Niclosamide for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 6 studies
Abstract
Significantly lower risk is seen for recovery. 2 studies from 2 independent teams in 2 countries show significant
benefit.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
21% [-47‑57%] lower risk, without reaching statistical significance. Results are similar for higher quality studies and worse for peer-reviewed studies.
Results are consistent with early treatment being more effective than late treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 20 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
No treatment is 100%
effective. Protocols combine safe and effective options with individual
risk/benefit analysis and monitoring.
Other treatments are more effective.
All data and sources to reproduce this analysis are in the appendix.
Niclosamide for COVID-19 — Highlights
Niclosamide reduces
risk with very high confidence for recovery.
Real-time updates
and corrections with a consistent protocol for 112 treatments. Outcome specific analysis and combined evidence from all
studies including treatment delay, a primary confounding factor.
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 niclosamide studies.
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 injury2-13 and
cognitive deficits5,10, cardiovascular
complications14-17, organ failure, and death.
Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 50+
host and viral proteins and other factorsA,18-24, providing many
therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity.
Scientists have predicted that over 8,000 compounds may
reduce COVID-19 risk25, either by
directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system
function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
In Silico studies predict inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 with niclosamide or metabolites via binding to the spikeB,26, MproC,26, RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseD,26, PLproE,26, nucleocapsidF,26, and helicaseG,26 proteins.
Niclosamide inhibits endolysosomal acidification and suppresses
TLR3-mediated pro-inflammatory signaling in human small airway
epithelial cells stimulated with TLR3 agonists mimicking viral RNA27, modulates host lipid metabolism and reduces
infectious SARS-CoV-2 virion production in Vero E6 cells28, reduces CD147 protein levels and inhibits
SARS-CoV-2-induced upregulation of CD147 in A549-ACE2 cells, including
the highly glycosylated form of CD147 which has been implicated in
COVID-19 disease progression and post-COVID-19 cardiac complications29, blocked the formation of syncytia mediated by
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pseudovirus-producing cells30, may reduce inflammation, NLRP3 formation, and
caspase-1 activity31, may inhibit viral uncoating, replication, and
assembly via disruption of pH gradients and reduced ATP production in
host cells32, and shows strong synergy when combined with
ivermectin33.
We analyze all significant
controlled studies of
niclosamide
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.
In Silico studies predict inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 with niclosamide or metabolites via binding to the spikeB,26, MproC,26, RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseD,26, PLproE,26, nucleocapsidF,26, and helicaseG,26 proteins.
Niclosamide inhibits endolysosomal acidification and suppresses
TLR3-mediated pro-inflammatory signaling in human small airway
epithelial cells stimulated with TLR3 agonists mimicking viral RNA27, modulates host lipid metabolism and reduces
infectious SARS-CoV-2 virion production in Vero E6 cells28, reduces CD147 protein levels and inhibits
SARS-CoV-2-induced upregulation of CD147 in A549-ACE2 cells, including
the highly glycosylated form of CD147 which has been implicated in
COVID-19 disease progression and post-COVID-19 cardiac complications29, blocked the formation of syncytia mediated by
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pseudovirus-producing cells30, may reduce inflammation, NLRP3 formation, and
caspase-1 activity31, may inhibit viral uncoating, replication, and
assembly via disruption of pH gradients and reduced ATP production in
host cells32, and shows strong synergy when combined with
ivermectin33.
An In Silico study supports the efficacy of niclosamide26.
Preclinical research is an important part of the development of
treatments, however results may be very different in clinical trials.
Preclinical results are not used in this paper.
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, 11, and 12
show forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of
all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ventilation, hospitalization, progression, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and peer reviewed studies.
| Improvement | Studies | Patients | Authors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 21% [-47‑57%] | 6 | 2,091 | 45 |
| After exclusions | 22% [-47‑59%] | 5 | 2,031 | 40 |
| Peer-reviewed studiesPeer-reviewed | 16% [-194‑76%] | 3 | 277 | 21 |
| Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 21% [-47‑57%] | 6 | 2,091 | 45 |
| Mortality | 14% [-131‑68%] | 3 | 1,846 | 30 |
| Recovery | 30% [11‑45%] ** | 4 | 323 | 22 |
| Viral | 1% [-9‑11%] | 4 | 291 | 16 |
| RCT mortality | 14% [-131‑68%] | 3 | 1,846 | 30 |
| Early treatment | Late treatment | Prophylaxis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 37% [-396‑92%] | 21% [-56‑60%] | 0% [-607‑86%] |
| After exclusions | 66% [-698‑99%] | 21% [-56‑60%] | 0% [-607‑86%] |
| Peer-reviewed studiesPeer-reviewed | 37% [-396‑92%] | 0% [-380‑79%] | |
| Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 37% [-396‑92%] | 21% [-56‑60%] | 0% [-607‑86%] |
| Mortality | 19% [-156‑74%] | 0% [-607‑86%] | |
| Recovery | 22% [-7‑43%] | 39% [13‑57%] ** | |
| Viral | 17% [-32‑48%] | 0% [-11‑11%] | |
| RCT mortality | 19% [-156‑74%] | 0% [-607‑86%] |
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 hospitalization.
Loading..
Figure 8. Random effects meta-analysis for progression.
Loading..
Figure 9. Random effects meta-analysis for recovery.
Loading..
Figure 10. Random effects meta-analysis for cases.
Loading..
Figure 11. Random effects meta-analysis for viral clearance.
Loading..
Figure 12. 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.
Currently all studies are RCTs.
1 niclosamide
RCT has not reported results1.
The trial reports
report an estimated total of 200 patients.
The result is delayed over 3 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 13 shows a forest plot for random
effects meta-analysis of all studies after exclusions.
Siripongboonsitti, data consistency issues, very low risk patients/variants with almost no progression, all patients received known effective antiviral, baseline differences.
Loading..
Figure 13. 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 hours38,39. 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.
| Treatment delay | Result |
| Post-exposure prophylaxis | 86% fewer cases40 |
| <24 hours | -33 hours symptoms41 |
| 24-48 hours | -13 hours symptoms41 |
| Inpatients | -2.5 hours to improvement42 |
Figure 14 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy
as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 112 treatments, showing
that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is
critical for COVID-19.
Loading..
Figure 14. Early treatment is more effective. Meta-regression showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 112 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
variants44, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly
different characteristics45-48. 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 variants49,50.
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 112
treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19.
Figure 15 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated
with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001).
Similarly, Figure 16 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 17 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 = 0.00000032 to p = 0.000000011.
Loading..
Figure 15. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 16. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 15. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Currently, 48 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 89% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 5.0 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 56% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 6.4 months.
Figure 18 shows when treatments were found effective during the
pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 18. 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.
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 niclosamide, there is currently not
enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.
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 19 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 < 0.0566-73.
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 19. Example funnel plot analysis for simulated perfect trials.
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 alone53-64.
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 6 studies
combine treatments. The results of
niclosamide
alone may differ.
1 of 6 RCTs use combined treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex
interplay of 50+ host and viral proteins and other
factors18-24, providing many therapeutic
targets.
Over 8,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19
risk25, either by directly
minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or
by minimizing secondary complications.
Figure 20 shows an overview of the results for niclosamide
in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Figure 21 shows a plot
of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Loading..
Figure 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 8,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy80.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 21. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Significantly lower risk is seen for recovery. 2 studies from 2 independent teams in 2 countries show significant
benefit.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
21% [-47‑57%] lower risk, without reaching statistical significance. Results are similar for higher quality studies and worse for peer-reviewed studies.
Results are consistent with early treatment being more effective than late treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 20 control events for the most serious outcome in trials to date.
RCT with 75 COVID-19 patients showing significantly faster recovery but no change in mortality with niclosamide.
The treatment group had more patients aged 60+ and more patients treated over a week after symptom onset.
The treatment group had more patients aged 60+ and more patients treated over a week after symptom onset.
RCT with 73 mild to moderate outpatients, showing faster recovery and improved viral clearance with niclosamide, without statistical significance. Greater improvements in recovery were seen for high-risk patients, again without statistical significance. The study was underpowered due to decreased enrollment related to falling COVID-19 cases.
Estimated 200 patient niclosamide late treatment RCT with results not reported over 3 years after estimated completion.
RCT 118 hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal infection showing no significant difference in viral clearance with niclosamide. Viral clearance results are available on clinicaltrials.gov but clinical results are missing.
RCT 1,651 patients with kidney disease showing no significant difference in symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, or mortality with intranasal niclosamide compared to placebo. The UNI911 nasal spray had very poor adherence and a higher withdrawal rate (40% vs. 23.8% for placebo), partially due to local nasal and upper airway irritation.
RCT 46 moderate to severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients showing shorter time to discharge and WHO clinical scale improvement with niclosamide, but no significant difference for resolution of all symptoms and viral clearance.
RCT 60 low-risk outpatients, median age 31, with mild to moderate COVID-19 showing no significant differences with combined favipiravir/ivermectin/niclosamide treatment compared to favipiravir alone. There was limited room for improvement with almost no progression and no hospitalization, ICU admission, supplemental oxygen, or mortality.
The combined group showed significantly improved visual analog scale (VAS) scores for cough, runny nose, and diarrhea from day 3.
Authors note that "the WHO-CPS were significantly decreased among FPV/IVM/NCL vs FPV alone on day 10", however the degree of improvement cannot be determined based on the values reported.
Authors state that "All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article", which is incorrect - only summary statistics are published. The trial registration states that data will not be made available. This raises concerns, especially given many inconsistencies in the published data:
- E gene and ORF1 a/b gene day 1 Ct values are different between Table S1 and Table S3.
- Figure S1 shows 25% >= 38.5, however no number of 30 patients is 25%, and this does not match Table 2 (at most 23.3% >= 38.5).
- The first three calculations in section 3.3 all show p = 0.515, an unusual match for different calculations.
- "the FPV/IVM/NCL group had 0.62 cycles per day fewer than did the FPV group" does not match the data.
- Table 1 shows 30% loss of taste in the control group, however Table S2 shows a Q3 VAS score of 0, which is inconsistent.
- The abstract reference to significant differences for sore throat does not match the results in Table S6.
Not releasing data is a change from earlier COVID-19 trials by the same main author: TCTR20210615002 and TCTR20210609001 both indicate that individual patient level data would be available.
The trial was registered retrospectively. Discussion of prior research is very biased, however this may be required for publication. There were more patients with fever, anosmia, and loss of taste at baseline in the combined group. The adverse events reported show none of the expected side effects of ivermectin at the dose used.
The combined group showed significantly improved visual analog scale (VAS) scores for cough, runny nose, and diarrhea from day 3.
Authors note that "the WHO-CPS were significantly decreased among FPV/IVM/NCL vs FPV alone on day 10", however the degree of improvement cannot be determined based on the values reported.
Authors state that "All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article", which is incorrect - only summary statistics are published. The trial registration states that data will not be made available. This raises concerns, especially given many inconsistencies in the published data:
- E gene and ORF1 a/b gene day 1 Ct values are different between Table S1 and Table S3.
- Figure S1 shows 25% >= 38.5, however no number of 30 patients is 25%, and this does not match Table 2 (at most 23.3% >= 38.5).
- The first three calculations in section 3.3 all show p = 0.515, an unusual match for different calculations.
- "the FPV/IVM/NCL group had 0.62 cycles per day fewer than did the FPV group" does not match the data.
- Table 1 shows 30% loss of taste in the control group, however Table S2 shows a Q3 VAS score of 0, which is inconsistent.
- The abstract reference to significant differences for sore throat does not match the results in Table S6.
Not releasing data is a change from earlier COVID-19 trials by the same main author: TCTR20210615002 and TCTR20210609001 both indicate that individual patient level data would be available.
The trial was registered retrospectively. Discussion of prior research is very biased, however this may be required for publication. There were more patients with fever, anosmia, and loss of taste at baseline in the combined group. The adverse events reported show none of the expected side effects of ivermectin at the dose used.
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 niclosamide 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 niclosamide 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 to81.
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 184.
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
(3.13.1) with
scipy (1.14.1), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (1.26.4), statsmodels (0.14.4), and plotly (5.24.1).
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta85
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 (4.4.0) 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 0.8.0 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 effective38,39.
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 https://c19early.org/ncmeta.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.
| Cairns, 2/9/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, China, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period July 2021 - September 2021, trial NCT04399356 (history). | risk of severe case, 66.3% lower, RR 0.34, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 33 (0.0%), control 1 of 34 (2.9%), NNT 34, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| recovery time, 17.8% lower, relative time 0.82, p = 0.28, treatment mean 12.01 (±9.35) n=33, control mean 14.61 (±9.98) n=34. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 24.4% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.45, treatment 11 of 33 (33.3%), control 15 of 34 (44.1%), NNT 9.3. | |
| Siripongboonsitti, 3/29/2024, Randomized Controlled Trial, Thailand, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, study period 7 December, 2022 - 3 February, 2023, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with niclosamide) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial TCTR20230403007 (FINCOV), excluded in exclusion analyses: data consistency issues, very low risk patients/variants with almost no progression, all patients received known effective antiviral, baseline differences. | risk of progression, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 30 (3.3%), control 1 of 30 (3.3%), chest xray progression, day 6. |
| risk of progression, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 30 (0.0%), control 1 of 30 (3.3%), NNT 30, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), chest xray progression, day 3. | |
| risk of no recovery, 39.4% lower, RR 0.61, p = 0.19, treatment 30, control 30, combined symptoms. | |
| risk of no recovery, 70.0% lower, RR 0.30, p = 0.048, treatment 30, control 30, mid-recovery, day 3, cough. | |
| risk of no recovery, 14.3% lower, RR 0.86, p = 0.38, treatment 30, control 30, mid-recovery, day 3, sore throat. | |
| risk of no recovery, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.41, treatment 30, control 30, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, mid-recovery, day 3, runny nose. | |
| risk of no recovery, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.32, treatment 30, control 30, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, day 6, cough. | |
| relative Ct improvement, 6.1% better, RR 0.94, p = 0.75, treatment median 9.15 IQR 9.7 n=30, control median 8.59 IQR 8.24 n=30, E gene, mid-recovery, day 5, 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.
| Abdulamir, 9/30/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Iraq, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, trial NCT04753619 (history). | risk of death, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 75 (4.0%), control 3 of 75 (4.0%). |
| risk of no recovery, 38.7% lower, HR 0.61, p = 0.007, treatment 75, control 75, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. | Erenmemisoglu, 2/14/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Turkey, trial NCT04558021 (history) (NICLONEX). | Estimated 200 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| First Wave BioPharma, 5/1/2023, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04858425 (history) (RESERVOIR). | risk of no viral clearance, 22.7% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.61, treatment 8 of 60 (13.3%), control 10 of 58 (17.2%), NNT 26, day 43. |
| risk of no viral clearance, 33.1% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.35, treatment 9 of 60 (15.0%), control 13 of 58 (22.4%), NNT 13, day 36. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 42.0% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.17, treatment 9 of 60 (15.0%), control 15 of 58 (25.9%), NNT 9.2, day 29. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 27.5% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.39, treatment 12 of 60 (20.0%), control 16 of 58 (27.6%), NNT 13, day 22. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 22.7% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.34, treatment 20 of 60 (33.3%), control 25 of 58 (43.1%), NNT 10, day 15. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 0.8% lower, RR 0.99, p = 1.00, treatment 39 of 60 (65.0%), control 38 of 58 (65.5%), NNT 193, day 8. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 2.6% higher, RR 1.03, p = 0.80, treatment 52 of 60 (86.7%), control 49 of 58 (84.5%), day 4. | |
| Rank, 8/6/2024, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04603924 (history). | risk of death, 36.2% lower, RR 0.64, p = 0.67, treatment 2 of 23 (8.7%), control 3 of 22 (13.6%), NNT 20. |
| recovery time, 70.2% lower, relative time 0.30, p = 0.97, treatment mean 4.15 (±4.87) n=23, control mean 13.91 (±1220) n=23, time to 2 point improvement. | |
| recovery time, 6.2% higher, relative time 1.06, p = 0.90, treatment mean 17.0 (±33.0) n=23, control mean 16.0 (±15.9) n=23, time to resolution of symptoms. | |
| time to discharge, 56.7% lower, relative time 0.43, p = 0.98, treatment mean 6.03 (±14.5) n=23, control mean 13.92 (±1220) n=23. | |
| time to viral-, 0.1% lower, relative time 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment mean 13.09 (±29.6) n=23, control mean 13.1 (±14.8) n=23. |
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.
| Humphrey, 7/26/2023, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, United Kingdom, preprint, median age 55.9, 22 authors, study period 19 February, 2021 - 28 November, 2022, trial NCT04870333 (history) (PROTECT-V). | risk of death, 0.1% lower, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 826 (0.2%), control 2 of 825 (0.2%), NNT 340725. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 80.0% lower, RR 0.20, p = 0.25, treatment 0 of 826 (0.0%), control 2 of 825 (0.2%), NNT 412, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| risk of hospitalization, 13.4% lower, RR 0.87, p = 0.71, treatment 13 of 826 (1.6%), control 15 of 825 (1.8%), NNT 409. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 2.0% higher, HR 1.02, p = 0.89, treatment 826, control 825. |
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.
The trimeric spike (S) protein is a glycoprotein that mediates viral entry by binding to the host ACE2 receptor, is critical for SARS-CoV-2's ability to infect host cells, and is a target of neutralizing antibodies. Inhibition of the spike protein prevents viral attachment, halting infection at the earliest stage.
The main protease or Mpro, also known as 3CLpro or nsp5, is a cysteine protease that cleaves viral polyproteins into functional units needed for replication. Inhibiting Mpro disrupts the SARS-CoV-2 lifecycle within the host cell, preventing the creation of new copies.
RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), also called nsp12, is the core enzyme of the viral replicase-transcriptase complex that copies the positive-sense viral RNA genome into negative-sense templates for progeny RNA synthesis. Inhibiting RdRp blocks viral genome replication and transcription.
The papain-like protease (PLpro) has multiple functions including cleaving viral polyproteins and suppressing the host immune response by deubiquitination and deISGylation of host proteins. Inhibiting PLpro may block viral replication and help restore normal immune responses.
The nucleocapsid (N) protein binds and encapsulates the viral genome by coating the viral RNA. N enables formation and release of infectious virions and plays additional roles in viral replication and pathogenesis. N is also an immunodominant antigen used in diagnostic assays.
The helicase, or nsp13, protein unwinds the double-stranded viral RNA, a crucial step in replication and transcription. Inhibition may prevent viral genome replication and the creation of new virus components.
Erenmemisoglu et al., A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Co-administered Niclosamide in Patients Treated With an Established Regimen for Novel Coronavirus Infectious Disease (COVID-19), NCT04558021, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04558021.
Rong et al., Persistence of spike protein at the skull-meninges-brain axis may contribute to the neurological sequelae of COVID-19, Cell Host & Microbe, doi:10.1016/j.chom.2024.11.007.
Yang et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection causes dopaminergic neuron senescence, Cell Stem Cell, doi:10.1016/j.stem.2023.12.012.
Scardua-Silva et al., Microstructural brain abnormalities, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction after mild COVID-19, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52005-7.
Hampshire et al., Cognition and Memory after Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2311330.
Duloquin et al., Is COVID-19 Infection a Multiorganic Disease? Focus on Extrapulmonary Involvement of SARS-CoV-2, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm13051397.
Sodagar et al., Pathological Features and Neuroinflammatory Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brain and Potential Therapeutic Approaches, Biomolecules, doi:10.3390/biom12070971.
Sagar et al., COVID-19-associated cerebral microbleeds in the general population, Brain Communications, doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae127.
Verma et al., Persistent Neurological Deficits in Mouse PASC Reveal Antiviral Drug Limitations, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2024.06.02.596989.
Panagea et al., Neurocognitive Impairment in Long COVID: A Systematic Review, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, doi:10.1093/arclin/acae042.
Ariza et al., COVID-19: Unveiling the Neuropsychiatric Maze—From Acute to Long-Term Manifestations, Biomedicines, doi:10.3390/biomedicines12061147.
Vashisht et al., Neurological Complications of COVID-19: Unraveling the Pathophysiological Underpinnings and Therapeutic Implications, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16081183.
Ahmad et al., Neurological Complications and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: Results From International Neurological Study Group From the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, The Neurohospitalist, doi:10.1177/19418744241292487.
Eberhardt et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers pro-atherogenic inflammatory responses in human coronary vessels, Nature Cardiovascular Research, doi:10.1038/s44161-023-00336-5.
Van Tin et al., Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Activates Cardiac Fibrogenesis through NLRP3 Inflammasomes and NF-κB Signaling, Cells, doi:10.3390/cells13161331.
Borka Balas et al., COVID-19 and Cardiac Implications—Still a Mystery in Clinical Practice, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, doi:10.31083/j.rcm2405125.
AlTaweel et al., An In-Depth Insight into Clinical, Cellular and Molecular Factors in COVID19-Associated Cardiovascular Ailments for Identifying Novel Disease Biomarkers, Drug Targets and Clinical Management Strategies, Archives of Microbiology & Immunology, doi:10.26502/ami.936500177.
Malone et al., Structures and functions of coronavirus replication–transcription complexes and their relevance for SARS-CoV-2 drug design, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00432-z.
Murigneux et al., Proteomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 particles unveils a key role of G3BP proteins in viral assembly, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44958-0.
Lv et al., Host proviral and antiviral factors for SARS-CoV-2, Virus Genes, doi:10.1007/s11262-021-01869-2.
Lui et al., Nsp1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 replication through calcineurin-NFAT signaling, Virology, doi:10.1128/mbio.00392-24.
Niarakis et al., Drug-target identification in COVID-19 disease mechanisms using computational systems biology approaches, Frontiers in Immunology, doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1282859.
Katiyar et al., SARS-CoV-2 Assembly: Gaining Infectivity and Beyond, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16111648.
Wu et al., Decoding the genome of SARS-CoV-2: a pathway to drug development through translation inhibition, RNA Biology, doi:10.1080/15476286.2024.2433830.
Haque et al., Exploring potential therapeutic candidates against COVID-19: a molecular docking study, Discover Molecules, doi:10.1007/s44345-024-00005-5.
Pejler et al., Blockade of endolysosomal acidification suppresses TLR3-mediated pro-inflammatory signaling in airway epithelial cells, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2024.05.031.
Garrett et al., Niclosamide as a chemical probe for analyzing SARS-CoV-2 modulation of host cell lipid metabolism, Frontiers in Microbiology, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1251065.
Yang (B) et al., Repurposing Niclosamide as a Novel Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Drug by Restricting Entry Protein CD147, Biomedicines, doi:10.3390/biomedicines11072019.
Sheng et al., A pseudovirus-based method to dynamically mimic SARS-CoV-2-associated cell-to-cell fusion and transmission, Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, doi:10.3724/abbs.2023129.
Munson et al., Niclosamide and ivermectin modulate caspase-1 activity and proinflammatory cytokine secretion in a monocytic cell line, British Society For Nanomedicine Early Career Researcher Summer Meeting, 2021, web.archive.org/web/20230401070026/https://michealmunson.github.io/COVID.pdf.
Needham, D., The pH Dependence of Niclosamide Solubility, Dissolution, and Morphology: Motivation for Potentially Universal Mucin-Penetrating Nasal and Throat Sprays for COVID19, its Variants and other Viral Infections, Pharmaceutical Research, doi:10.1007/s11095-021-03112-x.
Jitobaom et al., Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, doi:10.1186/s40360-022-00580-8.
Walia et al., SARS-CoV-2 virulence factor ORF3a blocks lysosome function by modulating TBC1D5-dependent Rab7 GTPase cycle, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46417-2.
Zeraatkar et al., Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review, BMJ Medicine, doi:10.1136/bmjmed-2022-0003091.
Davidson et al., No evidence of important difference in summary treatment effects between COVID-19 preprints and peer-reviewed publications: a meta-epidemiological study, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.011.
Siripongboonsitti et al., A Randomized Trial to Assess the Acceleration of Viral Clearance by the Combination Favipiravir/Ivermectin/Niclosamide in Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Adult Patients (FINCOV), Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2024.03.030.
Treanor et al., Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016.
McLean et al., Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial, Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100.
Ikematsu et al., Baloxavir Marboxil for Prophylaxis against Influenza in Household Contacts, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915341.
Hayden et al., Baloxavir Marboxil for Uncomplicated Influenza in Adults and Adolescents, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716197.
Kumar et al., Combining baloxavir marboxil with standard-of-care neuraminidase inhibitor in patients hospitalised with severe influenza (FLAGSTONE): a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00469-2.
López-Medina et al., Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071.
Korves et al., SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Variants and Patient Factors Associated with Hospitalization Risk, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2024.03.08.24303818.
Faria et al., Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil, Science, doi:10.1126/science.abh2644.
Nonaka et al., SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern P.1 (Gamma) infection in young and middle-aged patients admitted to the intensive care units of a single hospital in Salvador, Northeast Brazil, February 2021, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.08.003.
Karita et al., Trajectory of viral load in a prospective population-based cohort with incident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.08.27.21262754.
Zavascki et al., Advanced ventilatory support and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 caused by Gamma (P.1) variant of concern compared to other lineages: cohort study at a reference center in Brazil, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-910467/v1.
Willett et al., The hyper-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant exhibits significant antigenic change, vaccine escape and a switch in cell entry mechanism, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.01.03.21268111.
Peacock et al., The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.12.31.474653.
Williams, T., Not All Ivermectin Is Created Equal: Comparing The Quality of 11 Different Ivermectin Sources, Do Your Own Research, doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/not-all-ivermectin-is-created-equal.
Xu et al., A study of impurities in the repurposed COVID-19 drug hydroxychloroquine sulfate by UHPLC-Q/TOF-MS and LC-SPE-NMR, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, doi:10.1002/rcm.9358.
Jitobaom (B) et al., Favipiravir and Ivermectin Showed in Vitro Synergistic Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-941811/v1.
Jitobaom (C) et al., Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, doi:10.1186/s40360-022-00580-8.
Jeffreys et al., Remdesivir-ivermectin combination displays synergistic interaction with improved in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106542.
Ostrov et al., Highly Specific Sigma Receptor Ligands Exhibit Anti-Viral Properties in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cells, Pathogens, doi:10.3390/pathogens10111514.
Alsaidi et al., Griffithsin and Carrageenan Combination Results in Antiviral Synergy against SARS-CoV-1 and 2 in a Pseudoviral Model, Marine Drugs, doi:10.3390/md19080418.
Andreani et al., In vitro testing of combined hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect, Microbial Pathogenesis, doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104228.
De Forni et al., Synergistic drug combinations designed to fully suppress SARS-CoV-2 in the lung of COVID-19 patients, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276751.
Wan et al., Synergistic inhibition effects of andrographolide and baicalin on coronavirus mechanisms by downregulation of ACE2 protein level, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54722-5.
Said et al., The effect of Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 supplementation on the clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1011522.
Fiaschi et al., In Vitro Combinatorial Activity of Direct Acting Antivirals and Monoclonal Antibodies against the Ancestral B.1 and BQ.1.1 SARS-CoV-2 Viral Variants, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16020168.
Xing et al., Published anti-SARS-CoV-2 in vitro hits share common mechanisms of action that synergize with antivirals, Briefings in Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bib/bbab249.
Thairu et al., A Comparison of Ivermectin and Non Ivermectin Based Regimen for COVID-19 in Abuja: Effects on Virus Clearance, Days-to-discharge and Mortality, Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, doi:10.9734/jpri/2022/v34i44A36328.
Singh et al., The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkae045.
Rothstein, H., Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, www.wiley.com/en-ae/Publication+Bias+in+Meta+Analysis:+Prevention,+Assessment+and+Adjustments-p-9780470870143.
Stanley et al., Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias, Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095.
Rücker et al., Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2971.
Peters, J., Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676.
Moreno et al., Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2.
Macaskill et al., A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.698.
Egger et al., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
Harbord et al., A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2380.
Ali et al., SARS-CoV-2 Syncytium under the Radar: Molecular Insights of the Spike-Induced Syncytia and Potential Strategies to Limit SARS-CoV-2 Replication, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm12186079.
Vibhute et al., Niclosamide: a potential treatment option for COVID-19, International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics, doi:10.22159/ijap.2023v15i1.45850.
Abed et al., Evaluation the plausibility of repurpose of levamisole and niclosamide in treatment of covid-19, Journal of Pharmaceutical Technolgy, doi:10.37662/jpt.2022.999481.
Cesar-Silva et al., The Endolysosomal System: The Acid Test for SARS-CoV-2, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, doi:10.3390/ijms23094576.
Singh (B) et al., Niclosamide—A promising treatment for COVID‐19, British Journal of Pharmacology, doi:10.1111/bph.15843.
Al-kuraishy et al., Niclosamide for Covid-19: bridging the gap, Molecular Biology Reports, doi:10.1007/s11033-021-06770-7.
Zhang et al., What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, JAMA, 80:19, 1690, doi:10.1001/jama.280.19.1690.
Altman (B) et al., How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value, BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090.
Sweeting et al., What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761.
Cairns et al., Efficacy of Niclosamide vs Placebo in SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Viral Clearance, Viral Shedding, and Duration of Symptoms Among Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19, JAMA Network Open, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44942.
Abdulamir et al., A randomised controlled trial of effectiveness and safety of Niclosamide as add on therapy to the standard of care measures in COVID-19 management, Annals of Medicine & Surgery, doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102779.
First Wave BioPharma, A 2-Part, 2-Arm, Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study on the Safety and Efficacy of Niclosamide in Patients With COVID-19 With Gastrointestinal Infection, NCT04858425, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04858425.
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.