Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Favipiravir at high doses has potent antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2−infected hamsters, whereas hydroxychloroquine lacks activity

Open access
Kaptein, Suzanne J. F., Jacobs, Sofie, Langendries, Lana, Seldeslachts, Laura, ter Horst, Sebastiaan, Liesenborghs, Laurens, Hens, Bart, Vergote, Valentijn, Heylen, Elisabeth, Barthelemy, Karine, Maas, Elke, De Keyzer, Carolien, Bervoets, Lindsey, Rymenants, Jasper, Van Buyten, Tina, Zhang, Xin, Abdelnabi, Rana, Pang, Juanita, Williams, Rachel, Thibaut, Hendrik Jan, Dallmeier, Kai, Boudewijns, Robbert, Wouters, Jens, Augustijns, Patrick, Verougstraete, Nick, Cawthorne, Christopher, Breuer, Judith, Solas, Caroline, Weynand, Birgit, Annaert, Pieter, Spriet, Isabel, Vande Velde, Greetje, Neyts, Johan, Rocha-Pereira, Joana, Delang, Leen·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: The previous lack of consensus around the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients underlines the need to thoroughly assess the in vivo efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2. Small animal infection models, such as the hamster model, have a pivotal place herein. We here show in vivo preclinical results with favipiravir which indicate that antiviral efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 might only be achieved with a very high dose. Hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, completely lacks antiviral activity, thus providing no scientific basis for its further use in COVID-19 patients. With this study on two key antiviral candidates, we establish the baseline for SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatment, which will allow us to identify superior antiviral candidates in the near future.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.2014441117

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Kaptein, S. J. F., Jacobs, S., Langendries, L., Seldeslachts, L., ter Horst, S., Liesenborghs, L., Hens, B., Vergote, V., Heylen, E., Barthelemy, K., Maas, E., De Keyzer, C., Bervoets, L., Rymenants, J., Van Buyten, T., Zhang, X., Abdelnabi, R., Pang, J., Williams, R., Thibaut, H. J., Dallmeier, K., Boudewijns, R., Wouters, J., Augustijns, P., Verougstraete, N., Cawthorne, C., Breuer, J., Solas, C., Weynand, B., Annaert, P., Spriet, I., Vande Velde, G., Neyts, J., Rocha-Pereira, J., & Delang, L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-10-09
Volume
117
Issue
43
Pages
26955-26965
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W3092285496
Cited by
269
References
48
FWCI
6.67
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Favipiravir at high doses has potent antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2−infected hamsters, whereas hydroxychloroquine lacks activity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.2014441117
The paper
Kaptein, S. J. F., Jacobs, S., Langendries, L., Seldeslachts, L., ter Horst, S., Liesenborghs, L., Hens, B., Vergote, V., Heylen, E., Barthelemy, K., Maas, E., De Keyzer, C., Bervoets, L., Rymenants, J., Van Buyten, T., Zhang, X., Abdelnabi, R., Pang, J., Williams, R., . . . Delang, L. (2020). Favipiravir at high doses has potent antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2−infected hamsters, whereas hydroxychloroquine lacks activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014441117

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.