c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchCOVID-19 treatments

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.
OutcomeImprovementEffect · pTreatmentControl
viral load 29.4% higher · relative load 1.29 · p = 0.80 29.4% higherrelative load 1.29p = 0.80 11 12 treatment 11, control 12combined
viral load 6.4% lower · relative load 0.94 · p = 0.96 6.4% lowerrelative load 0.94p = 0.96 mean 233.1 (±893.6) n=11 mean 218.1 (±584.6) n=12 mean 233.1 (±893.6) n=11, mean 218.1 (±584.6) n=12deep nasal swab
viral load 93.3% higher · relative load 1.93 · p = 0.65 93.3% higherrelative load 1.93p = 0.65 mean 96.19 (±452.8) n=11 mean 185.9 (±491.6) n=12 mean 96.19 (±452.8) n=11, mean 185.9 (±491.6) n=12anterior 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 November 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 November 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%