Safety analysis of Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil after market approval: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Amidst limited influenza treatment options, evaluating the safety of Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil is crucial, particularly given their comparable efficacy. This study investigates post-market safety profiles, exploring adverse events (AEs) and their drug associations to provide essential clinical references. METHODS: A meticulous analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data spanning the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2022 was conducted. Using data mining techniques like reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio, Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network, and Multiple Gamma Poisson Shrinkage, AEs related to Oseltamivir and Baloxavir Marboxil were examined. Venn analysis compared and selected specific AEs associated with each drug. RESULTS: Incorporating 15,104 Oseltamivir cases and 1,594 Baloxavir Marboxil cases, Wain analysis unveiled 21 common AEs across neurological, psychiatric, gastrointestinal, dermatological, respiratory, and infectious domains. Oseltamivir exhibited 221 significantly specific AEs, including appendicolith [ROR (95% CI), 459.53 (340.88 ∼ 619.47)], acne infantile [ROR (95% CI, 368.65 (118.89 ∼ 1143.09)], acute macular neuroretinopathy [ROR (95% CI), 294.92 (97.88 ∼ 888.64)], proctitis [ROR (95% CI), 245.74 (101.47 ∼ 595.31)], and Purpura senile [ROR (95% CI), 154.02 (81.96 ∼ 289.43)]. designated adverse events (DMEs) associated with Oseltamivir included fulminant hepatitis [ROR (95% CI), 12.12 (8.30-17.72), n=27], ventricular fibrillation [ROR (95% CI), 7.68 (6.01-9.83), n=64], toxic epidermal necrolysis [ROR (95% CI), 7.21 (5.74-9.05), n=75]. Baloxavir Marboxil exhibited 34 specific AEs, including Melaena [ROR (95% CI), 21.34 (14.15-32.18), n = 23], cystitis haemorrhagic [ROR (95% CI), 20.22 (7.57-54.00), n = 4], ileus paralytic [ROR (95% CI), 18.57 (5.98-57.71), n = 3], and haemorrhagic diathesis [ROR (95% CI), 16.86 (5.43-52.40)), n = 3]. DMEs associated with Baloxavir Marboxil included rhabdomyolysis [ROR (95% CI), 15.50 (10.53 ∼ 22.80), n = 26]. CONCLUSION: Monitoring fulminant hepatitis during Oseltamivir treatment, especially in patients with liver-related diseases, is crucial. Oseltamivir's potential to induce abnormal behavior, especially in adolescents, necessitates special attention. Baloxavir Marboxil, with lower hepatic toxicity, emerges as a potential alternative for patients with liver diseases. During Baloxavir Marboxil treatment, focused attention on the occurrence of rhabdomyolysis is advised, necessitating timely monitoring of relevant indicators for those with clinical manifestations. The comprehensive data aims to provide valuable insights for clinicians and healthcare practitioners, facilitating an understanding of the safety profiles of these influenza treatments in real-world scenarios.

Phase 1/2 multicenter trial of acalabrutinib in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Acalabrutinib studies have limited Asian participation. This phase 1/2 study (NCT03932331) assessed acalabrutinib in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Primary endpoint was blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Overall, 34 patients were enrolled. Most patients were men (88%); median age was 63 years and 59% had ≥3 prior treatments. Median treatment duration was 14 months (range, 1-24). Any-grade adverse events (AEs) and grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 85.3% and 44.1% of patients, respectively. AEs causing treatment discontinuation were aplastic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal infection (n = 1 each). Fatal AEs occurred in 2 patients (aplastic anemia and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome [n = 1 each]). BICR-assessed ORR was 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65.5, 93.2); 12 (35.3%) patients achieved complete response. Estimated 12-month OS was 84.5% (95% CI: 66.6, 93.3). Acalabrutinib yielded tolerable safety and high response rates in Chinese patients with R/R MCL.

Molnupiravir versus favipiravir in at-risk outpatients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial in Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir and favipiravir in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial in Thailand, participants with moderate COVID-19 and at least one factor associated with severe COVID-19 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral molnupiravir or oral favipiravir (standard of care). Phone calls for remote symptom assessment were made on Days 6, 15, and 29. Participants with worsening symptoms were instructed to return to the hospital. The primary endpoint was pulmonary involvement by Day 29, as evidenced by ≥2 of the following: dyspnea, oxygen saturation <92% or imaging. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-seven participants (487 molnupiravir, 490 favipiravir) were enrolled from 8 July 2022 to 19 January 2023. 98% had received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 83% ≥3 doses. By Day 29, pulmonary involvement occurred in 0% (0/483) in molnupiravir arm versus 1% (5/482) in favipiravir arm (-1.0%; Newcombe 95.2% CI: -2.4% to -0.0%; P = 0.021); all-cause death in 0% (0/483) and <1% (1/482); COVID-19 related hospitalization in <1% (1/483) and 1% (3/482); treatment-related adverse event in 1% (5/483) and 1% (4/486); and serious adverse event in 1% (4/483) and 1% (4/486). CONCLUSIONS: Favipiravir and molnupiravir had a similar efficacy and safety profile. Whether either of the two reduced the risk of complications during the omicron era in this population with a low risk of pulmonary involvement and a high vaccine coverage remains unclear. There were no differences in any of the safety endpoints. THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY ID: TCTR20230111009.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Impact of different sequential triple oral combination therapies based selexipag on outcomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: While the GRIPHON study and others have confirmed the efficacy and safety of selexipag with single, dual, and initial triple combination therapy for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), multicenters studies concerning diverse triple oral combination therapies based on selexipag are limited. HYPOTHESIS: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of various sequential triple oral combination therapies on PAH outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out involving 192 patients from 10 centers, who were receiving sequential triple oral combination therapy consisting of an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i)/riociguat and selexipag. Clinical parameters, event-free survival, and all-cause survival were assessed and analyzed at baseline and posttreatment. RESULTS: Among the 192 patients, 37 were treated with ERA + riociguat + selexipag, and 155 patients received ERA + PDE5i + selexipag. Both sequential triple oral combination therapies improved the World Health Organization functional class and raised the count of low-risk parameters. As a result of the larger patients' population in the ERA + PDE5i + selexipag group, these individuals exhibited significant increases in 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, pulmonary arterial pressure, right ventricle, and eccentricity index, and significant decreases in N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide after 6 months of treatment. Nevertheless, both sequential triple oral combination therapy groups demonstrated similar shifts in these clinical parameters between baseline and 6 months. Baseline 6MWD and mean pulmonary arterial pressure were independent predictors of survival in patients undergoing ERA + PDE5i + selexipag therapy. Importantly, no significant differences were found in 6-month event-free survival and all-cause survival between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Different oral sequential triple combination therapies based on selexipag could comparably improve outcomes in patients with PAH.

Azacitidine, Venetoclax, and Gilteritinib in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed or Refractory FLT3-Mutated AML.

PURPOSE: Azacitidine plus venetoclax is a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy. However, FLT3 mutations are a common mechanism of resistance to this regimen. The addition of gilteritinib, an oral FLT3 inhibitor, to azacitidine and venetoclax may improve outcomes in patients with FLT3-mutated AML. METHODS: This phase I/II study evaluated azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib in two cohorts: patients with (1) newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML who were unfit for intensive chemotherapy or (2) relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated AML (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04140487). The primary end points were the maximum tolerated dose of gilteritinib (phase I) and the combined complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate (phase II). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled (frontline [n = 30]; relapsed/refractory [n = 22]). The recommended phase II dose was gilteritinib 80 mg once daily in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax. In the frontline cohort, the median age was 71 years and 73% of patients had an FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation. The CR/CRi rate was 96% (CR, 90%; CRi, 6%). Sixty-five percent of evaluable patients achieved FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease <5 × 10-5 within four cycles. With a median follow-up of 19.3 months, the median relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) have not been reached and the 18-month RFS and OS rates are 71% and 72%, respectively. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the CR/CRi rate was 27%; nine additional patients (41%) achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state. The most common grade 3 or higher nonhematologic adverse events were infection (62%) and febrile neutropenia (38%), which were more frequent in the relapsed/refractory cohort. CONCLUSION: The combination of azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib resulted in high rates of CR/CRi, deep FLT3 molecular responses, and encouraging survival in newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Myelosuppression was manageable with mitigative dosing strategies.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of low, medium, and high dosages of selexipag for treating pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk stratification of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Studies assessing PAH risk stratification indices, such as the World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, right atrial pressure (RAP), cardiac index (CI) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Selexipag led to improvements in the 6MWD (MD: 24.20 m, 95% CI: 10.74-37.67), NT-proBNP (SMD: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.79-0.04), CI (MD: 0.47 L/min/m2, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.564, 95% CI: 0.457-0.697). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that all three dosages improved the 6MWD. A moderate dosage led to improvements in the CI (MD: 0.30 L/min/m2, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.589, 95% CI: 0.376-0.922). Within 6 months of treatment, only the WHO-FC and CI were significantly improved (OR: 0.614, 95% CI: 0.380-0.993; MD: 0.30 L/min/m2, 95% CI: 0.16-0.45, respectively). More than 6 months of treatment significantly improved the 6MWD, WHO-FC and NT-proBNP (MD: 40.87 m, 95% CI: 10.97-70.77; OR: 0.557, 95% CI: 0.440-0.705; SMD: -0.61, 95% CI: -1.17-0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Low, medium, and high dosages of selexipag all exhibited good effects. When treatment lasted for more than 6 months, selexipag exerted obvious effects, even in the low-dosage group. This finding is important for guiding individualized treatments.

A phase II study of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibition for the prevention of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUNDIgE-mediated anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction for which there are no currently FDA-approved preventative therapies. Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an essential enzyme for IgE-mediated signaling pathways and is an ideal pharmacologic target to prevent allergic reactions. In this open-label trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of acalabrutinib, a BTK inhibitor that is FDA approved to treat some B cell malignancies, in preventing clinical reactivity to peanut in adults with peanut allergy.METHODSAfter undergoing graded oral peanut challenge to establish their baseline level of clinical reactivity, 10 patients had a 6-week rest period, then received 4 standard doses of 100 mg acalabrutinib twice daily and underwent repeat food challenge. The primary endpoint was the change in patients' threshold dose of peanut protein to elicit an objective clinical reaction.RESULTSAt baseline, patients tolerated a median of 29 mg of peanut protein before objective clinical reaction. During subsequent food challenge on acalabrutinib, patients' median tolerated dose significantly increased to 4,044 mg (range 444-4,044 mg). 7 patients tolerated the maximum protocol amount (4,044 mg) of peanut protein with no clinical reaction, and the other 3 patients' peanut tolerance increased between 32- and 217-fold. 3 patients experienced a total of 4 adverse events that were considered to be possibly related to acalabrutinib; all events were transient and nonserious.CONCLUSIONAcalabrutinib pretreatment achieved clinically relevant increases in patients' tolerance to their food allergen, thereby supporting the need for larger, placebo-controlled trials.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT05038904FUNDINGAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, the Ludwig Family Foundation, and NIH grants AI143965 and AI106043.

Gilteritinib-induced severe immune-related enteritis: a possible case report.

Gilteritinib is currently approved in China for relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia, and it is very important to monitor and report its adverse drug reaction (ADR) after post-marketing. This case report describes a patient who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia harboring FLT3 mutations and developed a severe suspected immune-related enteritis during treatment with gilteritinib for maintenance therapy following allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. According to the Naranjo probability scale, gilteritinib was defined as a 'possible' cause of ADR. Another suspicious inducement, graft-versus-host disease, can not be eluted and might represent a limitation in this case. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on gilteritinib-induced severe enteritis and will help physicians to keep vigilant, and detect and deal with time for possible ADR.

A Phase 1 Study to Evaluate Absolute Bioavailability and Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion of Savolitinib in Healthy Male Volunteers.

Savolitinib is an oral MET (hepatocyte growth factor receptor) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with demonstrated preliminary efficacy in several cancer types. Previous pharmacokinetics assessments showed that savolitinib is rapidly absorbed but there are limited data on the absolute bioavailability and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of savolitinib. This open-label, two-part, phase 1 clinical study (NCT04675021) used a radiolabeled micro-tracer approach to evaluate absolute bioavailability and a traditional approach to determine the ADME of savolitinib in healthy male adult volunteers (N = 8). Pharmacokinetics, safety, and metabolic profiling and structural identification from plasma, urine, and fecal samples were also assessed. Volunteers received a single oral savolitinib 600 mg dose followed by intravenous 100 µg of [14 C]savolitinib in Part 1 and a single oral 300 mg [14 C]savolitinib dose (≤4.1 MBq [megabecquerel] [14 C]) in Part 2. Following Part 1, absolute oral bioavailability was 69%, the median time of maximum observed concentration was 3.5 hours, and the mean terminal half-life was 6.1 hours. Following Part 2, 94% of the radioactivity administered was recovered, with 56% and 38% in urine and feces, respectively. Exposure to savolitinib and metabolites M8, M44, M2, and M3 accounted for 22%, 36%, 13%, 7%, and 2%, respectively, of plasma total radioactivity. Approximately 3% of the dose was excreted as unchanged savolitinib in urine. Most savolitinib elimination occurred via metabolism by several different pathways. No new safety signals were observed. Our data show that the oral bioavailability of savolitinib is high and the majority of savolitinib elimination occurs via metabolism and is excreted in the urine.

Bioequivalence and Relative Bioavailability Studies to Assess a New Acalabrutinib Formulation That Enables Coadministration With Proton-Pump Inhibitors.

Acalabrutinib is a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor approved to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or previously treated mantle cell lymphoma. As the bioavailability of the acalabrutinib capsule (AC) depends on gastric pH for solubility and is impaired by acid-suppressing therapies, coadministration with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) is not recommended. Three studies in healthy subjects (N = 30, N = 66, N = 20) evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics (PDs), safety, and tolerability of acalabrutinib maleate tablet (AT) formulated with pH-independent release. Subjects were administered AT or AC (orally, fasted state), AT in a fed state, or AT in the presence of a PPI, and AT or AC via nasogastric (NG) route. Acalabrutinib exposures (geometric mean [% coefficient of variation, CV]) were comparable for AT versus AC (AUCinf 567.8 ng h/mL [36.9] vs 572.2 ng h/mL [38.2], Cmax 537.2 ng/mL [42.6] vs 535.7 ng/mL [58.4], respectively); similar results were observed for acalabrutinib's active metabolite (ACP-5862) and for AT-NG versus AC-NG. The geometric mean Cmax for acalabrutinib was lower when AT was administered in the fed versus the fasted state (Cmax 255.6 ng/mL [%CV, 46.5] vs 504.9 ng/mL [49.9]); AUCs were similar. For AT + PPI, geometric mean Cmax was lower (371.9 ng/mL [%CV, 81.4] vs 504.9 ng/mL [49.9]) and AUCinf was higher (AUCinf 694.1 ng h/mL [39.7] vs 559.5 ng h/mL [34.6]) than AT alone. AT and AC were similar in BTK occupancy. Most adverse events were mild with no new safety concerns. Acalabrutinib formulations were comparable and AT could be coadministered with PPIs, food, or via NG tube without affecting the PKs or PDs.

Phase 3 trial of gilteritinib plus azacitidine vs azacitidine for newly diagnosed FLT3mut+ AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Treatment results for patients with newly diagnosed FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)-mutated (FLT3mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy are disappointing. This multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial randomized (2:1) untreated adults with FLT3mut+ AML ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy to receive gilteritinib (120 mg/d orally) and azacitidine (GIL + AZA) or azacitidine (AZA) alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). At the interim analysis (August 26, 2020), a total of 123 patients were randomized to treatment (GIL + AZA, n = 74; AZA, n = 49). Subsequent AML therapy, including FLT3 inhibitors, was received by 20.3% (GIL + AZA) and 44.9% (AZA) of patients. Median OS was 9.82 (GIL + AZA) and 8.87 (AZA) months (hazard ratio, 0.916; 95% CI, 0.529-1.585; P = .753). The study was closed based on the protocol-specified boundary for futility. Median event-free survival was 0.03 month in both arms. Event-free survival defined by using composite complete remission (CRc) was 4.53 months for GIL + AZA and 0.03 month for AZA (hazard ratio, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.433-1.087; P = .156). CRc rates were 58.1% (GIL + AZA) and 26.5% (AZA) (difference, 31.4%; 95% CI, 13.1-49.7; P < .001). Adverse event (AE) rates were similar for GIL + AZA (100%) and AZA (95.7%); grade ≥3 AEs were 95.9% and 89.4%, respectively. Common AEs with GIL + AZA included pyrexia (47.9%) and diarrhea (38.4%). Gilteritinib steady-state trough concentrations did not differ between GIL + AZA and gilteritinib. GIL + AZA resulted in significantly higher CRc rates, although similar OS compared with AZA. Results support the safety/tolerability and clinical activity of upfront therapy with GIL + AZA in older/unfit patients with FLT3mut+ AML. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02752035.

Favipiravir-based treatment for outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with mild-to-critical COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs published before 30 October 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir -based antiviral regimens (study group) with other alternative treatments or placebos (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: Overall, the clinical improvement rate was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 14 days (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.12-2.98). The rate of virological eradication was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 28 days (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.15-3.78). No significant difference was observed in the rates of invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or ICU admission, mortality, or risk of an adverse event between the study and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Except the clinical improvement rate within 14 days and the virological eradication rate within 28 days, favipiravir-based treatment did not provide significantly additional benefit for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, more evidence is necessary.