Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Arbidol against COVID-19: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
View through CrossRef
Objective: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of
Arbidol (Umifenovir) in COVID-19. Methods: A comprehensive systematic
search of the evidence was carried out in PubMed, Cochran library,
Embase, and Medrxiv up to October 1, 2020. The Cochrane risk of bias
tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist were used for assessing the
quality of studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan (version
5.3). Results: Fifteen studies were met for the inclusion. No
significant difference was observed between Arbidol and control groups
in terms of primary outcomes, including negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on
7 days (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; P=0.37) and 14 days (RR: 1.10;P=0.17),
negative conversion time (NCT) (mean difference [MD]: 0.74; P=0.37),
and as well as secondary outcomes (P<0.05). Compared with
LPV/r, Arbidol showed a better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on 14 days
(P=0.02). In contrast, NCT in LPV/r was higher (P=0.007). However, not
significant difference was found in terms of NR-PCR on 7 days (P=0.05).
Adding Arbidol to LPV/r was led to a better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR
on 7 days and NCT (P<0.05). Nevertheless, it was not
significant reading NR-PCR on 14 days (P=0.99). There is no significant
difference Arbidol vs. Interferon /Arbidol and IFN/Arbidol vs.
Interferon (P<0.05). Conclusion: Arbidol was not superior to
control against COVID-19. Additionally, not major treatment effect was
found compared with other therapeutic agents. There are needed
well-designed studies with large sample size to establish on efficacy
and safety of Arbidol.
Title: Arbidol against COVID-19: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Description:
Objective: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of
Arbidol (Umifenovir) in COVID-19.
Methods: A comprehensive systematic
search of the evidence was carried out in PubMed, Cochran library,
Embase, and Medrxiv up to October 1, 2020.
The Cochrane risk of bias
tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist were used for assessing the
quality of studies.
Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan (version
5.
3).
Results: Fifteen studies were met for the inclusion.
No
significant difference was observed between Arbidol and control groups
in terms of primary outcomes, including negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on
7 days (risk ratio [RR] 0.
89; P=0.
37) and 14 days (RR: 1.
10;P=0.
17),
negative conversion time (NCT) (mean difference [MD]: 0.
74; P=0.
37),
and as well as secondary outcomes (P<0.
05).
Compared with
LPV/r, Arbidol showed a better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on 14 days
(P=0.
02).
In contrast, NCT in LPV/r was higher (P=0.
007).
However, not
significant difference was found in terms of NR-PCR on 7 days (P=0.
05).
Adding Arbidol to LPV/r was led to a better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR
on 7 days and NCT (P<0.
05).
Nevertheless, it was not
significant reading NR-PCR on 14 days (P=0.
99).
There is no significant
difference Arbidol vs.
Interferon /Arbidol and IFN/Arbidol vs.
Interferon (P<0.
05).
Conclusion: Arbidol was not superior to
control against COVID-19.
Additionally, not major treatment effect was
found compared with other therapeutic agents.
There are needed
well-designed studies with large sample size to establish on efficacy
and safety of Arbidol.
Related Results
Dynamic Systematic Benefit Risk Analysis of Antiviral Drug Combination of Lopinavir - Ritonavir for Covid-19 Patient
Dynamic Systematic Benefit Risk Analysis of Antiviral Drug Combination of Lopinavir - Ritonavir for Covid-19 Patient
High-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. Lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol have been previously used to treat acute respiratory syndrome- coronavi...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Burden of the Beast
Burden of the Beast
Introduction
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and its fluctuating waves of infections and the emergence of new variants, Indigenous populations in Australia and worldwide have re...
Hemagglutinin stability determines influenza A virus susceptibility to a broad-spectrum fusion inhibitor Arbidol
Hemagglutinin stability determines influenza A virus susceptibility to a broad-spectrum fusion inhibitor Arbidol
Abstract
Understanding mechanisms of resistance to antiviral inhibitors can reveal nuanced features of targeted viral mechanisms and, in turn, lead to improved stra...
Favipiravir versus Arbidol for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Favipiravir versus Arbidol for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
Background
No clinically proven effective antiviral strategy exists for the epidemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-1...
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) surface glycoproteins, including shared epitope motifs, sho...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...

