c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchCOVID-19 treatments

A Phase 2 Randomized, Double Blinded, Placebo Controlled Study of Oral Camostat Mesilate Compared to Standard of Care in Subjects With Mild-Moderate COVID-19

Parsonnet et al., NCT04524663, COPS-2003, NCT04524663, May 2021
Early treatmentDouble-blind RCT · NCT04524663 · 49 patients · USA
Camostat for COVID-19
COPS-2003 Parsonnet et al. NCT04524663 · May 2021
Higher progression and improved recovery
Not statistically significant · p = 0.49 (progression) and p = 0.24 (recovery)
RCT 49 outpatients in the USA, showing no significant differences with camostat treatment.
Standard of Care (SOC) for COVID-19 in the study country, the USA, is very poor with very low average efficacy for approved treatments1. Only expensive, high-profit treatments were approved for early treatment. Low-cost treatments were excluded, reducing the probability of early treatment due to access and cost barriers, and eliminating complementary and synergistic benefits seen with many low-cost treatments.
Important missing comments or errors? Let us know.
Study covers TMPRSS2 inhibitors and camostat.
OutcomeImprovementEffect · pTreatmentControl
risk of progression 392.0% higher · RR 4.92 · p = 0.49 392.0% higherRR 4.92p = 0.49 2 of 25 (8.0%) 0 of 24 (0.0%) treatment 2 of 25 (8.0%), control 0 of 24 (0.0%)continuity correction due to zero events
risk of no recovery 35.0% lower · HR 0.65 · p = 0.24 35.0% lowerHR 0.65p = 0.24 25 24 treatment 25, control 24Cox proportional hazards
serious adverse events 86.0% lower · RR 0.14 · p = 0.11 86.0% lowerRR 0.14p = 0.11 0 of 25 (0.0%) 3 of 24 (12.5%) treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 3 of 24 (12.5%)NNT 8.0continuity correction due to zero events
risk of no viral clearance 40.8% lower · HR 0.59 · p = 0.24 40.8% lowerHR 0.59p = 0.24 25 24 treatment 25, control 24inverted to make HR<1 favor treatmentCox proportional hazards

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates.

Parsonnet et al., 15 May 2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04524663 (history) (COPS-2003). Contact: parsonnt@stanford.edu.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org November 2026 USA 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 USA 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 USA 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 Taiwan 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 USA 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%