Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 709

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Open access
Horby, Peter W, Mafham, Marion, Bell, Jennifer L, Linsell, Louise, Staplin, Natalie, Emberson, Jonathan, Palfreeman, Adrian, Raw, Jason, Elmahi, Einas, Prudon, Benjamin, Green, Christopher, Carley, Simon, Chadwick, David, Davies, Matthew, Wise, Matthew P, Baillie, J Kenneth, Chappell, Lucy C, Faust, Saul N, Jaki, Thomas, Jefferey, Katie, Lim, Wei Shen, Montgomery, Alan, Rowan, Kathryn, Juszczak, Edmund, Haynes, Richard, Landray, Martin J·2020·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir-ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir-ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir-ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir-ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91-1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91-1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99-1·20; p=0·092). INTERPRETATION: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir-ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32013-4

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Horby, P. W., Mafham, M., Bell, J. L., Linsell, L., Staplin, N., Emberson, J., Palfreeman, A., Raw, J., Elmahi, E., Prudon, B., Green, C., Carley, S., Chadwick, D., Davies, M., Wise, M. P., Baillie, J. K., Chappell, L. C., Faust, S. N., Jaki, T., Jefferey, K., Lim, W. S., Montgomery, A., Rowan, K., Juszczak, E., Haynes, R., & Landray, M. J.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
396
Issue
10259
Pages
1345-1352
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3090929175
Cited by
709
References
3
FWCI
19.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.