c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchCOVID-19 treatments

A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of ATYR1923 In Adult Patients With Severe Pneumonia Related to SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)

Walker et al., NCT04412668, NCT04412668, Oct 2020
Late treatmentDouble-blind RCT · NCT04412668 · 32 patients · USA
Efzofitimod for COVID-19
Walker et al. NCT04412668 · October 2020
Longer hospitalization with efzofitimod
Not statistically significant · p = 0.53
RCT 32 hospitalized COVID-19 patients showing no significant differences with efzofitimod.
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.
OutcomeImprovementEffect · pTreatmentControl
risk of death 290.9% higher · RR 3.91 · p = 1.00 290.9% higherRR 3.91p = 1.00 2 of 22 (9.1%) 0 of 10 (0.0%) treatment 2 of 22 (9.1%), control 0 of 10 (0.0%)continuity correction due to zero events
hospitalization time 24.4% higher · relative time 1.24 · p = 0.53 24.4% higherrelative time 1.24p = 0.53 12 10 treatment 12, control 10both arms
hospitalization time 22.2% higher · relative time 1.22 · p = 0.58 22.2% higherrelative time 1.22p = 0.58 5.5 [2.0-6.0] n=12 4.5 [1.0-7.0] n=10 treatment 5.5 [2.0-6.0] n=12, control 4.5 [1.0-7.0] n=10
hospitalization time 55.6% higher · relative time 1.56 · p = 0.74 55.6% higherrelative time 1.56p = 0.74 7.0 [3.0-31.0] n=10 4.5 [1.0-7.0] n=10 treatment 7.0 [3.0-31.0] n=10, control 4.5 [1.0-7.0] n=10
risk of no recovery 11.1% higher · RR 1.11 · p = 1.00 11.1% higherRR 1.11p = 1.00 2 of 18 (11.1%) 1 of 10 (10.0%) treatment 2 of 18 (11.1%), control 1 of 10 (10.0%)both armsday 28
risk of no recovery 16.7% lower · RR 0.83 · p = 1.00 16.7% lowerRR 0.83p = 1.00 1 of 12 (8.3%) 1 of 10 (10.0%) treatment 1 of 12 (8.3%), control 1 of 10 (10.0%)3 mg/kgNNT 60day 28
risk of no recovery 66.7% higher · RR 1.67 · p = 1.00 66.7% higherRR 1.67p = 1.00 1 of 6 (16.7%) 1 of 10 (10.0%) treatment 1 of 6 (16.7%), control 1 of 10 (10.0%)1 mg/kgday 28
risk of no recovery 6.7% higher · RR 1.07 · p = 1.00 6.7% higherRR 1.07p = 1.00 2 of 15 (13.3%) 1 of 8 (12.5%) treatment 2 of 15 (13.3%), control 1 of 8 (12.5%)both armsday 14
risk of no recovery 20.0% lower · RR 0.80 · p = 1.00 20.0% lowerRR 0.80p = 1.00 1 of 10 (10.0%) 1 of 8 (12.5%) treatment 1 of 10 (10.0%), control 1 of 8 (12.5%)3 mg/kgNNT 40day 14
risk of no recovery 60.0% higher · RR 1.60 · p = 1.00 60.0% higherRR 1.60p = 1.00 1 of 5 (20.0%) 1 of 8 (12.5%) treatment 1 of 5 (20.0%), control 1 of 8 (12.5%)1 mg/kgday 14

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates.

Walker et al., 23 Oct 2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04412668 (history). Contact: clinicaltrials@atyrpharma.com.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org November 2026 USA Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines Vietnam Japan Argentina 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 Jordan Georgia Switzerland Dominican Republic Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Iceland New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel Haiti North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia USA favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment, andforgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19treatment protocols worldwide c19early.org November 2026 USA Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines Vietnam Japan Argentina 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 Taiwan Fiji Zambia Jordan Georgia Switzerland Dominican Rep. Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Sri Lanka Bulgaria Greece Slovakia New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia 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