Hyeonji Seo1, Yong Pil Chong2. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. drchong@amc.seoul.kr.
Dear Editor:We are grateful for the thoughtful comments [1] and appreciate the opportunity to respond to them. We provided our response below.The correspondence article in this journal presents a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on fluvoxamine for the early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [2], which included three randomized trials: STOP COVID 1 [3] and 2, and TOGETHER trial [4]. This meta-analysis results showed that patients receiving fluvoxamine compared with placebo had a 31.0% risk reduction in clinical deterioration or hospitalization (risk ratio [RR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 – 0.88). In this meta-analysis, the TOGETHER trial (weight, 87.4%) with 1,497 patients was heavily weighted. The main difference between the TOGETHER trial and our study is the inclusion criteria of enrolled patients. In the TOGETHER trial, enrolled patients had at least one criterion for high risk; diabetes, systemic arterial hypertension requiring at least one medication, known cardiovascular diseases, symptomatic lung diseases, smoking, obesity, having had a transplant, chronic kidney disease, immunosuppressive therapy, history of cancer or aged 50 years or older. However, we enrolled adult patients admitted to a community treatment center, who usually had no or minimum comorbidities [5]. We excluded patients with severe underlying lung diseases, chronic liver diseases, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or those who were immunocompromised. As a result, 59.6% of patients had no preexisting medical conditions in our study. Therefore, we suggest that the discrepancy between our study and the others may have been associated with underlying diseases of the patients.One of three trials included in the meta-analysis was STOP COVID 2, which was a follow-up study of STOP COVID 1 and included 547 patients [2]. Although this trial was stopped due to operational futility with increasing vaccination rates and an overall decrease in the events, they could not demonstrate statistically significant difference in clinical deterioration between patients with fluvoxamine and placebo (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.42 – 1.81). Therefore, we believe routine fluvoxamine treatment for every patient may not be helpful and selecting high-risk patients is needed in further larger-scale studies in the future.
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Caline Mattar; Charles F Zorumski; Angela Stevens; Julie Schweiger; Ginger E Nicol; J Philip Miller; Lei Yang; Michael Yingling; Michael S Avidan; Angela M Reiersen Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gilmar Reis; Eduardo Augusto Dos Santos Moreira-Silva; Daniela Carla Medeiros Silva; Lehana Thabane; Aline Cruz Milagres; Thiago Santiago Ferreira; Castilho Vitor Quirino Dos Santos; Vitoria Helena de Souza Campos; Ana Maria Ribeiro Nogueira; Ana Paula Figueiredo Guimaraes de Almeida; Eduardo Diniz Callegari; Adhemar Dias de Figueiredo Neto; Leonardo Cançado Monteiro Savassi; Maria Izabel Campos Simplicio; Luciene Barra Ribeiro; Rosemary Oliveira; Ofir Harari; Jamie I Forrest; Hinda Ruton; Sheila Sprague; Paula McKay; Alla V Glushchenko; Craig R Rayner; Eric J Lenze; Angela M Reiersen; Gordon H Guyatt; Edward J Mills Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 38.927
Authors: Christina M Guo; Ofir Harari; Cameron Chernecki; Kristian Thorlund; Jamie I Forrest Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.707