pandemic, the linear covariate does not reflect non-linear SOC changes and hospital specific effects), hospital type (non-treatment hospitals were tertiary university centers), confounding by indication (4/7 hospitals initiated treatment on deterioration), immortal-time bias for as-treated (exposure assigned after baseline), significant differences for other experimental treatments, potential overadjustment from collider bias (steroid use and indication bias), limited baseline severity information, differences in hospice referral propensity across hospitals, unadjusted difference in time from onset to admission, difference in PCR positivity, and other factors. Mahévas et al. is subject to confounding by hospital (treatment highly dependent on the hospital, different SOC/ICU transfer practices, not included in PS), immortal time (only partly addressed in sensitivity analysis), co-treatment differences, calendar-time (SOC evolved rapidly early in the pandemic), binary coding for age (age ≥65 despite steep age-risk gradient), residual imbalance (variables dropped from PS), a composite outcome dependent on hospital triage/capacity, and other factors.
References