A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of SIR1-365 in Patients With Severe COVID-19

Qu et al., NCT04622332, NCT04622332, Nov 2021
Recovery, days withou.. -88% improvement lower risk ← → higher risk SIR1-365 for COVID-19  Qu et al.  LATE TREATMENT RCT Is late treatment with SIR1-365 beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 45 patients in the USA Worse recovery with SIR1-365 (not stat. sig., p=0.44) c19early.org Qu et al., NCT04622332, November 2021 0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ RR
Pilot RCT 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients showing no significant differences with SIR1-365 treatment. foo
Standard of Care (SOC) for COVID-19 in the study country, the USA, is very poor with very low average efficacy for approved treatments1. Only expensive, high-profit treatments were approved for early treatment. Low-cost treatments were excluded, reducing the probability of early treatment due to access and cost barriers, and eliminating complementary and synergistic benefits seen with many low-cost treatments.
Important missing comments or errors? Let us know.
risk of no recovery, 87.5% higher, RR 1.88, p = 0.44, treatment median 1.6 range 0.0-27.7 n=23, control median 3.0 range 0.0-22.0 n=19, relative days without oxygen, day 28.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Qu et al., 27 Nov 2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04622332 (history). Contact: Lisa.Fitzgerald@sironax.com.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org December 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Bosnia-Herzegovina Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore Iceland New Zealand Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago Hong Kong North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia CAR USA favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment, andforgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19treatment protocols worldwide c19early.org December 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore New Zealand Malawi Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia Syria USA favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment,and forgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
Late treatment
is less effective
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. c19early involves the extraction of 200,000+ datapoints from thousands of papers. Community updates help ensure high accuracy. Treatments and other interventions are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. IMA and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit    
Post
Share
@CovidAnalysis
FAQ
Public domain CC0 1.0