Supplementary Data — Nafamostat reduces COVID-19 risk: real-time meta analysis of 7 studies

@CovidAnalysis, December 2025, Version 1V1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2+ Okugawa (RCT) 33% 0.67 [0.50-0.89] viral load 19 (n) 10 (n) Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Okugawa (RCT) 60% 0.40 [0.19-0.83] viral load 19 (n) 10 (n) Zhuravel (RCT) 76% 0.24 [0.03-2.08] death 1/52 4/50 Zhuravel (RCT) 42% 0.58 [0.23-1.47] no improv. 6/52 10/50 Zhuravel (RCT) 42% 0.58 [0.23-1.47] no recov. 6/52 10/50 Zhuravel (RCT) 41% 0.59 [0.32-1.09] no recov. 52 (n) 50 (n) Inokuchi -27% 1.27 [0.61-2.64] death 121 (n) 15,738 (n) DEFINE Quinn (RCT) 0% 1.00 [0.23-4.40] death 3/21 3/21 DEFINE Quinn (RCT) -48% 1.48 [0.81-2.69] hosp. time 21 (n) 21 (n) Soma 80% 0.20 [0.01-4.11] death 0/31 2/33 Soma -6% 1.06 [0.51-2.20] severe case 10/31 10/33 RACONA Seccia (DB RCT) 67% 0.33 [0.02-7.02] death 0/7 1/7 RACONA Seccia (DB RCT) 20% 0.80 [0.36-1.77] no recov. 4/7 5/7 ASCOT Morpeth (RCT) 55% 0.45 [0.14-1.42] ventilation 4/82 8/73 ASCOT Morpeth (RCT) 57% 0.43 [0.13-1.29] progression 4/82 8/73 ASCOT Morpeth (RCT) 28% 0.72 [0.36-1.45] no recov. 82 (n) 73 (n) Nafamostat COVID-19 outcomes c19early.org December 2025 Favors nafamostat Favors control
Fig. S1. All outcomes.
Loading..
Fig. S2. Comparison of results for RCTs versus observational studies. For COVID-19 treatments, there is no significant difference between the results of RCTs and observational studies. Observational studies do not systematically over or underestimate efficacy. For high-cost treatments, there is a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy.