Back

Randomized controlled trials do not support efficacy of any of the tested doses of fluvoxamine in prevention of disease progression in adults with incipient non-severe COVID-19 disease: a case-study systematic review and meta-analysis

Trkulja, V.

2026-04-03 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.64898/2026.04.01.26349972 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed efficacy of higher-dose fluvoxamine (2 x 100 mg/day, as opposed to 2 x 50 mg/day) in prevention of disease deterioration in adults with mild - moderate COVID-19 disease. Objectives. Investigate whether such claims are supported by the data. Methods. Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating higher-dose fluvoxamine in this indication. Results. Seven studies declared as RCTs were identified, one of which was severely biased (open-label, non-standardized and unreported standard of care as a control), and eventually ended as non-randomized (huge attrition). Composite endpoints of deterioration in the 6 included placebo-controlled trials contained elements susceptible to error and bias. Three trials were small (<100 patients/arm), three were larger (270 - 750 patients/arm). Deaths and need for mechanical ventilation were sporadic and observed in only one trial. Hospitalizations were also sporadic in 5/6 trials. Frequentist methods generally appropriate for random-effects analysis of low number of trials with rare outcomes (generalized linear mixed models, beta-binomial or binomial-normal) greatly underestimated heterogeneity, but still did not document benefits regarding the composite endpoints or hospitalizations. Bayesian hierarchical models revealed huge heterogeneity and indicated no benefit regarding: (i) composites of deterioration, large trials OR = 0.78 (95% CrI 0.55 - 1.21); multiplicity corrected OR = 0.87 (0.64 - 1.21); (ii) hospitalizations, small trials OR = 0.88 (0.45 - 1.72); large trials OR = 0.94 (0.52 - 1.75); all trials OR = 0.81 (0.47 - 1.43). Heterogeneity was unlikely due to clinical particulars (vaccination status, treatment duration, time horizon), and more likely due to unidentified bias. Conclusions. RCTs do not support efficacy of higher-dose fluvoxamine in prevention of disease deterioration in adults with mild - moderate COVID-19 disease.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.9%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.4%
4
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.4%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
9
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
12
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
15
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
16
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
18
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
24
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
28
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
30
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%