The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8th, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2nd, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. RESULTS: Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR = 1.60, p = 0.02), defervescence at day 3-4 (RR = 1.99, p <0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR = 1.33, p <0.01), hospital discharge at day 10-11 (RR = 1.19, p <0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD = -1.18, p = 0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR = 9.42, p <0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR = 1.35, p <0.01) but lower rates of nausea (RR = 0.42, p <0.01) and vomiting (R R= 0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR = 1.11, p = 0.25). On nonhospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.

How primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to aid safe prescribing in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Background: We systematically reviewed the evidence on how primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to support decision-making for prescribing in low and lower middle-income countries. Methods: We searched electronic databases, consulted the Healthcare Information For All network, hand searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies and emailed authors of identified papers. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised quality with relevant tools. Results: Of 60 497 records found, 23 studies met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were observational and nine were interventional. Frequently mentioned sources of information were books, leaflets, guidelines, aids and the internet. These sources were sometimes out of date and health workers reported being confused which to use. Internet access varied and even when it was available, use was limited by technical issues. Of the five electronic tools that were assessed, four had positive outcomes. Tools assisted prescribers with medicine selection and dosage calculations, which increased prescribing accuracy. The quality of reporting varied but was overall low. Discussion: Studies indicated a lack of up-to-date and relevant medicine information in low and lower middle-income settings. Internet-based sources appeared to be useful when it is possible to download content for offline use and to update when there is internet access. Electronic tools showed promise, but their accuracy needs to be validated and they should focus on giving actionable advice to guide prescribers. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091088.