Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review finds no benefit of higher-dose fluvoxamine for preventing deterioration in mild-moderate COVID-19

Systematic review finds no benefit of higher-dose fluvoxamine for preventing deterioration in mild-m…
Photo by Zulfugar Karimov / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider that higher-dose fluvoxamine showed no benefit for preventing deterioration in mild-moderate COVID-19.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of higher-dose fluvoxamine (2 x 100 mg/day) compared with placebo for preventing disease deterioration in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Seven studies were identified as RCTs, though one was eventually classified as non-randomized due to severe bias, including unreported standard of care and huge attrition. Six trials remained placebo-controlled.

The pooled analysis of composite deterioration showed no benefit, with an odds ratio of 0.78 (95% CrI 0.55 - 1.21). Multiplicity correction yielded an OR of 0.87 (0.64 - 1.21). Subgroup analyses for hospitalizations across small trials (OR = 0.88, 95% CrI 0.45 - 1.72), large trials (OR = 0.94, 95% CrI 0.52 - 1.75), and all trials combined (OR = 0.81, 95% CrI 0.47 - 1.43) also indicated no benefit.

The authors note that heterogeneity was unlikely due to clinical factors like vaccination status but more likely due to unidentified bias. Composite endpoints were susceptible to error. Safety data, including adverse events and discontinuations, were not reported. Given these limitations and the lack of demonstrated efficacy, the practice relevance remains uncertain.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 100
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original 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.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.