A Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Interventional Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the Antiviral Effect of a Single Nasal Application of LTX-109 3% Gel, in Comparison to Placebo Gel, in Subjects With COVID-19 Infection.

Lütken et al., NCT04854928, NCT04854928, May 2022
RCT 33 patients up to 6 days from symptom onset, showing no significant difference in short-term viral load change with LTX-109.
Important missing comments or errors? Let us know.
viral load, 29.4% higher, relative load 1.29, p = 0.80, treatment 11, control 12, combined.
viral load, 6.4% lower, relative load 0.94, p = 0.96, treatment mean 233.1 (±893.6) n=11, control mean 218.1 (±584.6) n=12, deep nasal swab.
viral load, 93.3% higher, relative load 1.93, p = 0.65, treatment mean 96.19 (±452.8) n=11, control mean 185.9 (±491.6) n=12, anterior nasal swab.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Lütken et al., 1 May 2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Sweden, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04854928 (history). Contact: Christian.lutken@pharmaholdings.no, ryvoll@pharmaholdings.no.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org October 2026 Sweden Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines Vietnam Japan Argentina Nepal Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Germany Mexico South Korea United Kingdom Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Nigeria Taiwan Fiji Zambia Bosnia-Herzegovina Jordan Georgia Switzerland Dominican Republic Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Iceland New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel Haiti North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Sweden favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment, andforgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19treatment protocols worldwide c19early.org October 2026 Sweden Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines Vietnam Japan Argentina Nepal Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Germany Mexico South Korea United Kingdom Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Fiji Zambia Jordan Georgia Switzerland Dominican Rep. Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Sri Lanka Bulgaria Greece Slovakia New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Sweden favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment,and forgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. c19early involves the extraction of 200,000+ 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. IMA and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit    
Post
Share
@CovidAnalysis
FAQ
Public domain CC0 1.0