Sunlight reduces COVID-19 risk: real-time meta analysis of 5 studies
Control
Abstract
Significantly lower risk is seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, and cases. 5 studies from 5 independent teams in 4 countries show significant
benefit.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
37% [22‑50%] lower risk. Results are similar for Randomized Controlled Trials.
Sunlight for COVID-19 — Highlights
Sunlight reduces risk with very high confidence for pooled analysis, high confidence for cases, and low confidence for mortality, hospitalization, and recovery.
34th treatment shown effective in December 2021, now with p = 0.000052 from 5 studies.
Real-time updates and corrections with a consistent protocol for 169 treatments. Outcome specific analysis and combined evidence from all studies including treatment delay, a primary confounding factor.
Figure 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 sunlight studies. The marked dates indicate the time when efficacy was known with a statistically significant improvement of ≥10% from ≥3 studies for pooled outcomes and one or more specific outcome. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 3.8 months, compared to using pooled outcomes.
Sunlight increases nitric oxide and vitamin D, and helps regulate the circadian rhythm which is important for immune health and may increase melatonin production at night. Sunlight may also directly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in the environment1.
We analyze all significant
studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes as a function of sunlight exposure.
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, and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
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.
Table 1 summarizes the results for all studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials, and for specific outcomes.
Figure 2 plots individual results by treatment stage.
Figure 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
show forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of
all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, hospitalization, recovery, and cases.
| Improvement | Studies | Patients | Authors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 37% [22‑50%] **** | 5 | 19,665 | 36 |
| Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 32% [6‑50%] * | 1 | 30 | 5 |
| Cases | 48% [11‑70%] * | 3 | 19,635 | 24 |
Figure 2. Scatter plot showing the most serious outcome in all studies. The diamond shows the results of random effects meta-analysis.
Figure 3. 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.
Figure 4. Random effects meta-analysis for mortality results.
Figure 5. Random effects meta-analysis for hospitalization.
Figure 6. Random effects meta-analysis for recovery.
Figure 7. Random effects meta-analysis for cases.
Figure 8 shows a forest plot for random
effects meta-analysis of all Randomized Controlled Trials.
RCT results are included in Table 1.
Currently there is only one RCT.
Figure 8. Random effects meta-analysis for all Randomized Controlled Trials.
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.
RCTs help to make study groups more similar and can provide a higher level of
evidence, however they are subject to many biases7, and
analysis of double-blind RCTs has identified extreme levels of bias8.
For COVID-19, the overhead may delay treatment, dramatically compromising
efficacy; they may encourage monotherapy for simplicity at the cost of
efficacy which may rely on combined or synergistic effects; the participants
that sign up may not reflect real world usage or the population that benefits
most in terms of age, comorbidities, severity of illness, or other factors;
standard of care may be compromised and unable to evolve quickly based on
emerging research for new diseases; errors may be made in randomization and
medication delivery; and investigators may have hidden agendas or vested
interests influencing design, operation, analysis, reporting, and the
potential for fraud. All of these biases have been observed with COVID-19
RCTs. There is no guarantee that a specific RCT provides a higher level of
evidence.
RCTs are expensive and many RCTs are funded
by pharmaceutical companies or interests closely aligned with pharmaceutical
companies. For COVID-19, this creates an incentive to show efficacy for
patented commercial products, and an incentive to show a lack of efficacy for
inexpensive treatments. The bias is expected to be significant, for example
Als-Nielsen et al. analyzed 370 RCTs from Cochrane reviews, showing that
trials funded by for-profit organizations were 5 times more likely to
recommend the experimental drug compared with those funded by nonprofit
organizations. For COVID-19, some major philanthropic organizations are
largely funded by investments with extreme conflicts of interest for and
against specific COVID-19 interventions.
High quality RCTs for novel acute diseases are more challenging, with
increased ethical issues due to the urgency of treatment, increased risk due
to enrollment delays, and more difficult design with a rapidly evolving
evidence base. For COVID-19, the most common site of initial infection is the
upper respiratory tract. Immediate treatment is likely to be most successful
and may prevent or slow progression to other parts of the body. For a
non-prophylaxis RCT, it makes sense to provide treatment in advance and
instruct patients to use it immediately on symptoms, just as some governments
have done by providing medication kits in advance. Unfortunately, no RCTs have
been done in this way. Every treatment RCT to date involves delayed treatment.
Among the 169 treatments we have analyzed,
67% of RCTs involve very late treatment 5+ days after
onset. No non-prophylaxis COVID-19 RCTs match the potential real-world use of
early treatments. They may more accurately represent results for treatments
that require visiting a medical facility, e.g., those requiring intravenous
administration.
RCTs have a bias against finding an effect for interventions
that are widely available — patients that believe they need the
intervention are more likely to decline participation and take the
intervention. RCTs for sunlight are more likely to enroll low-risk
participants that do not need treatment to recover, making the results less
applicable to clinical practice. This bias is likely to be greater for widely
known treatments, and may be greater when the risk of a serious outcome is
overstated. This bias does not apply to the typical pharmaceutical trial of a
new drug that is otherwise unavailable.
Evidence shows that observational studies
can also provide reliable results. Concato et al. found that well-designed
observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the
effects of treatment compared to RCTs. Anglemyer et al. analyzed reviews
comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for
significant differences in effect estimates.
We performed a similar analysis across the 169 treatments
we cover, showing no significant difference in the results of RCTs compared to
observational studies, RR 0.99 [0.93‑1.06]13. Similar results are found for all low-cost treatments, RR
1.01 [0.92‑1.11]. High-cost treatments
show a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy,
RR 0.92 [0.83‑1.03].
Details can be found in the
supplementary data.
Lee et al. showed that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious
Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Evaluation of studies relies
on an understanding of the study and potential biases. Limitations in an RCT
can outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment
delays, or remote survey bias may have a greater effect on results. Ethical
issues may also prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more
on issues with RCTs see15,16.
Currently, 53 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. Of these, 58% have been confirmed in RCTs, with a mean delay of 7.8 months (66% with 8.9 months delay for low-cost treatments). The remaining treatments either have no RCTs, or the point estimate is consistent.
We need to evaluate each trial on its own merits. RCTs for a
given medication and disease may be more reliable, however they may also be
less reliable. For off-patent medications, very high conflict of interest
trials may be more likely to be RCTs, and more likely to be large trials that
dominate meta analyses.
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
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
LĂłpez-Medina et al.
Efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of
SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by patients. Risk varies significantly across
variants18, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly
different characteristics19-22. 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 variants23,24.
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.
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.
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 sunlight as of April 2022. Efficacy is now known based on specific outcomes. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 3.8 months compared to using pooled outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
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 169
treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19.
Figure 10 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated
with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001).
Similarly, Figure 11 shows that improved recovery is very strongly associated
with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001).
Considering the extremes, Singh 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.
Figure 12 shows that improved viral clearance is strongly associated
with fewer serious outcomes. The association is very similar to
Singh et al., with higher confidence due to the larger number of
studies. As with Singh et al., the confidence increases
when excluding the outlier treatment, from p = 0.00000011 to p = 0.0000000048.
Figure 10. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Figure 11. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Figure 10. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Currently, 53 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 90% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 4.9 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 55% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 7.3 months.
Figure 13 shows when treatments were found effective during the
pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Figure 13. 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.
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 difference in treatment delay is more likely to hide efficacy.
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.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex
interplay of 100+ host and viral proteins and other
factors48-55, providing many therapeutic
targets.
Over 9,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19
risk56, either by directly
minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or
by minimizing secondary complications.
Sunlight increases nitric oxide and vitamin D, and helps regulate the circadian rhythm which is important for immune health and may increase melatonin production at night. Sunlight may also directly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in the environment1.
Figure 14 shows an overview of the results for sunlight
in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Figure 15 shows a plot
of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Figure 14.
Scatter plot showing results within the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments.
Diamonds shows the results of random effects meta-analysis.
0.6% of 9,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy57.
Figure 15. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Sunlight increases nitric oxide and vitamin D, and helps regulate the circadian rhythm which is important for immune health and may increase melatonin production at night. Sunlight may also directly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in the environment1.
Increased sun exposure reduces risk for COVID-19.
Significantly lower risk is seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, and cases. 5 studies from 5 independent teams in 4 countries show significant
benefit.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
37% [22‑50%] lower risk. Results are similar for Randomized Controlled Trials.
Analysis of UVA exposure and COVID-19 mortality in the USA, England, and Italy, showing increased UVA exposure associated with lower mortality.
Analysis of 120 COVID-19 and 120 control patients in Iraq, showing lower risk of cases with regular sunlight exposure (3 times/week).
Prospective study of 100 COVID-19 patients in South Africa, 50 with COVID-19 pneumonia and 50 asymptomatic, showing higher risk of symptomatic COVID-19 with lower exposure to sunlight, and with vitamin D deficiency. Sunlight exposure may be correlated with physical activity and may have additional benefits independent of vitamin D58.
Analysis of 39,915 patients with 1,768 COVID+ cases based on surveys in the Nurses' Health Study II, showing higher UVA/UVB exposure associated with lower risk of COVID-19 cases.
RCT 30 hospitalized COVID-19 patients investigating the effectiveness of photobiomodulation (PBM) using a vest with near-infrared LEDs (simulating part of the sunlight spectrum). The treatment group showed shorter hospitalization, significant improvement in cardiopulmonary function, and improvements in leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts post-treatment. The treatment group had higher pneumonia severity at baseline.
For more discussion see59.
For more discussion see59.
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.
Search terms are sunlight 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 sunlight for COVID-19 that report
a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis.
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.
This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.
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
both reported, the effect for mortality is used, this may be different to the
effect that a study focused on.
If symptomatic
results are reported at multiple times, we used 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 test status. 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.
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.
When results provide an odds ratio, we compute the relative risk when
possible, or convert to a relative risk according to60.
Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available,
using adjusted values 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 163.
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
(3.13.3) with
scipy (1.15.3), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (2.2.6), statsmodels (0.14.4), and plotly (6.0.1).
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta64
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.
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.
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 effective65,66.
We received no funding, this research is done in our spare
time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political
parties.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit
updates and corrections at https://c19early.org/sunmeta.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.
| Pereira, 12/5/2022, Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | hospitalization time, 31.6% lower, relative time 0.68, p = 0.02, higher sunlight exposure 15, lower sunlight exposure 15. |
| pulmonary auscultation improvement time, 37.5% lower, relative time 0.62, p < 0.001, higher sunlight exposure 15, lower sunlight exposure 15. |
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.
| Cherrie, 4/8/2021, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, study period 22 January, 2020 - 30 April, 2020, per 100kJ m–2 increase. | risk of death, 32.0% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.004, USA, England, Italy combined. |
| risk of death, 29.0% lower, RR 0.71, p < 0.001, USA. | |
| risk of death, 19.0% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.002, Italy. | |
| risk of death, 49.0% lower, RR 0.51, p < 0.001, England. | |
| Jabbar, 12/31/2021, retrospective, Iraq, peer-reviewed, 4 authors. | risk of case, 62.8% lower, OR 0.37, p < 0.001, higher sunlight exposure 43 of 120 (35.8%) cases, 72 of 120 (60.0%) controls, NNT 4.1, case control OR. |
| Kalichuran, 4/26/2022, prospective, South Africa, peer-reviewed, survey, 4 authors, study period September 2020 - February 2021. | risk of symptomatic case, 58.2% lower, RR 0.42, p = 0.004, higher sunlight exposure 21, lower sunlight exposure 79, inverted to make RR<1 favor higher sunlight exposure, higher sunlight exposure vs. lower sunlight exposure. |
| Ma, 12/3/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, study period May 2020 - March 2021. | risk of case, 23.0% lower, RR 0.77, p < 0.001, higher sunlight exposure 411 of 10,393 (4.0%), lower sunlight exposure 495 of 9,142 (5.4%), NNT 68, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, UVB, highest quartile vs. lowest quartile, model 3, table 3, multivariable. |
| risk of case, 23.1% lower, RR 0.77, p < 0.001, higher sunlight exposure 325 of 9,325 (3.5%), lower sunlight exposure 436 of 9,079 (4.8%), NNT 76, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, UVA, highest quartile vs. lowest quartile, model 3, table 3, multivariable. |
Biasin et al., UV and violet light can Neutralize SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, doi:10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100107.
Slusky et al., Sunlight and Protection Against Influenza, Economics & Human Biology, doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100942.
Schuit et al., The Influence of Simulated Sunlight on the Inactivation of Influenza Virus in Aerosols, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/infdis/jiz582.
Ruble, W., Sanitarium Treatment of Influenza Life and Health, May 1919, 34:5, documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/LH/LH19190501-V34-05.pdf.
Aguida et al., Infrared light therapy relieves TLR-4 dependent hyper-inflammation of the type induced by COVID-19, Communicative & Integrative Biology, doi:10.1080/19420889.2021.1965718.
Ratnesar-Shumate et al., Simulated Sunlight Rapidly Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa274.
Jadad et al., Randomized Controlled Trials: Questions, Answers, and Musings, Second Edition, doi:10.1002/9780470691922.
Gøtzsche, P., Bias in double-blind trials, Doctoral Thesis, University of Copenhagen, www.scientificfreedom.dk/2023/05/16/bias-in-double-blind-trials-doctoral-thesis/.
Als-Nielsen et al., Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.921.
Anglemyer et al., Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4, doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2.
Lee et al., Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines, Arch Intern Med., 2011, 171:1, 18-22, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482.
Deaton et al., Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials, Social Science & Medicine, 210, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005.
Nichol et al., Challenging issues in randomised controlled trials, Injury, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.033, www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(10)00233-0/fulltext.
LĂłpez-Medina et al., Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071.
Korves et al., SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Variants and Patient Factors Associated with Hospitalization Risk, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2024.03.08.24303818.
Faria et al., Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil, Science, doi:10.1126/science.abh2644.
Nonaka et al., SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern P.1 (Gamma) infection in young and middle-aged patients admitted to the intensive care units of a single hospital in Salvador, Northeast Brazil, February 2021, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.08.003.
Karita et al., Trajectory of viral load in a prospective population-based cohort with incident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.08.27.21262754.
Zavascki et al., Advanced ventilatory support and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 caused by Gamma (P.1) variant of concern compared to other lineages: cohort study at a reference center in Brazil, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-910467/v1.
Willett et al., The hyper-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant exhibits significant antigenic change, vaccine escape and a switch in cell entry mechanism, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.01.03.21268111.
Peacock et al., The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.12.31.474653.
Jitobaom et al., Favipiravir and Ivermectin Showed in Vitro Synergistic Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-941811/v1.
Jitobaom (B) et al., Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, doi:10.1186/s40360-022-00580-8.
Jeffreys et al., Remdesivir-ivermectin combination displays synergistic interaction with improved in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106542.
Ostrov et al., Highly Specific Sigma Receptor Ligands Exhibit Anti-Viral Properties in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cells, Pathogens, doi:10.3390/pathogens10111514.
Alsaidi et al., Griffithsin and Carrageenan Combination Results in Antiviral Synergy against SARS-CoV-1 and 2 in a Pseudoviral Model, Marine Drugs, doi:10.3390/md19080418.
Andreani et al., In vitro testing of combined hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect, Microbial Pathogenesis, doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104228.
De Forni et al., Synergistic drug combinations designed to fully suppress SARS-CoV-2 in the lung of COVID-19 patients, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276751.
Wan et al., Synergistic inhibition effects of andrographolide and baicalin on coronavirus mechanisms by downregulation of ACE2 protein level, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54722-5.
Said et al., The effect of Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 supplementation on the clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1011522.
Fiaschi et al., In Vitro Combinatorial Activity of Direct Acting Antivirals and Monoclonal Antibodies against the Ancestral B.1 and BQ.1.1 SARS-CoV-2 Viral Variants, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16020168.
Xing et al., Published anti-SARS-CoV-2 in vitro hits share common mechanisms of action that synergize with antivirals, Briefings in Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bib/bbab249.
Chen et al., Synergistic Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Replication Using Disulfiram/Ebselen and Remdesivir, ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science, doi:10.1021/acsptsci.1c00022.
Hempel et al., Synergistic inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 cell entry by otamixaban and covalent protease inhibitors: pre-clinical assessment of pharmacological and molecular properties, Chemical Science, doi:10.1039/D1SC01494C.
Schultz et al., Pyrimidine inhibitors synergize with nucleoside analogues to block SARS-CoV-2, Nature, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04482-x.
Ohashi et al., Potential anti-COVID-19 agents, cepharanthine and nelfinavir, and their usage for combination treatment, iScience, doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102367.
Al Krad et al., The protease inhibitor Nirmatrelvir synergizes with inhibitors of GRP78 to suppress SARS-CoV-2 replication, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2025.03.09.642200.
Thairu et al., A Comparison of Ivermectin and Non Ivermectin Based Regimen for COVID-19 in Abuja: Effects on Virus Clearance, Days-to-discharge and Mortality, Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, doi:10.9734/jpri/2022/v34i44A36328.
Singh et al., The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkae045.
Gong et al., Natural and socio-environmental factors in the transmission of COVID-19: a comprehensive analysis of epidemiology and mechanisms, BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19749-3.
Limaheluw et al., Associations between meteorological factors and COVID-19: a global scoping review, Frontiers in Public Health, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1183706.
Seheult, R., The Case for Sunlight in COVID 19 Patients: Oxidative Stress, MedCram, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zzo4SJopcY&t=268s.
Erem et al., Vitamin D-independent benefits of safe sunlight exposure, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2021.105957.
Sharun et al., COVID-19 and sunlight: Impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality, Annals of Medicine and Surgery, doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102419.
Dugied et al., Multimodal SARS-CoV-2 interactome sketches the virus-host spatial organization, Communications Biology, doi:10.1038/s42003-025-07933-z.
Malone et al., Structures and functions of coronavirus replication–transcription complexes and their relevance for SARS-CoV-2 drug design, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00432-z.
Murigneux et al., Proteomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 particles unveils a key role of G3BP proteins in viral assembly, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44958-0.
Lv et al., Host proviral and antiviral factors for SARS-CoV-2, Virus Genes, doi:10.1007/s11262-021-01869-2.
Lui et al., Nsp1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 replication through calcineurin-NFAT signaling, Virology, doi:10.1128/mbio.00392-24.
Niarakis et al., Drug-target identification in COVID-19 disease mechanisms using computational systems biology approaches, Frontiers in Immunology, doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1282859.
Katiyar et al., SARS-CoV-2 Assembly: Gaining Infectivity and Beyond, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16111648.
Wu et al., Decoding the genome of SARS-CoV-2: a pathway to drug development through translation inhibition, RNA Biology, doi:10.1080/15476286.2024.2433830.
Zhang et al., What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, JAMA, 80:19, 1690, doi:10.1001/jama.280.19.1690.
Altman (B) et al., How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value, BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090.
Sweeting et al., What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761.
Treanor et al., Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016.
McLean et al., Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial, Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100.
Pereira et al., Cardiopulmonary and hematological effects of infrared LED photobiomodulation in the treatment of SARS-COV2, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, doi:10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2022.112619.
Cherrie et al., Ultraviolet A radiation and COVID-19 deaths in the USA with replication studies in England and Italy, British Journal of Dermatology, doi:10.1111/bjd.20093.
Jabbar et al., Vitamin D Serum Levels and Its Association With COVID 19 Infection In Babylon Governorate, Iraq, Natural Volatiles & Essential Oils, 8:4, www.nveo.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1046.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
c19early involves the extraction of 100,000+ 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.