Quercetin reduces COVID-19 risk: real-time meta-analysis of 9 studies

@CovidAnalysis, October 2026, Version 23V23 (V1 2021)
Abstract
Significantly lower risk is seen for mortality, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 9 studies from 7 independent teams in 5 countries show significant benefit.
Meta-analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 35% [15‑51%] lower risk. Results are similar for higher quality studies and better after excluding studies using combined treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 841 patients in trials to date.
Studies typically use advanced formulations for greatly improved bioavailability.
No treatment is 100% effective. Protocols combine safe and effective options with individual risk/benefit analysis and monitoring. Other treatments are more effective. Dietary sources may be preferred. The quality of non-prescription supplements varies widely1-4. A lipid-optimized formulation may be required for therapeutic concentrations of quercetin. All data and sources to reproduce this analysis are in the appendix.
Other meta-analyses show significant improvements with quercetin for mortality5, ICU admission5,6, and hospitalization5,6.
Download PDF
Evolution of COVID-19 clinical evidence Meta-analysis results over time Quercetin p=0.0018 Acetaminophen p=0.00000021 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Lowerrisk Higherrisk c19early.org October 2026 50% 0% -50%
Quercetin for COVID-19 — Highlights
Quercetin reduces risk with very high confidence for recovery, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis, high confidence for mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization, low confidence for cases, and very low confidence for ventilation.
Studies typically use advanced formulations for greatly improved bioavailability.
36th treatment shown effective in January 2022, now with p = 0.0018 from 9 studies.
Real-time updates and corrections with a consistent protocol for 227 treatments. Outcome specific analysis and combined evidence from all studies including treatment delay, a primary confounding factor.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 studies

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.72death0/763/76 Khan (RCT)33%0.67 · 0.37–1.19no recov.10/2515/25CT1 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.99death0/501/50 Din Ujjan (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.50–1.03no recov.15/2521/25CT1
Early treatment32%0.68 · 0.50–0.9325/17640/17632% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.014
Zupanets (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.32–1.58no recov.9/9913/101 Shohan (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.65death0/303/30 Gérain (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.70death0/251/24CT1 Tylishchak (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29no recov.3/305/30
Late treatment39%0.61 · 0.31–1.1712/18422/18539% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.13
Rondanelli (DB RCT)93%0.07 · 0.01–0.91symp. case1/604/60
Prophylaxis93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.016
All studies35%0.65 · 0.49–0.8538/42066/42135% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.001800.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
B
Loading..
Fig. 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 quercetin studies. The marked dates indicate the time when efficacy was known with a statistically significant improvement of ≥10% from ≥3 studies for pooled outcomes, one or more specific outcome, pooled outcomes in RCTs, and one or more specific outcome in RCTs. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 12.5 months, compared to using pooled outcomes. Efficacy based on specific outcomes in RCTs was delayed by 17.5 months, compared to using pooled outcomes in RCTs.
Introduction
Fig. 2. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein fibrin binding leads to thromboinflammation and neuropathology, from7.
Immediate treatment recommended
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 injury8-24 and cognitive deficits11,16, cardiovascular complications25-31, DNA damage32-35, organ failure, and death. Even mild untreated infections may result in persistent cognitive deficits36—the spike protein binds to fibrin leading to fibrinolysis-resistant blood clots, thromboinflammation, and neuropathology. Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended.
Many treatments are expected to modulate infection
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 500+ host and viral proteins and other factorsA,37-44, providing many therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity. Scientists have predicted that over 12,000 compounds may reduce COVID-19 risk45, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
Extensive supporting research
In silico studies predict inhibition of SARS-CoV-2, or minimization of side effects, with quercetin or metabolites via binding to the spikeB,46-59 (and specifically the receptor binding domainC,60), MproD,49-52,54,55,58-76, RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseE,55,58-60,77,78, PLproF,58,63,69, ACE2G,48,54,56,63,64,79,80, TMPRSS2H,48, nucleocapsidI,58, helicaseJ,58,62,81, endoribonucleaseK,46, NSP16/10L,82, cathepsin LM,83, Wnt-3N,48, FZDO,48, LRP6P,48, ezrinQ,84, ADRPR,52, NRP1S,56, EP300T,85, PTGS2U,64, HSP90AA1V,64,85, matrix metalloproteinase 9W,86, IL-6X,87,88, IL-10Y,87, VEGFAZ,88, and RELAAA,88 proteins, and inhibition of spike-ACE2 interactionAB,89. In vitro studies demonstrate inhibition of the MproD,71,90-92 protein, and inhibition of spike-ACE2 interactionAB,93. In vitro studies demonstrate efficacy in Calu-3AC,94, A549AD,87, HEK293-ACE2+AE,95, Huh-7AF,53, Caco-2AG,96, Vero E6AH,49,96,97, mTECAI,98, RAW264.7AJ,98, and HLMECAK,89 cells. Animal studies demonstrate efficacy in K18-hACE2 miceAL,99, db/db miceAM,98,100, BALB/c miceAN,101, and rats97. Quercetin reduced proinflammatory cytokines and protected lung and kidney tissue against LPS-induced damage in mice101, inhibits LPS-induced cytokine storm by modulating key inflammatory and antioxidant pathways in macrophages102, may block ACE2-spike interaction and NLRP3 inflammasome, limiting viral entry and inflammation103, upregulates the SIRT1/AMPK axis to inhibit oxidative injury and accelerate viral clearance104, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a ion channel activity, which contributes to viral pathogenicity and cytotoxicity105, may alleviate COVID-19 ARDS via inhibition of EGFR and JAK2 inflammatory targets106, may destabilize the Spike protein, IL-6R, and integrins via conserved residues, blocking viral entry, hyperinflammation, and platelet aggregation107, and may reduce COVID-19 neuroinflammation and cognitive dysfunction through anti-inflammatory mechanisms and neuroprotective effects108.
Analysis
We analyze all significant controlled studies of quercetin 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, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and higher quality studies.
Treatment timing
Fig. 3 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.
Prophylaxis pre-exposure post-exposure Early treatment Late treatment Treatment delay viral load disease severity exposed symptom onset hospitalized ICU Expected benefit of antiviral therapy −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time relative to symptom onset (days) trajectories vary widely immediately or soon after symptoms after disease progression
Fig. 3. Treatment stages.
Evaluation Notes
Preclinical Research
In silico studies predict inhibition of SARS-CoV-2, or minimization of side effects, with quercetin or metabolites via binding to the spikeB,46-59 (and specifically the receptor binding domainC,60), MproD,49-52,54,55,58-76, RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseE,55,58-60,77,78, PLproF,58,63,69, ACE2G,48,54,56,63,64,79,80, TMPRSS2H,48, nucleocapsidI,58, helicaseJ,58,62,81, endoribonucleaseK,46, NSP16/10L,82, cathepsin LM,83, Wnt-3N,48, FZDO,48, LRP6P,48, ezrinQ,84, ADRPR,52, NRP1S,56, EP300T,85, PTGS2U,64, HSP90AA1V,64,85, matrix metalloproteinase 9W,86, IL-6X,87,88, IL-10Y,87, VEGFAZ,88, and RELAAA,88 proteins, and inhibition of spike-ACE2 interactionAB,89. In vitro studies demonstrate inhibition of the MproD,71,90-92 protein, and inhibition of spike-ACE2 interactionAB,93. In vitro studies demonstrate efficacy in Calu-3AC,94, A549AD,87, HEK293-ACE2+AE,95, Huh-7AF,53, Caco-2AG,96, Vero E6AH,49,96,97, mTECAI,98, RAW264.7AJ,98, and HLMECAK,89 cells. Animal studies demonstrate efficacy in K18-hACE2 miceAL,99, db/db miceAM,98,100, BALB/c miceAN,101, and rats97. Quercetin reduced proinflammatory cytokines and protected lung and kidney tissue against LPS-induced damage in mice101, inhibits LPS-induced cytokine storm by modulating key inflammatory and antioxidant pathways in macrophages102, may block ACE2-spike interaction and NLRP3 inflammasome, limiting viral entry and inflammation103, upregulates the SIRT1/AMPK axis to inhibit oxidative injury and accelerate viral clearance104, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a ion channel activity, which contributes to viral pathogenicity and cytotoxicity105, may alleviate COVID-19 ARDS via inhibition of EGFR and JAK2 inflammatory targets106, may destabilize the Spike protein, IL-6R, and integrins via conserved residues, blocking viral entry, hyperinflammation, and platelet aggregation107, and may reduce COVID-19 neuroinflammation and cognitive dysfunction through anti-inflammatory mechanisms and neuroprotective effects108.
57 in silico studies support the efficacy of quercetin46,48-75,77-89,97,102,103,106,108,116-125.
31 in vitro studies support the efficacy of quercetin49,53,59,71,75,76,78,87,89-99,102,105,116,118-120,126-131.
6 in vivo animal studies support the efficacy of quercetin97-102.
A study shows complementary effects for quercetin in combination with curcumin132.
2 studies investigate novel formulations of quercetin that may be more effective for COVID-19128,132.
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.
Viral Lifecycle
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves multiple steps as shown in Table 1. Each step can be disrupted by therapeutics. The timing of each step may vary significantly, and the cycle is continuous, with released virions attaching to new host cells. The efficacy of treatments depends on the delay from infection and the steps targeted. Preclinical research suggests that quercetin is most likely to interfere with early steps in the viral lifecycle, suggesting greater benefit for prophylaxis and very early treatment.
Table 1. Lifecycle of SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication.
Step Details Approximate timing Predicted benefit of quercetin
Viral attachment Viral binding to specific receptors on host cell surface Initial step High: spike and ACE2 binding
Viral entry Uptake of viral particle into host cell via mechanisms like endocytosis or membrane fusion Within minutes to 1 hour Moderate: spike binding
Viral uncoating and release Disassembly of virion to release viral genome into host cell 1-2 hours -
Genome replication and transcription Production of viral mRNAs from the genome template and genome copies 2-4 hours Moderate: RdRp binding
Translation and protein processing Production of new viral proteins from the viral transcripts 4-8 hours Moderate: Mpro and PLpro binding
Viral assembly and budding Self-assembly of viral components and encapsidation of viral genome to form new viral particles, often utilizing host cell membrane 8-12 hours -
Viral release Escape of newly formed virions from the host cell to spread infection 12-24 hours -
Results
Table 2 summarizes the results for all stages combined, for Randomized Controlled Trials, with different exclusions, and for specific outcomes. Table 3 shows results by treatment stage. Fig. 4 plots individual results by treatment stage. Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 show forest plots for random-effects meta-analysis of all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and all studies excluding combined treatment studies.
Table 2. Random-effects meta-analysis for all stages combined, for Randomized Controlled Trials, with different exclusions, and for specific outcomes. Results show the relative risk with treatment and the 95% confidence interval. * p<0.05  ** p<0.01  *** p<0.001  **** p<0.0001.
Relative Risk Studies Patients
All studies0.65 [0.49‑0.85]**9841
After exclusions0.58 [0.38‑0.90]*6539
Excluding combined treatmentExc. combined0.45 [0.23‑0.88]*6692
RCTsRCTs0.65 [0.49‑0.85]**9841
Mortality0.21 [0.05‑0.96]*4361
ICU admissionICU0.32 [0.11‑0.93]*4361
HospitalizationHosp.0.64 [0.44‑0.95]*4361
Recovery0.66 [0.55‑0.79]****7569
Viral0.44 [0.32‑0.62]****3200
RCT mortality0.21 [0.05‑0.96]*4361
RCT hospitalizationRCT hosp.0.64 [0.44‑0.95]*4361
Table 3. Random-effects meta-analysis results by treatment stage. Results show the relative risk with treatment and the 95% confidence interval.treatment and the 95% confidence interval. * p<0.05  ** p<0.01  *** p<0.001  **** p<0.0001.
Early treatment Late treatment Prophylaxis
All studies0.68 [0.50‑0.93]*0.68*
[0.50‑0.93]		0.61 [0.31‑1.17]0.61
[0.31‑1.17]		0.07 [0.01‑0.91]*0.07*
[0.01‑0.91]
After exclusions0.67 [0.37‑1.19]0.67
[0.37‑1.19]		0.61 [0.31‑1.17]0.61
[0.31‑1.17]		0.07 [0.01‑0.91]*0.07*
[0.01‑0.91]
Excluding combined treatmentExc. combined0.21 [0.02‑1.83]0.21
[0.02‑1.83]		0.62 [0.32‑1.22]0.62
[0.32‑1.22]		0.07 [0.01‑0.91]*0.07*
[0.01‑0.91]
RCTsRCTs0.68 [0.50‑0.93]*0.68*
[0.50‑0.93]		0.61 [0.31‑1.17]0.61
[0.31‑1.17]		0.07 [0.01‑0.91]*0.07*
[0.01‑0.91]
Mortality0.21 [0.02‑1.83]0.21
[0.02‑1.83]		0.21 [0.02‑1.79]0.21
[0.02‑1.79]
ICU admissionICU0.13 [0.02‑1.05]0.13
[0.02‑1.05]		0.42 [0.11‑1.64]0.42
[0.11‑1.64]
HospitalizationHosp.0.32 [0.15‑0.69]**0.32**
[0.15‑0.69]		0.77 [0.57‑1.03]0.77
[0.57‑1.03]
Recovery0.67 [0.53‑0.84]***0.67***
[0.53‑0.84]		0.65 [0.47‑0.89]**0.65**
[0.47‑0.89]
Viral0.44 [0.32‑0.62]****0.44****
[0.32‑0.62]
RCT mortality0.21 [0.02‑1.83]0.21
[0.02‑1.83]		0.21 [0.02‑1.79]0.21
[0.02‑1.79]
RCT hospitalizationRCT hosp.0.32 [0.15‑0.69]**0.32**
[0.15‑0.69]		0.77 [0.57‑1.03]0.77
[0.57‑1.03]
Loading..
Fig. 4. 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.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 studies

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.72death0/763/76 Khan (RCT)33%0.67 · 0.37–1.19no recov.10/2515/25CT1 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.99death0/501/50 Din Ujjan (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.50–1.03no recov.15/2521/25CT1
Early treatment32%0.68 · 0.50–0.9325/17640/17632% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.014
Zupanets (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.32–1.58no recov.9/9913/101 Shohan (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.65death0/303/30 Gérain (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.70death0/251/24CT1 Tylishchak (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29no recov.3/305/30
Late treatment39%0.61 · 0.31–1.1712/18422/18539% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.13
Rondanelli (DB RCT)93%0.07 · 0.01–0.91symp. case1/604/60
Prophylaxis93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.016
All studies35%0.65 · 0.49–0.8538/42066/42135% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.001800.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 5. 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.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 mortality results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.720/763/76 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.990/501/50
Early treatment79%0.21 · 0.02–1.830/1264/12679% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.16
Shohan (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.650/303/30 Gérain (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.700/251/24CT1
Late treatment79%0.21 · 0.02–1.790/554/5479% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.15
All studies79%0.21 · 0.05–0.960/1818/18079% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.04400.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 6. Random-effects meta-analysis for mortality results.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 mechanical ventilation results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Gérain (RCT)89%0.11 · 0.01–1.920/254/24CT1
Late treatment89%0.11 · 0.01–1.920/254/2489% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.13
All studies89%0.11 · 0.01–1.920/254/2489% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.1300.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 7. Random-effects meta-analysis for ventilation.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 ICU results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CITreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)94%0.06 · 0.00–1.000/768/76 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.990/501/50
Early treatment87%0.13 · 0.02–1.050/1269/12687% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.055
Shohan (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.293/305/30 Gérain (RCT)89%0.11 · 0.01–1.920/254/24CT1
Late treatment58%0.42 · 0.11–1.643/559/5458% lower risk
Tau² = 0.15, I² = 10.2%, p = 0.21
All studies68%0.32 · 0.11–0.933/18118/18068% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.03600.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 8. Random-effects meta-analysis for ICU admission.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 hospitalization results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)68%0.32 · 0.14–0.70hosp.7/7622/76 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.99hosp.0/501/50
Early treatment68%0.32 · 0.15–0.697/12623/12668% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.0035
Gérain (RCT)38%0.62 · 0.44–0.88hosp. time25 (n)24 (n)CT1 Tylishchak (RCT)15%0.85 · 0.81–0.89hosp. time30 (n)30 (n)
Late treatment23%0.77 · 0.57–1.0355 (n)54 (n)23% lower risk
Tau² = 0.03, I² = 67.6%, p = 0.073
All studies36%0.64 · 0.44–0.957/18123/18036% lower risk
Tau² = 0.08, I² = 67.9%, p = 0.02700.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 9. Random-effects meta-analysis for hospitalization.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 recovery results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Khan (RCT)33%0.67 · 0.37–1.19no recov.10/2515/25CT1 Di Pierro (RCT)37%0.63 · 0.46–0.88no recov.24/5038/50 Din Ujjan (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.50–1.03no recov.15/2521/25CT1
Early treatment33%0.67 · 0.53–0.8449/10074/10033% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.00044
Zupanets (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.32–1.58no recov.9/9913/101 Shohan (RCT)32%0.68 · 0.47–0.98recov. time30 (n)30 (n) Gérain (RCT)73%0.27 · 0.06–1.19no disch.2/257/24CT1 Tylishchak (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29no recov.3/305/30
Late treatment35%0.65 · 0.47–0.8914/18425/18535% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.0078
All studies34%0.66 · 0.55–0.7963/28499/28534% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p < 0.000100.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 10. Random-effects meta-analysis for recovery.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 case results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Rondanelli (DB RCT)93%0.07 · 0.01–0.91symp. case1/604/60
Prophylaxis93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.016
All studies93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.01600.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 11. Random-effects meta-analysis for cases.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 viral clearance results

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Khan (RCT)50%0.50 · 0.30–0.84viral+10/2520/25CT1 Di Pierro (RCT)58%0.42 · 0.27–0.65viral+16/5038/50 Din Ujjan (RCT)91%0.09 · 0.01–1.56viral+0/255/25CT1
Early treatment56%0.44 · 0.32–0.6226/10063/10056% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p < 0.0001
All studies56%0.44 · 0.32–0.6226/10063/10056% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p < 0.000100.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 12. Random-effects meta-analysis for viral clearance.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 studies excluding combined treatment

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Di Pierro (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.72death0/763/76 Di Pierro (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.99death0/501/50
Early treatment79%0.21 · 0.02–1.830/1264/12679% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.16
Zupanets (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.32–1.58no recov.9/9913/101 Shohan (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.65death0/303/30 Tylishchak (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29no recov.3/305/30
Late treatment38%0.62 · 0.32–1.2212/15921/16138% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.17
Rondanelli (DB RCT)93%0.07 · 0.01–0.91symp. case1/604/60
Prophylaxis93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.016
All studies55%0.45 · 0.23–0.8813/34529/34755% lower risk
Tau² = 0.06, I² = 6.7%, p = 0.02100.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 13. Random-effects meta-analysis for all studies excluding combined treatment 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.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Currently all studies are RCTs.
Exclusions
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. Fig. 14 shows a forest plot for random-effects meta-analysis of all studies after exclusions.
Di Pierro, randomization resulted in significant baseline differences that were not adjusted for.
Di Pierro (B), multiple data issues - pending author response.
Din Ujjan, combined treatments may contribute significantly to the effect seen; unadjusted differences between groups.
c19early.org
October 2026

Quercetin COVID-19 studies after exclusions

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Khan (RCT)33%0.67 · 0.37–1.19no recov.10/2515/25CT1
Early treatment33%0.67 · 0.37–1.1910/2515/2533% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.17
Zupanets (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.32–1.58no recov.9/9913/101 Shohan (RCT)86%0.14 · 0.01–2.65death0/303/30 Gérain (RCT)67%0.33 · 0.01–7.70death0/251/24CT1 Tylishchak (RCT)40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29no recov.3/305/30
Late treatment39%0.61 · 0.31–1.1712/18422/18539% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.13
Rondanelli (DB RCT)93%0.07 · 0.01–0.91symp. case1/604/60
Prophylaxis93%0.07 · 0.01–0.621/604/6093% lower risk
Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.016
All studies42%0.58 · 0.38–0.9023/26941/27042% lower risk
Tau² = 0.01, I² = 1.8%, p = 0.01500.511.52+
1 CT: study uses combined treatment
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Fig. 14. 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.
Media Censorship
Low-cost treatments were subject to bias and censorship during the pandemic. Scientific bias is seen in the design, analysis, presentation, and selective reporting of studies, which often favored negative results. A similar bias is seen in the media coverage for low-cost treatments. While broadly seen, bias was particularly notable for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, e.g., Scott Alexander noted that "if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout 'horse dewormer!' at you and compare you to Josef Mengele."109.
We analyze media coverage for the 227 treatments we cover using Altmetric136, which reports the number of ~12,000 tracked news outlets that covered each study137. Studies are considered to have received significant media coverage if they were covered by at least 0.5% of the tracked news outlets. Fig. 15, 16, and 17 show the bias toward negative results for low-cost treatments, in contrast to the opposite bias for high-profit treatments. This may result in widespread incorrect perceptions on the relative efficacy of high-profit and low-cost treatments. The impact is significant—increased cost limits the use of high-profit treatments and treatment equity, and high-profit treatments were also more difficult to access, especially for earlier treatment which improves efficacy and minimizes community transmission.
The mainstream media did not cover any of the positive studies for quercetin.
Loading..
Fig. 15. Media was more likely to cover negative or inconclusive results for low-cost treatments, and positive results for high-profit treatments.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 16. Mainstream media was biased against positive results for low-cost treatments.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 17. In contrast to the results for low-cost treatments, mainstream media was biased towards positive results for high-cost treatments.
A combination of factors may have led to the media's suppression of low-cost treatments:
•
Politicization
led to a media environment where coverage was often framed to support a political narrative rather than to provide objective scientific information. As Scott Alexander said:
"if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout 'horse dewormer!' at you and compare you to Josef Mengele."
There was strong social pressure to discredit low-cost treatments.
•
Censorship
of information conflicting with selected authorities. For example, individuals and organizations presenting conflicting science were often banned on Twitter and YouTube.
•
FDA requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives"
in order to grant an EUA for novel high-profit interventions, creating a strong incentive for authorities to ignore or downplay existing low-cost treatments.
•
Regulatory capture
biases authorities towards high-profit interventions.
•
Authorities ignored most evidence for low-cost treatments
, for example the NIH references only 2% of studies in delayed, rarely-updated, biased commentaries with no quantitive analysis.
•
Media coverage of science is often not very accurate
, e.g., misunderstanding confounding issues. For example the media widely considered the RECOVERY HCQ RCT to be conclusive on efficacy, but very late treatment of late stage patients (mostly on oxygen already) with an excessive toxic dose (shown dangerous in a dose comparison RCT) provides no information on the recommended early/prophylactic treatment. With difficulting in understanding basic confounders like treatment delay and dose, the media may favor deferring to authorities. Many studies for low-cost treatments require greater expertise to analyze. Relatively few journalists have a strong ability to analyze clinical trials and are outnumbered by the rest.
•
Substantial funding from pharmaceutical advertising
biases editorial decisions towards high-profit interventions.
•
PR power
- companies/teams with strong PR presence are favored in the media, which correlates with high-profit and high conflict of interest studies.
•
The media was very negative in general
, inflating risk, fear, and anxieties. A negative bias may improve ratings and revenue, increasing motivation to continue watching coverage. A combination of low-cost treatments greatly reducing risk conflicts with the negative narrative.
Authority Delay
25 low-cost treatments were approved in one or more countries, yet many countries approved no low-cost treatments. The countries that did adopt low-cost treatments analyzed the evidence early and made timely approvals. With few exceptions, authorities did not change their initial views, regardless of how much evidence accumulated showing either efficacy or harm. Why?
The harms of smoking here hidden for 25 yearsAP. Authorities did not analyze the data in real-time, failing to act when harm was known. Widespread acknowledgement of harm came only after attempts by two new surgeon generals, along with pressure from health advocates and a new president, and a review of 7,000 studies.
Similarly for COVID-19, most authorities and experts did not proactively analyze data in real-time. This guarantees delayed recognition of efficacy or harm, by which time moral, legal, career, and reputational liabilities strongly disincentivize any admission of error. Claims of no efficacy (for effective treatments) or safety (for harmful treatments) were often made prior to strong data being available. Correction would require admitting to errors that increased mortality, which is unlikely with the same generation of officials.
Analysis of potential treatments was rarely done, and when done these were typically minimal efforts. For example, NIH reviews were highly delayed, cover only a tiny fraction of treatments, reference only 2% of studies for the treatments covered, and include no quantitative analysis. They appear as rarely updated side projects from external panels implicitly tasked with justifying prior failures. As with smoking, the thousands of studies could (and should) have been analyzed and acted on in real-time.
A key structural improvement, applicable to all current and future diseases, is for authorities to implement real-time proactive analysis of clinical evidence. This does not remove all bias, but does make it possible to act on evidence, whereas delayed action may be unlikely due to moral, legal, career, and reputational liabilities.
c19early.org
Delayed public health acknowledgments
Official acknowledgment of efficacy or harm is often delayed—legal, career, and status risks disincentivize admission of error.
Evidence Official Acknowledgment Approx. Delay
Citrus Fruit (vitamin C) for Scurvy (effectiveness) 1747: James Lind conducted one of the first-ever controlled clinical trials, proving that oranges and lemons cured scurvy in sailors. 1795: The British Royal Navy finally made a daily ration of lemon juice a standard issue for all its sailors, effectively eliminating the disease. 48 years
Handwashing (lower mortality) 1847: Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis provided conclusive proof that having doctors wash their hands with a chlorine solution before delivering babies reduced maternal mortality rates from over 18% to around 1%. ~1870s: Semmelweis's findings were rejected and he was ridiculed. His work was only validated decades later (after his death). ~20+ years
Helicobacter pylori (bacteria causes ulcers) 1982-1984: Marshall and Warren discovered that Helicobacter pylori bacteria causes ulcers, confirmed via direct exposure. Officials maintained that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. 1994: The US NIH released a consensus statement officially recommending antibiotics as the standard treatment for peptic ulcers, overturning decades of acid-suppression therapy. ~12 years
Asbestos (causes asbestosis & cancer) 1924: The British Medical Journal published the first case study of a death from "asbestosis." By 1918, U.S. insurance companies had stopped selling life insurance to asbestos workers. 1971 (US): The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was formed and began regulating asbestos as a carcinogen, setting the first federal workplace safety standards for it. ~47 years
Leaded Gasoline (neurotoxicity) ~1924: Dangers of low-level lead exposure were known. Experts like Alice Hamilton warned the U.S. Surgeon General that adding lead to gasoline would cause widespread public poisoning. 1973 (US): The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the first phasedown of lead in gasoline, following the Clean Air Act of 1970. A full ban for on-road vehicles took effect in 1996. ~49 years
Harms of Smoking (causes lung cancer) 1939: Franz Müller (Germany) published the first case-control epidemiological study strongly linking tobacco smoking to lung cancer. This was followed by major U.S. & U.K. studies in the 1950s. 1964 (US): The U.S. Surgeon General's report, "Smoking and Health," was released. It was the first U.S. government report to definitively link smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. 25 years
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
Treatment delay
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 hours138,139. 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.
Table 4. Studies of baloxavir marboxil for influenza show that early treatment is more effective.
Treatment delayResult
Post-exposure prophylaxis86% fewer cases140
<24 hours-33 hours symptoms141
24-48 hours-13 hours symptoms141
Inpatients-2.5 hours to improvement142
Fig. 18 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 227 treatments, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.
Loading..
Fig. 18. Early treatment is more effective. Meta-regression showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 227 treatments.
Patient demographics
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.
SARS-CoV-2 variants
Efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by patients. Risk varies significantly across variants144, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics145-148. 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 variants149,150.
Treatment regimen
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
Medication quality
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 (C) et al. analyze a treatment from two different manufacturers, showing 9 different impurities, with significantly different concentrations for each manufacturer. Non-prescription supplements may show very wide variations in quality1,2.
Other treatments
The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including supplements, other medications, or other interventions such as prone positioning. Treatments may be synergistic153-177, therefore efficacy may depend strongly on combined treatments.
Effect measured
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.
Meta-analysis
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.
Pooled Effects
Pooled effects are no longer required to show efficacy as of January 2023
This section validates the use of pooled effects for COVID-19, which enables earlier detection of efficacy, however pooled effects are no longer required for quercetin as of January 2023. Efficacy is now known based on specific outcomes for all studies and when restricted to RCTs. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 12.5 months compared to using pooled outcomes. Efficacy based on specific outcomes in RCTs was delayed by 17.5 months compared to using pooled outcomes in RCTs.
Combining studies is required
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.
Specific outcome and pooled analyses
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.
Ethical and practical issues limit high-risk trials
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.
Validating pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19
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 227 treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19. Fig. 19 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.0000000001). Similarly, Fig. 20 shows that improved recovery is very strongly associated with lower mortality (p < 0.0000000001). Considering the extremes, Singh (D) 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. Fig. 21 shows that improved viral clearance is strongly associated with fewer serious outcomes. The association is very similar to Singh (D) et al., with higher confidence due to the larger number of studies. As with Singh (D) et al., the confidence increases when excluding the outlier treatment, from p = 0.0000000074 to p = 0.00000000015.
Loading..
Fig. 19. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Fig. 20. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Fig. 19. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Pooled outcomes identify efficacy 5 months faster (7 months for RCTs)
Currently, 59 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 85% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 4.6 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 53% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 7.5 months. Fig. 22 shows when treatments were found effective during the pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 22. 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.
Limitations
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 differences in treatment delay are more likely to hide efficacy.
Summary
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.
Polytherapy
There are many complementary mechanisms of action for COVID-19 treatments, with over 500 therapeutic targets114. Studies show complementary and synergistic effects with polytherapy153-177. For example, Jitobaom et al.154 shows >10x reduction in IC50 with ivermectin and niclosamide, an RCT by Said et al.161 showed the combination of nigella sativa and vitamin D was more effective than either alone, and an RCT by Wannigama et al.179 showed improved results with fluvoxamine combined with additional treatments, compared to fluvoxamine alone.
SARS-CoV-2 can rapidly acquire mutations altering infectivity, disease severity, and drug resistance even without selective pressure180-187. Antigenic drift can undermine more variant-specific treatments like monoclonal antibodies and more specific antivirals. Treatment with targeted antivirals may select for escape mutations188. The efficacy of treatments varies depending on cell type189 due to differences in viral receptor expression, drug distribution and metabolism, and cell-specific mechanisms. Efficacy may also vary based on genetic variants190-200.
Variable efficacy across variants, cell types, tissues, and host genetics, along with the complementary and synergistic actions of different treatments, all point to greater efficacy with polytherapy. In many studies, the standard of care given to all patients includes other treatments—efficacy seen in these trials may rely in part on synergistic effects. Less variant specific treatments and polytherapy targeting multiple viral and host proteins may be more effective. Meta-analysis of all early treatment trials shows 71% [60‑79%] lower risk for studies using combined treatments, compared to 27% [24‑30%] for single treatments.
Polytherapy vs. monotherapy for all treatments
Monotherapy Polytherapy
Early treatment
27% [24–30%]
71% [60–79%]
Late treatment
18% [16–20%]
49% [41–55%]
Prophylaxis
28% [25–30%]
90% [48–98%]
Polytherapy (combined treatment) is more effective than monotherapy. Analysis of results across 227 treatments. p = 0.000000057, p < 0.0000000001, and p = 0.02.
Studies where combined treatments may significantly contribute to efficacy are excluded from this meta-analysis201. While not reaching statistical significance, quercetin studies using polytherapy also show greater efficacy than monotherapy studies. This comparison includes combined treatment studies excluded from the rest of this paper201.
Polytherapy vs. monotherapy for quercetin
Monotherapy Polytherapy
Late treatment
38% [-22–68%]
67% [-670–99%]
Polytherapy (combined treatment) is more effective than monotherapy. Analysis of results for quercetin studies. p = 0.7.
c19early.org
Combined treatment is more effective
SARS-CoV-2 involves the complex interplay of 500+ host and viral proteins and factors, providing many therapeutic targets. Many compounds have antiviral activity for SARS-CoV-2, with many different mechanisms including blocking attachment, entry, and replication. Combinations of treatments, with careful attention to potential side effects, allows improved efficacy via complementary and synergistic mechanisms.
Tissue and cell coverage Different compounds have different tissue penetration profiles and efficacy across cell types
Variant coverage Compounds with different viral resistance profiles
Intra/extracellular Disabling and removing intracellular and extracellular viral particles
Resistance Minimizing persistence and emergence of resistant variants
Genetics Robustness against individual variations in efficacy based on genetics
Lower doses Potentially lower doses of individual agents, reducing toxicity
Viral and host-directed Antivirals targeting viral and host proteins
Immune system function Supporting or enhancing natural immune system function
Disease phases Addressing multiple disease phases (viral replication, inflammation, secondary complications)
Discussion
Publication bias
Publishing is often biased towards positive results, however evidence suggests that there may be a negative bias for inexpensive treatments for COVID-19. Both negative and positive results are very important for COVID-19, media in many countries prioritizes negative results for inexpensive treatments (inverting the typical incentive for scientists that value media recognition), and there are many reports of difficulty publishing positive results202-205. For quercetin, 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. Fig. 23 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 < 0.05206-213. 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.
Log Risk Ratio Standard Error 1.406 1.055 0.703 0.352 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 A: Simulated perfect trials p > 0.05 Log Risk Ratio Standard Error 1.433 1.074 0.716 0.358 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 B: Simulated perfect trials with varying treatment delay p < 0.0001
Fig. 23. Example funnel plot analysis for simulated perfect trials.
Conflicts of interest
Pharmaceutical drug trials often have conflicts of interest whereby sponsors or trial staff have a financial interest in the outcome being positive. Quercetin for COVID-19 lacks this because it is an inexpensive and widely available supplement. In contrast, most COVID-19 quercetin trials have been run by physicians on the front lines with the primary goal of finding the best methods to save human lives and minimize the collateral damage caused by COVID-19. While pharmaceutical companies are careful to run trials under optimal conditions (for example, restricting patients to those most likely to benefit, only including patients that can be treated soon after onset when necessary, and ensuring accurate dosing), not all quercetin trials represent the optimal conditions for efficacy.
Physician case series results
Table 5 shows the reported results of physicians that used combined early treatment protocols for COVID-19, compared to results for physicians following guidelines focusing on late treatment (Dr. Uip reportedly prescribed early treatment for himself, but not for patients214). The protocols vary, but include ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, melatonin, quercetin, budesonide, and other treatments. These results are subject to selection and ascertainment bias and more accurate analysis requires details of the patient populations and follow-up, however results are consistently better across many teams, and consistent with the extensive controlled trial evidence that shows a significant reduction in risk with many early treatments, and improved results with the use of multiple treatments in combination.
Table 5. Physicians using early combined treatment protocols had much lower hospitalization and mortality rates compared with those following guidelines focusing on late treatment. Results are subject to selection and ascertainment bias and accurate analysis requires details of the patient populations and followup, however the results are consistent across many teams, and consistent with the extensive controlled clinical evidence showing a significant reduction in risk with many early treatments, and complementary/synergistic benefits with combined treatments. (*) Dr. Uip reportedly prescribed early treatment for himself, but not for patients214. (**) Dr. Scott reports treating hundreds of patients and losing over a hundred, but has not provided specific numbers215. Dr. Scott reports following (and helping create) US guidelines.
LATE TREATMENT
Physician / TeamLocationPatients HospitalizationHosp. MortalityDeath
Dr. David Uip (*) Brazil 2,200 38.6% (850) 2.5% (54)
Dr. Jake Scott (**) USA 1,000 10.0% (100)
Average 38.6% 6.2%
EARLY TREATMENT PROTOCOLS - 40 physicians/teams
Physician / TeamLocationPatients HospitalizationHosp. MortalityDeath
Dr. Roberto Alfonso Accinelli
0/360 deaths for treatment within 3 days		 Peru 1,265 0.6% (7)
Dr. Mohammed Tarek Alam
patients up to 84 years old		 Bangladesh 100 0.0% (0)
Dr. Oluwagbenga Alonge Nigeria 310 0.0% (0)
Dr. Raja Bhattacharya
up to 88yo, 81% comorbidities		 India 148 1.4% (2)
Dr. Flavio Cadegiani Brazil 3,450 0.1% (4) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Alessandro Capucci Italy 350 4.6% (16)
Dr. Shankara Chetty South Africa 8,000 0.0% (0)
Dr. Deborah Chisholm USA 100 0.0% (0)
Dr. Ryan Cole USA 400 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Marco Cosentino
earlier treatment results were better		 Italy 392 6.4% (25) 0.3% (1)
Dr. Jeff Davis USA 6,000 0.0% (0)
Dr. Dhanajay India 500 0.0% (0)
Dr. Bryan Tyson & Dr. George Fareed USA 20,000 0.0% (6) 0.0% (4)
Dr. Raphael Furtado Brazil 170 0.6% (1) 0.0% (0)
Rabbi Yehoshua Gerzi Israel 860 0.1% (1) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Heather Gessling USA 1,500 0.1% (1)
Dr. Ellen Guimarães Brazil 500 1.6% (8) 0.4% (2)
Dr. Syed Haider USA 4,000 0.1% (5) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Mark Hancock USA 24 0.0% (0)
Dr. Sabine Hazan USA 1,000 0.0% (0)
Dr. Mollie James USA 3,500 1.1% (40) 0.0% (1)
Dr. Roberta Lacerda Brazil 550 1.5% (8) 0.4% (2)
Dr. Katarina Lindley USA 100 5.0% (5) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Ben Marble USA 150,000 0.0% (4)
Dr. Edimilson Migowski Brazil 2,000 0.3% (7) 0.1% (2)
Dr. Abdulrahman Mohana Saudi Arabia 2,733 0.0% (0)
Dr. Carlos Nigro Brazil 5,000 0.9% (45) 0.5% (23)
Dr. Benoit Ochs Luxembourg 800 0.0% (0)
Dr. Ortore Italy 240 1.2% (3) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Valerio Pascua
one patient already on oxygen died		 Honduras 415 6.3% (26) 0.2% (1)
Dr. Sebastian Pop Romania 300 0.0% (0)
Dr. Brian Proctor USA 869 2.3% (20) 0.2% (2)
Dr. Anastacio Queiroz Brazil 700 0.0% (0)
Dr. Didier Raoult France 8,315 2.6% (214) 0.1% (5)
Dr. Karin Ried
up to 99yo, 73% comorbidities		 Turkey 237 0.4% (1)
Dr. Roman Rozencwaig
patients up to 86 years old		 Canada 80 0.0% (0)
Dr. Vipul Shah India 8,000 0.1% (5)
Dr. Silvestre Sobrinho Brazil 116 8.6% (10) 0.0% (0)
Dr. Unknown Brazil 957 1.7% (16) 0.2% (2)
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko USA 2,200 0.5% (12) 0.1% (2)
Average 2.2% 0.1%
Limitations
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 alone153-177. 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.
Notes
3 of 9 studies combine treatments. The results of quercetin alone may differ. 3 of 9 RCTs use combined treatment. Currently all studies are peer-reviewed. Other meta-analyses show significant improvements with quercetin for mortality5, ICU admission5,6, and hospitalization5,6.
Reviews
Many reviews cover quercetin for COVID-19, presenting additional background on mechanisms, formulations, and related results, including104,216-236.
Other studies
Additional preclinical or review papers suggesting potential benefits of quercetin for COVID-19 include243-401. We have not reviewed these studies in detail.
Perspective
Results compared with other treatments
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex interplay of 500+ host and viral proteins and other factors37-44, providing many therapeutic targets. Over 12,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19 risk45, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications. Fig. 24 shows an overview of the results for quercetin in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Fig. 25 shows a plot of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Loading..
Fig. 24. Scatter plot showing results within the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments. Diamonds shows the results of random-effects meta-analysis. 0.5% of 12,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy402.
Loading..
Loading..
Fig. 25. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Conclusion
Studies to date show that quercetin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Significantly lower risk is seen for mortality, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 9 studies from 7 independent teams in 5 countries show significant benefit. Meta-analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 35% [15‑51%] lower risk. Results are similar for higher quality studies and better after excluding studies using combined treatment. Currently all studies are RCTs.
Currently there is limited data, with only 841 patients in trials to date.
Studies typically use advanced formulations for greatly improved bioavailability.
Other meta-analyses show significant improvements with quercetin for mortality5, ICU admission5,6, and hospitalization5,6.
 
Contact.
Contact us on X at @CovidAnalysis.
Funding.
We have received no funding or compensation in any form, and do not accept donations. This is entirely volunteer work.
Conflicts of interest.
We have no conflicts of interest. We have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical companies, supplement companies, governments, political parties, or advocacy organizations.
AI.
We use AI models (Gemini, Grok, Claude, and ChatGPT) tasked with functioning as additional peer-reviewers to check for errors, suggest improvements, and review spelling and grammar. Any corrections are manually verified. Our preference for em dashes is independent of AI.
Updates.
Our COVID-19 meta-analyses involve the extraction of over 228,000 datapoints from thousands of papers for 227 treatments. We thank the thousands of scientists, physicians, and other contributors that have provided updates, suggestions, feedback, and corrections. These are all welcome and can be submitted at https://c19early.org/qmeta.html.
Dedication.
This work is dedicated to top evidence-based physicians that worked tirelessly to analyze evidence and greatly reduce mortality and morbidity during the pandemic. In alphabetical order: Dr. Thomas J. Borody, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, Dr. Shankara Chetty, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Sabine Hazan, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Didier Raoult, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Jackie Stone, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Joseph Varon, and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.
Public domain.
This is a public domain work distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license, which dedicates the work to the public domain by waiving all rights worldwide under copyright law. You can distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon this work in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, without asking permission. Referenced material and third-party images retain any original copyrights or restrictions. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/.
Study Notes
Early treatmentRCT · 100 patients · Pakistan · Dec 2020 – Sep 2021
Quercetin for COVID-19
Di Pierro et al. Frontiers in Pharmacology · January 2023 · NCT04861298
Improved recovery and viral clearance
p = 0.007 (recovery) and p < 0.0001 (viral clearance)
RCT 100 outpatients in Pakistan, 50 treated with quercetin phytosome, showing faster viral clearance and improved recovery with treatment.

Patients in the treatment group were significantly younger (41 vs. 54). Authors report performing a covariance analysis but do not provide any data.

Table 1 reports the standard deviation for age as exactly 2.03 in both the control group and the quercetin group, which is possible but relatively unlikely. The text states the overall mean age was 47.6 +/- 15.7 years. However, mathematically pooling two groups of n=50 with means of 54.1 and 41.1 and standard deviations of 2.03 yields a combined standard deviation of approximately 6.83, not 15.7. The text states the modal age group was between 30-40 years, comprising 23% of total cases. However, given the reported means and assuming a normal distribution, virtually 0% of the patients would fall into the 30-40 age bracket. It is likely that one or both of the 2.03 standard deviations is a typo/incorrect.

The text claims that by week two, 98% in the quercetin group tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. However, Figure 3 shows 2 patients (4%) positive at day 14 in the quercetin group, meaning only 96% tested negative. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Early treatmentRCT · 152 patients · Pakistan · Sep 2020 – Mar 2021
Quercetin for COVID-19
Di Pierro et al. Int. J. General Medicine · June 2021 · NCT04578158
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Mortality
86%0.14 · 0.01–2.72
ICU admission
94%0.06 · 0.01–0.45
Hospitalization
68%0.32 · 0.14–0.70
00.511.52+
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Lower ICU admission and hospitalization
p = 0.0064 (ICU admission) and p = 0.0033 (hospitalization)
RCT 152 outpatients in Pakistan, 76 treated with quercetin phytosome, showing lower mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization with treatment.

Potential data issues include:

Table 5 hospitalization frequency mismatch: Table 5 reports 7 hospitalized patients for the SC group. The mean length of stay (5.14) matches 36 days across 7 patients. However, the explicit frequency counts below list 15 patients with a total of 90 days. Similarly, Table 5 reports 4 hospitalized patients for the QP group, however the frequency column explicitly lists 3 patients at 1 day and 4 patients at 2 days (summing to 7 patients). This may be a typographical error with several values matching Table 2.

Baseline age matching: the age distribution across 7 distinct brackets is very close between the control and treatment groups (maximum difference of 2 patients in any bracket). This level of balance is unusual for a 1:1 simple randomization of 152 patients.

Large unadjusted baseline comorbidity imbalance: despite near-perfect age matching, there is a large and statistically significant imbalance in baseline comorbidities (59.2% SC vs 38.2% QP, p=0.0092), without adjustment. The imbalance in comorbidities despite equal group sizes suggests failure of the randomization sequence or allocation concealment.

Lack of any missing data or dropouts: the study reports 100% adherence and zero dropouts or loss to follow-up over a 30-day period for 152 outpatients, which is unusual for a trial of this nature. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Early treatmentRCT · 50 patients · Pakistan · Sep 2021 – Jan 2022
Quercetin for COVID-19
Din Ujjan et al. Frontiers in Nutrition · January 2023 · NCT04603690
Improved recovery with treatment
Not statistically significant · p = 0.11
Small RCT with 50 outpatients, 25 treated with curcumin, quercetin, and vitamin D, showing improved recovery and viral clearance with treatment. 168mg curcumin, 260mg, 360IU vitamin D3 daily for 14 days.

Unadjusted baseline differences: the treatment arm had significantly more comorbidities, but the control arm had significantly more myalgia and asthenia, suggesting poor randomization and potential selection bias. In Table 1, the control arm value for '>=5 symptoms' is listed as '15 (60.05)', where 60.05 is a typo for 60.0%. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Late treatmentRCT · NCT04844658 · 49 patients · Belgium · Apr – Oct 2021
Quercetin for COVID-19
Gérain et al. Frontiers in Nutrition · June 2023
Lower death/ICU and improved recovery
p = 0.022 (death/ICU) and p = 0.04 (recovery)
RCT 49 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 25 treated with curcumin and quercetin, shower lower mortality/ICU admission and improved recovery with treatment. All patients received vitamin D.

336mg curcumin, 520mg quercetin, and 18μg vitamin D3 daily for 14 days. The control arm received 20μg vitamin D3 daily. The baseline differences in fever favors the treatment group while the difference in vaccination favors the control group.

Figure 1 indicates that 8 patients (2 in Nasafytol, 6 in Fultium) discontinued the supplement or withdrew. However, Section 3 explicitly states, 'All patients included in the FAS population were compliant with the protocol; the PP population was therefore the same as the FAS population.'

Unexplained missing data in the day 7 outcome evaluation: Table 2 reports an N=22 for the Nasafytol group for the Day 7 score change. With an original N=25 and 2 withdrawals noted in Figure 1, the evaluated N should be 23. The absence of the 3rd patient is not explained.

The inclusion criteria specify a severity of 3-4-5 according to a '7-point ordinal scale', but Figure 2 presents baseline and outcome data plotted on a 9-point scale (0 to 8). Submit Corrections or Updates.
Early treatmentRCT · NCT05130671 · 50 patients · Pakistan · Sep – Nov 2021
Quercetin for COVID-19
Khan et al. Frontiers in Pharmacology · May 2022
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Recovery
33%0.67 · 0.37–1.19
CRP reduction
39%0.61 · 0.43–0.87
Viral clearance
50%0.50 · 0.30–0.84
00.511.52+
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Improved viral clearance with treatment
p = 0.0086
RCT 50 COVID+ outpatients in Pakistan, 25 treated with curcumin, quercetin, and vitamin D, showing significantly faster viral clearance, significantly improved CRP, and faster resolution of acute symptoms (p=0.154). 168mg curcumin, 260mg quercetin and 360IU cholecalciferol. Submit Corrections or Updates.
RCT 120 healthcare workers, 60 treated with quercetin phytosome, showing lower risk of cases with treatment. Quercetin phytosome 250mg twice a day.

Section 2.1 states: 'A maximal follow-up period was determined to be at 3 months.' However, Section 3 (Results) and Figure 4 report data and Kaplan-Meier survival curves extending to 5 months.

The authors declare no conflict of interest, however several authors list their affiliation as 'Research and Development Unit, Indena SpA'. Indena SpA is the manufacturer and patent holder of the specific Quercetin Phytosome delivery system tested in this trial.

Section 2.1 defines the primary endpoint as 'The termination of the participant's use of the quercetin supplement earlier than 3 months or having an active coronavirus infection' (a prevention endpoint). However, Section 3 states 'The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 17 of the infection' (a treatment efficacy endpoint).

The text in Section 3 states 'A hazard ratio of 14.04 means that subjects...', but Table 4 shows Exp(B) as 14.097. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Late treatmentRCT · 60 patients · Iran · Dec 2020 – Jan 2021
Quercetin for COVID-19
Shohan et al. European J. Pharmacology · December 2021
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Mortality
86%0.14 · 0.01–2.65
ICU admission
40%0.60 · 0.16–2.29
Time to discharge from end of intervention
32%0.68 · 0.47–0.98
00.511.52+
← Quercetin
reduces riskQuercetin
increases risk →
Faster recovery with quercetin
p = 0.039
Small RCT with 60 severe hospitalized patients in Iran, 30 treated with quercetin, showing shorter time until discharge. All patients received remdesivir or favipiravir, and vitamin C, vitamin D, famotidine, zinc, dexamethasone, and magnesium (depending on serum levels). Quercetin 1000mg daily for 7 days.

Table 1 shows the duration of symptoms before randomization was 9.43 days in the Control group and 7.77 days in the quercetin group (P=0.043). Table 1 also shows that fever at baseline was present in 50% of the control group but 80% of the quercetin group (P=0.015).

The study was unblinded, and one of the primary endpoints that achieved significance was 'time to discharge'. Hospital discharge is a subjective clinical decision. Submit Corrections or Updates.
RCT 60 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes showing quercetin treatment decreased levels of inflammatory markers (interleukin-6, CRP, ferritin), reduced length of hospital stay, and improved capillaroscopy measures compared to standard care. Quercetin was administered at 0.5g intravenously once daily for 10 days. The authors hypothesize the benefits may be due to the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and endothelium-protective effects of quercetin,

Authors explicitly used independent groups Chi-square (Pearson's) and independent groups Student's t-tests to evaluate paired before-and-after data within the exact same groups (e.g., saturation before vs after, χ² for edema before vs after).

Table 3 reports values as M±m. The reported t-test values in the text indicate 'm' was treated as the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM). However, the SEM values for the Main Group baseline parameters are very large (e.g., arterial capillary diameter 8.31 ± 1.93). For a sample size of 30, an SEM of 1.93 translates to a Standard Deviation of roughly 10.5. This suggests potential incorrect labeling or other error.

The paper provides an overall age and gender breakdown but fails to report baseline demographics per group. Submit Corrections or Updates.
RCT 200 patients in Ukraine, 99 treated with IV quercetin/polyvinylirolidone followed by oral quercetin/pectin, showing improved recovery with treatment.

The paper states 'authors have no conflict of interest to declare.' However, author M. F. Pasichnyk is listed in the affiliations block as the 'General Director of PJSC SIC Borshchahivskiy CPP'. This entity is the Ukrainian pharmaceutical company that manufactures and holds the patents/trademarks for the proprietary intravenous and oral quercetin formulations (Corvitin/Quertin) evaluated in this study.

The study was unblinded (open-label). The treatment group received daily intravenous infusions for 10 days, while the control group only received 'basic therapy' without a placebo IV. Because primary measures of efficacy included subjective symptoms like 'general weakness evaluated by VAS' and 'cough,' the lack of blinding and uneven care administration introduces potential bias.

The study lacks a CONSORT flow diagram.

Mathematical discrepancies in text versus table data.: The text states that in the main group, the average increase in D-dimer at visit 16 was 149.6 ng/ml, but calculating the difference from Table 3 means (1147.0 at visit 16 minus 1004.2 at baseline) yields 142.8 ng/ml. Similar small discrepancies exist for the other visit calculations, suggesting a potential mix-up between 'mean of differences' and 'difference of means' or improper handling of missing data points. Submit Corrections or Updates.
Appendix 1. Methods and Data
Search methods
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, which regularly receives notification of studies upon publication. Search terms are quercetin 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 quercetin 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. Studies with major unexplained data issues, for example major outcome data that is impossible to be correct with no response from the authors, are excluded.
Fig. 26. Mid-recovery results can more accurately reflect efficacy when almost all patients recover. Mateja et al. confirm that intermediate viral load results more accurately reflect hospitalization/death.
Effect extraction
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 reported then they are both used in specific outcome analyses, while mortality is used for pooled analysis. If symptomatic results are reported at multiple times, we use 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 outcomes. 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. An IPD meta-analysis confirms that intermediate viral load reduction is more closely associated with hospitalization/death than later viral load reduction403. 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.
Statistical methods
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta404 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. When results provide an odds ratio, we compute the relative risk when possible, or convert to a relative risk according to Zhang (E) et al. Reported confidence intervals and p-values are used when available, and adjusted values are used 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 1408. 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 (3.14.8) with scipy (1.18.1), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (2.5.3), statsmodels (0.15.0), and plotly (6.9.0). 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 0.8.2 is used to parse PDF documents.
When evaluating potential effect modification across groups, we use an interaction test as described by Altman (C) et al. We compared the log-transformed relative risks using a z-test, deriving the standard error of the difference from the 95% confidence intervals. A two-sided interaction p-value of < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference in treatment effect between the groups.
Quality evaluation
Cochrane RoB 2/ROBINS-I are often used to evaluate studies, and have the advantage of providing standardized rules that can be applied with minimal understanding of the domain and study. However, the rules do not account for many real-world issues, often overemphasize or underemphasize others, and studies show low inter-rater reliability416. Certain domains are more applicable for these tools, however the time-sensitive nature of a pandemic, with significant mortality for every day of delay in evidence assessment, and the characteristics of COVID-19 make them inappropriate for this domain. This can be demonstrated with examples where expert RoB 2/ROBINS-I ratings do not match reality for COVID-19. Popp et al. use RoB 2 to classify Reis et al. as low risk of bias, however this is the opposite of reality—the trial not only has very high risk of bias, but has very high actual known bias, refusing to release data despite pledging to, reporting multiple impossible numbers, having blinding and randomization failure, and many other issues418. Axfors et al. use RoB 2 to classify Horby et al. as low risk of bias, however this is the opposite of reality—the very late treatment and excessive dosage used produces results with no relevance to recommended usage. HCQ shows poor results with late treatment and excessive dosage, and the combination shows harmAQ. Hempenius et al. use ROBINS-I to classify 33 studies for HCQ. The two rated as having the lowest risk of bias414,415 are far from the most informative. Both involve very late treatment, providing no information on recommended usage, and ROBINS-I does a very poor job of accounting for the impact of confounding factorsAR.
Our quality evaluation focuses on known issues and bias, and the potential impact on outcomes, rather than just the risk of bias. The estimated potential impact of each confounding factor, and the direction of the impact is considered. For example, consider a study that shows significantly lower risk, the value of the study varies significantly if confounding points to an underestimate or an overestimate of efficacy. In one case, the real effect may be null, while the other case provides stronger evidence of efficacy (which may be greater than the study shows). Analysis focusing on the risk of bias, while simpler, may penalize studies for theoretical or technical issues that have no or minimal impact on outcomes. Analysis also depends on the outcome, for example certain issues are less relevant for objective outcomes such as mortality. Inaccurate penalization, and inaccurate high-quality evaluation in the face of known major issues affecting outcomes, increases in significance during a pandemic when immediate recognition of new evidence is critical, and when considering all global studies, as required during a pandemic. Investigators in other countries may have different customs for design, analysis, and reporting, and different English language skills, however they may not be less diligent or have greater bias. Investigators in lower-pharmaceutical-profit countries may have lower bias towards profitable interventions.
Treatment time
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 effective138,139.
Living analysis
This is a living analysis and is updated regularly. Submit updates or corrections with the form below. We received no funding, this research is done in our spare time. We have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical companies, supplement companies, governments, political parties, or advocacy organizations.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit updates and corrections at the bottom of this page.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit updates and corrections at https://c19early.org/qmeta.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.
Di Pierro, 1/13/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, mean age 47.6, 13 authors, study period December 2020 - September 2021, trial NCT04861298 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: randomization resulted in significant baseline differences that were not adjusted for.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of death, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 50 (0.0%), control 1 of 50 (2.0%), NNT 50, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of ICU admission, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 50 (0.0%), control 1 of 50 (2.0%), NNT 50, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of hospitalization, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 50 (0.0%), control 1 of 50 (2.0%), NNT 50, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of no recovery, 36.8% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.007, treatment 24 of 50 (48.0%), control 38 of 50 (76.0%), NNT 3.6, day 7.
risk of no viral clearance, 57.9% lower, RR 0.42, p < 0.001, treatment 16 of 50 (32.0%), control 38 of 50 (76.0%), NNT 2.3, mid-recovery, day 7.
risk of no viral clearance, 50.0% higher, RR 1.50, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 50 (6.0%), control 2 of 50 (4.0%), day 14.
risk of no viral clearance, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 50 (0.0%), control 1 of 50 (2.0%), NNT 50, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 21.
Di Pierro (B), 6/8/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, study period September 2020 - March 2021, trial NCT04578158 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: multiple data issues - pending author response.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of death, 85.7% lower, RR 0.14, p = 0.25, treatment 0 of 76 (0.0%), control 3 of 76 (3.9%), NNT 25, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of ICU admission, 94.1% lower, RR 0.06, p = 0.006, treatment 0 of 76 (0.0%), control 8 of 76 (10.5%), NNT 9.5, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of hospitalization, 68.2% lower, RR 0.32, p = 0.003, treatment 7 of 76 (9.2%), control 22 of 76 (28.9%), NNT 5.1.
Din Ujjan, 1/18/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period 21 September, 2021 - 21 January, 2022, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with curcumin and vitamin D) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04603690 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: combined treatments may contribute significantly to the effect seen; unadjusted differences between groups.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of no recovery, 28.6% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.11, treatment 15 of 25 (60.0%), control 21 of 25 (84.0%), NNT 4.2, no symptoms, day 7.
risk of no recovery, 71.4% lower, RR 0.29, p < 0.001, treatment 6 of 25 (24.0%), control 21 of 25 (84.0%), NNT 1.7, ≤1 symptom, day 7.
risk of no recovery, 76.9% lower, RR 0.23, p = 0.005, treatment 3 of 25 (12.0%), control 13 of 25 (52.0%), NNT 2.5, ≤2 symptoms, day 7.
risk of no recovery, 85.7% lower, RR 0.14, p = 0.23, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 3 of 25 (12.0%), NNT 8.3, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), ≤3 symptoms, day 7.
risk of no viral clearance, 90.9% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.05, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 5 of 25 (20.0%), NNT 5.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 14.
risk of no viral clearance, 73.7% lower, RR 0.26, p < 0.001, treatment 5 of 25 (20.0%), control 19 of 25 (76.0%), NNT 1.8, day 7.
Khan, 5/1/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, study period 2 September, 2021 - 28 November, 2021, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with curcumin and vitamin D) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT05130671 (history).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of no recovery, 33.3% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.15, treatment 10 of 25 (40.0%), control 15 of 25 (60.0%), NNT 5.0.
relative CRP reduction, 39.1% better, RR 0.61, p = 0.006, treatment 25, control 25.
risk of no viral clearance, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.009, treatment 10 of 25 (40.0%), control 20 of 25 (80.0%), NNT 2.5.
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.
Gérain, 6/22/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 1 April, 2021 - 29 October, 2021, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with curcumin) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04844658 (history).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of death, 67.1% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.49, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 1 of 24 (4.2%), NNT 24, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 7.
risk of death/ICU, 91.1% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.02, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 5 of 24 (20.8%), NNT 4.8, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 7.
risk of mechanical ventilation, 89.1% lower, RR 0.11, p = 0.05, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 4 of 24 (16.7%), NNT 6.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 7.
risk of ICU admission, 89.1% lower, RR 0.11, p = 0.05, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 4 of 24 (16.7%), NNT 6.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 7.
risk of no hospital discharge, 72.6% lower, RR 0.27, p = 0.07, treatment 2 of 25 (8.0%), control 7 of 24 (29.2%), NNT 4.7, day 14.
risk of no hospital discharge, 58.9% lower, RR 0.41, p = 0.02, treatment 6 of 25 (24.0%), control 14 of 24 (58.3%), NNT 2.9, day 7.
hospitalization time, 37.5% lower, relative time 0.62, p = 0.008, treatment median 5.0 IQR 4.0 n=25, control median 8.0 IQR 6.0 n=24.
relative WHO score, 50.0% better, RR 0.50, p = 0.04, treatment 22, control 24, day 7.
Shohan, 12/2/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Iran, peer-reviewed, mean age 50.9 (treatment) 52.7 (control), 8 authors, study period December 2020 - January 2021, average treatment delay 7.8 days, trial IRCT20200419047128N2.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of death, 85.7% lower, RR 0.14, p = 0.24, treatment 0 of 30 (0.0%), control 3 of 30 (10.0%), NNT 10.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm).
risk of ICU admission, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.71, treatment 3 of 30 (10.0%), control 5 of 30 (16.7%), NNT 15.
time to discharge from end of intervention, 32.4% lower, relative time 0.68, p = 0.04, treatment 30, control 30.
Tylishchak, 12/6/2024, Randomized Controlled Trial, Ukraine, peer-reviewed, 7 authors.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of no recovery, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.71, treatment 3 of 30 (10.0%), control 5 of 30 (16.7%), NNT 15, SpO2<90.
hospitalization time, 14.6% lower, relative time 0.85, p < 0.001, treatment mean 13.77 (±0.75) n=30, control mean 16.13 (±0.79) n=30.
Zupanets, 9/1/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Ukraine, peer-reviewed, 14 authors.
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of no recovery, 29.4% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.50, treatment 9 of 99 (9.1%), control 13 of 101 (12.9%), NNT 26.
recovery time, 18.2% lower, relative time 0.82, p = 0.03, treatment 99, control 101.
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.
Rondanelli, 1/4/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Italy, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, study period 12 January, 2021 - 25 May, 2021, trial NCT05037240 (history).
Submit Corrections or Updates.
 risk of symptomatic case, 92.9% lower, HR 0.07, p = 0.04, treatment 1 of 60 (1.7%), control 4 of 60 (6.7%), adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, Cox proportional risk.
Footnotes
a.
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.
b.
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.
c.
The receptor binding domain is a specific region of the spike protein that binds ACE2 and is a major target of neutralizing antibodies. Focusing on the precise binding site allows highly specific disruption of viral attachment with reduced potential for off-target effects.
d.
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.
e.
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.
f.
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.
g.
The angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein is a host cell transmembrane protein that serves as the cellular receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. ACE2 is expressed on many cell types, including epithelial cells in the lungs, and allows the virus to enter and infect host cells. Inhibition may affect ACE2's physiological function in blood pressure control.
h.
Transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is a host cell protease that primes the spike protein, facilitating cellular entry. TMPRSS2 activity helps enable cleavage of the spike protein required for membrane fusion and virus entry. Inhibition may especially protect respiratory epithelial cells, buy may have physiological effects.
i.
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.
j.
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.
k.
The endoribonuclease, also known as NendoU or nsp15, cleaves specific sequences in viral RNA which may help the virus evade detection by the host immune system. Inhibition may hinder the virus's ability to mask itself from the immune system, facilitating a stronger immune response.
l.
The NSP16/10 complex consists of non-structural proteins 16 and 10, forming a 2'-O-methyltransferase that modifies the viral RNA cap structure. This modification helps the virus evade host immune detection by mimicking host mRNA, making NSP16/10 a promising antiviral target.
m.
Cathepsin L is a host lysosomal cysteine protease that can prime the spike protein through an alternative pathway when TMPRSS2 is unavailable. Dual targeting of cathepsin L and TMPRSS2 may maximize disruption of alternative pathways for virus entry.
n.
Wingless-related integration site (Wnt) ligand 3 is a host signaling molecule that activates the Wnt signaling pathway, which is important in development, cell growth, and tissue repair. Some studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may interfere with the Wnt signaling pathway, and that Wnt3a is involved in SARS-CoV-2 entry.
o.
The frizzled (FZD) receptor is a host transmembrane receptor that binds Wnt ligands, initiating the Wnt signaling cascade. FZD serves as a co-receptor, along with ACE2, in some proposed mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The virus may take advantage of this pathway as an alternative entry route.
p.
Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 6 is a cell surface co-receptor essential for Wnt signaling. LRP6 acts in tandem with FZD for signal transduction and has been discussed as a potential co-receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry.
q.
The ezrin protein links the cell membrane to the cytoskeleton (the cell's internal support structure) and plays a role in cell shape, movement, adhesion, and signaling. Drugs that occupy the same spot on ezrin where the viral spike protein would bind may hindering viral attachment, and drug binding could further stabilize ezrin, strengthening its potential natural capacity to impede viral fusion and entry.
r.
The Adipocyte Differentiation-Related Protein (ADRP, also known as Perilipin 2 or PLIN2) is a lipid droplet protein regulating the storage and breakdown of fats in cells. SARS-CoV-2 may hijack the lipid handling machinery of host cells and ADRP may play a role in this process. Disrupting ADRP's interaction with the virus may hinder the virus's ability to use lipids for replication and assembly.
s.
Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) is a cell surface receptor with roles in blood vessel development, nerve cell guidance, and immune responses. NRP1 may function as a co-receptor for SARS-CoV-2, facilitating viral entry into cells. Blocking NRP1 may disrupt an alternative route of viral entry.
t.
EP300 (E1A Binding Protein P300) is a transcriptional coactivator involved in several cellular processes, including growth, differentiation, and apoptosis, through its acetyltransferase activity that modifies histones and non-histone proteins. EP300 facilitates viral entry into cells and upregulates inflammatory cytokine production.
u.
Prostaglandin G/H synthase 2 (PTGS2, also known as COX-2) is an enzyme crucial for the production of inflammatory molecules called prostaglandins. PTGS2 plays a role in the inflammatory response that can become severe in COVID-19 and inhibitors (like some NSAIDs) may have benefits in dampening harmful inflammation, but note that prostaglandins have diverse physiological functions.
v.
Heat Shock Protein 90 Alpha Family Class A Member 1 (HSP90AA1) is a chaperone protein that helps other proteins fold correctly and maintains their stability. HSP90AA1 plays roles in cell signaling, survival, and immune responses. HSP90AA1 may interact with numerous viral proteins, but note that it has diverse physiological functions.
w.
Matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), also called gelatinase B, is a zinc-dependent enzyme that breaks down collagen and other components of the extracellular matrix. MMP9 levels increase in severe COVID-19. Overactive MMP9 can damage lung tissue and worsen inflammation. Inhibition of MMP9 may prevent excessive tissue damage and help regulate the inflammatory response.
x.
The interleukin-6 (IL-6) pro-inflammatory cytokine (signaling molecule) has a complex role in the immune response and may trigger and perpetuate inflammation. Elevated IL-6 levels are associated with severe COVID-19 cases and cytokine storm. Anti-IL-6 therapies may be beneficial in reducing excessive inflammation in severe COVID-19 cases.
y.
The interleukin-10 (IL-10) anti-inflammatory cytokine helps regulate and dampen immune responses, preventing excessive inflammation. IL-10 levels can also be elevated in severe COVID-19. IL-10 could either help control harmful inflammation or potentially contribute to immune suppression.
z.
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A (VEGFA) promotes the growth of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) and has roles in inflammation and immune responses. VEGFA may contribute to blood vessel leakiness and excessive inflammation associated with severe COVID-19.
aa.
RELA is a transcription factor subunit of NF-kB and is a key regulator of inflammation, driving pro-inflammatory gene expression. SARS-CoV-2 may hijack and modulate NF-kB pathways.
ab.
The interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the human ACE2 receptor is a primary method of viral entry, inhibiting this interaction can prevent the virus from attaching to and entering host cells, halting infection at an early stage.
ac.
Calu-3 is a human lung adenocarcinoma cell line with moderate ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression and SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility. It provides a model of the human respiratory epithelium, but many not be ideal for modeling early stages of infection due to the moderate expression levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2.
ad.
A549 is a human lung carcinoma cell line with low ACE2 expression and SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility. Viral entry/replication can be studied but the cells may not replicate all aspects of lung infection.
ae.
HEK293-ACE2+ is a human embryonic kidney cell line engineered for high ACE2 expression and SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility.
af.
Huh-7 cells were derived from a liver tumor (hepatoma).
ag.
Caco-2 cells come from a colorectal adenocarcinoma (cancer). They are valued for their ability to form a polarized cell layer with properties similar to the intestinal lining.
ah.
Vero E6 is an African green monkey kidney cell line with low/no ACE2 expression and high SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility. The cell line is easy to maintain and supports robust viral replication, however the monkey origin may not accurately represent human responses.
ai.
mTEC is a mouse tubular epithelial cell line.
aj.
RAW264.7 is a mouse macrophage cell line.
ak.
HLMEC (Human Lung Microvascular Endothelial Cells) are primary endothelial cells derived from the lung microvasculature. They are used to study endothelial function, inflammation, and viral interactions, particularly in the context of lung infections such as SARS-CoV-2. HLMEC express ACE2 and are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, making them a relevant model for studying viral entry and endothelial responses in the lung.
al.
A mouse model expressing the human ACE2 receptor under the control of the K18 promoter.
am.
A mouse model of obesity and severe insulin resistance leading to type 2 diabetes due to a mutation in the leptin receptor gene that impairs satiety signaling.
an.
A mouse model commonly used in infectious disease and cancer research due to higher immune response and susceptibility to infection.
ao.
Monoclonal antibodies were previously included. Other treatments such as dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and baricitinib were recommended for late stage hospitalized patients.
ap.
Smoking was known to cause lung cancer since at least 1939, but this was not widely recognized in the US until 1964, 25 years later. Surgeon general Leroy Burney tried publicizing the danger starting in 1957, with limited success. Surgeon general Luther Terry, appointed in 1961, prompted by President Kennedy in 1962 amid pressure from health advocates, finally got recognition in 1964. The 1964 report reviewed 7,000+ studies, but these could (and should) have been reviewed and acted upon in real-time as they were published. Historians attribute the 25 year delay to an industry campaign to manufacture doubt and controversy, through tactics like funding biased and fraudulent research from "independent" organizations, attacking scientists, and political lobbying. The success of the industry campaign is only possible because officials did not analyze the research in detail. Fraudulent industry research supported prior failures, but would have been called out as fraudulent by officials that analyzed and understood the research in real-time.
aq.
When administered late in infection, HCQ may enhance viral egress by further increasing lysosomal pH beyond the effect of ORF3a's water channel activity, thereby promoting lysosomal exocytosis, inactivating degradative enzymes, and facilitating the release of SARS-CoV-2 particles into the extracellular environment410,411. Research also suggests potential cardioprotective effects at lower doses, but cardiotoxicity with excessive dosage412. Bobrowski et al. also indicate negative effects if HCQ and remdesivir are combined.
ar.
Peters (B) et al. is subject to confounding by calendar-time (SOC evolved rapidly early in the pandemic, the linear covariate does not reflect non-linear SOC changes and hospital specific effects), hospital type (non-treatment hospitals were tertiary university centers), confounding by indication (4/7 hospitals initiated treatment on deterioration), immortal-time bias for as-treated (exposure assigned after baseline), significant differences for other experimental treatments, potential overadjustment from collider bias (steroid use and indication bias), limited baseline severity information, differences in hospice referral propensity across hospitals, unadjusted difference in time from onset to admission, difference in PCR positivity, and other factors. Mahévas et al. is subject to confounding by hospital (treatment highly dependent on the hospital, different SOC/ICU transfer practices, not included in PS), immortal time (only partly addressed in sensitivity analysis), co-treatment differences, calendar-time (SOC evolved rapidly early in the pandemic), binary coding for age (age ≥65 despite steep age-risk gradient), residual imbalance (variables dropped from PS), a composite outcome dependent on hospital triage/capacity, and other factors.
References