An International, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Adaptive Placebo-controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of a Single Administration of Olokizumab and RPH-104 With Standard Therapy in Patients With Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)

Samsonov et al., NCT04380519, NCT04380519, Jan 2022
Late treatmentDouble-blind RCT · NCT04380519 · 248 patients · Russia
Goflikicept for COVID-19
Samsonov et al. NCT04380519 · January 2022
Outcome
Improvement
Relative Risk · 95% CI
Mortality
-135%2.35 · 0.93–5.92
Improvement 2+ points
0%1.00 · 0.64–1.55
Improvement 1+ points
3%0.97 · 0.66–1.43
00.511.52+
← Goflikicept
reduces riskGoflikicept
increases risk →
Higher mortality with goflikicept
Not statistically significant · p = 0.066
RCT 248 hospitalized patients showing higher mortality (p=0.07) with goflikicept (RPH-104).
Important missing comments or errors? Let us know.
Study covers olokizumab and goflikicept.
risk of death, 135.2% higher, RR 2.35, p = 0.07, treatment 14 of 123 (11.4%), control 6 of 124 (4.8%), day 29.
risk of no improvement 2+ points, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 30 of 124 (24.2%), control 30 of 124 (24.2%), day 29.
risk of no improvement 1+ points, 2.7% lower, RR 0.97, p = 1.00, treatment 36 of 124 (29.0%), control 37 of 124 (29.8%), NNT 124, day 29.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Samsonov et al., 24 Jan 2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Russia, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04380519 (history). Contact: sa.grishin@rpharm.ru.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org October 2026 Russia Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines USA Brazil France Italy Canada Pakistan Spain Vietnam Japan Nepal Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Germany Mexico South Korea United Kingdom Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Nigeria Taiwan Fiji Zambia Bosnia-Herzegovina Dominican Republic Bolivia Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Iceland New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel Haiti North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Russia favored low-cost treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was moderate.Low-cost treatments improve early treatment, andprovide 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 October 2026 Russia Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines USA Brazil France Italy Canada Pakistan Spain Vietnam Japan Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Germany Mexico South Korea United Kingdom Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Taiwan Fiji Zambia Dominican Rep. Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Bulgaria Greece Slovakia New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Zimbabwe Czechia Belarus Israel North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Russia favored low-cost treatments.The average efficacy was moderate.Low-cost protocols improve early treatment,and add 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