Analgesics
Antiandrogens
Antihistamines
Budesonide
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Ivermectin
Lifestyle
Melatonin
Metformin
Minerals
Monoclonals
Mpro inhibitors
Naso/orophar..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
PPIs
Quercetin
RdRp inhibitors
TMPRSS2 inh.
Thermotherapy
Vitamins
More

Other
Feedback
Home
 
next
study
previous
study
c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchBrequinarBrequinar (more..)
Budesonide Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta PPIs Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta
Thermotherapy Meta
Melatonin Meta
Metformin Meta

 

The CRISIS2 Study: A Phase 2, Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo-controlled, Multi-center Study Assessing the Safety and Anti-coronavirus Response of Suppression of Host Nucleotide Synthesis in Out-patient Adults With SARS-CoV-2

Powers et al., NCT04575038, CRISIS2, NCT04575038, Apr 2021
https://c19early.org/powers2.html
Hospitalization -205% improvement lower risk ← → higher risk Viral load, day 8 -34% no CI Viral load, day 29 8% no CI Viral load, day 15 24% no CI Viral load, day 4 -14% no CI Time to viral- -50% no CI Brequinar for COVID-19  CRISIS2  EARLY TREATMENT RCT Is early treatment with brequinar beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 115 patients in the USA Higher hospitalization with brequinar (not stat. sig., p=0.49) c19early.org Powers et al., NCT04575038, April 2021 0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ RR
RCT 115 outpatients in the USA, showing no significant differences with brequinar 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.
risk of hospitalization, 205.4% higher, RR 3.05, p = 0.49, treatment 1 of 56 (1.8%), control 0 of 59 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
viral load, 33.9% higher, relative load 1.34, treatment 34, control 38, mid-recovery, day 8.
viral load, 7.9% lower, relative load 0.92, treatment 38, control 40, day 29.
viral load, 24.1% lower, relative load 0.76, treatment 36, control 39, day 15.
viral load, 13.9% higher, relative load 1.14, treatment 39, control 40, day 4.
time to viral-, 50.0% higher, relative time 1.50, treatment 43, control 45.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Powers et al., 28 Apr 2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04575038 (history) (CRISIS2). Contact: clinical@clearcreekbio.com.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org November 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Bosnia-Herzegovina Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore Iceland New Zealand Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago Hong Kong North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia CAR 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 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore New Zealand Malawi Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia Syria 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%
Loading..
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