Covid Analysis, May 21, 2022, DRAFT
https://c19ns.com/meta.html
•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 5 studies from 4 different countries show statistically significant
improvements in isolation (3 for the most serious outcome).
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
61% [40‑75%] improvement. Results are better for Randomized Controlled Trials, similar after exclusions, and similar for peer-reviewed studies. Early treatment is more effective than late treatment.
•While many treatments have some level
of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid
infection.
Only 29% of nigella sativa
studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
Multiple treatments are typically used
in combination, and other treatments
may be more effective.
•No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100%
available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe
means should be used.
Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral
damage, and endemic risk.
•All data to reproduce this paper and
sources are in the appendix.
Highlights
Studies to date suggest that Nigella Sativa reduces
risk for COVID-19 with very high confidence for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and in pooled analysis, and high confidence for viral clearance.
We show traditional outcome specific analyses and combined
evidence from all studies, incorporating treatment delay, a primary
confounding factor in COVID-19 studies.
Real-time updates and corrections,
transparent analysis with all results in the same format, consistent protocol
for 42
treatments.
Figure 1. A. Random effects
meta-analysis. This plot shows pooled effects, discussion can be found in the heterogeneity section,
and results for specific outcomes can be found in the individual outcome analyses.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported.
For details of effect extraction see the appendix.
B. Scatter plot showing the
distribution of effects reported in studies. C. History of all reported
effects (chronological within treatment stages).
Introduction
We analyze all significant studies
concerning the use of
nigella sativa
for COVID-19.
Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect
extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual
study data, PRISMA answers, and statistical methods are detailed in
Appendix 1. We present random effects meta-analysis results for all
studies, for studies within each treatment stage, for individual outcomes, for
peer-reviewed studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and after
exclusions.
Figure 2 shows stages of possible treatment for
COVID-19. Prophylaxis refers to regularly taking medication before
becoming sick, in order to prevent or minimize infection. Early
Treatment refers to treatment immediately or soon after symptoms appear,
while Late Treatment refers to more delayed treatment.
Figure 2. Treatment stages.
Preclinical and Phase I Research
8 In Silico studies support the efficacy of nigella sativa [Banerjee, Bouchentouf, Duru, Hardianto, Khan, Maiti, Mir, Rizvi].
An In Vitro study supports the efficacy of nigella sativa [Esharkawy].
[Thomas] present a phase I clinical study investigating a
novel formulation of nigella sativa that may be more effective for COVID-19.
Preclinical research is an important part of the development of
treatments, however results may be very different in clinical trials.
Preclinical results are not used in this paper.
Results
Figure 3 shows a visual overview of the results, with details in
Table 1 and Table 2.
Figure 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
show forest plots for a random effects meta-analysis of
all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and peer reviewed studies.
Figure 3. Overview of results.
Treatment time | Number of studies reporting positive effects | Total number of studies | Percentage of studies reporting positive effects | Random effects meta-analysis results |
Early treatment | 4 | 4 | 100% |
83% improvement RR 0.17 [0.06‑0.49] p = 0.0011 |
Late treatment | 1 | 1 | 100% |
51% improvement RR 0.49 [0.09‑2.66] p = 0.42 |
Prophylaxis | 2 | 2 | 100% |
46% improvement RR 0.54 [0.22‑1.35] p = 0.19 |
All studies | 7 | 7 | 100% |
61% improvement RR 0.39 [0.25‑0.60] p < 0.0001 |
Table 1. Results by treatment stage.
Studies | Early treatment | Late treatment | Prophylaxis | Patients | Authors | |
All studies | 7 | 83% [51‑94%] | 51% [-166‑91%] | 46% [-35‑78%] | 1,977 | 133 |
With exclusions | 6 | 83% [51‑94%] | 51% [-166‑91%] | 62% [54‑69%] | 1,724 | 126 |
Peer-reviewed | 6 | 84% [29‑97%] | 51% [-166‑91%] | 46% [-35‑78%] | 1,664 | 85 |
Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 5 | 83% [51‑94%] | 51% [-166‑91%] | 1,348 | 123 |
Table 2. Results by treatment stage for all studies and with different exclusions.
Figure 4. Random effects meta-analysis for all studies with pooled effects.
This plot shows pooled effects, discussion can be found in the heterogeneity section,
and results for specific outcomes can be found in the individual outcome analyses.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported.
For details of effect extraction see the appendix.
Figure 5. Random effects meta-analysis for mortality results.
Figure 6. Random effects meta-analysis for ICU admission.
Figure 7. Random effects meta-analysis for hospitalization.
Figure 8. Random effects meta-analysis for recovery.
Figure 9. Random effects meta-analysis for cases.
Figure 10. Random effects meta-analysis for viral clearance.
Figure 11. Random effects meta-analysis for peer reviewed studies.
[Zeraatkar] analyze 356 COVID-19 trials, finding no
significant evidence that peer-reviewed studies are more trustworthy.
They also show extremely slow review times during a pandemic. Authors
recommend using preprint evidence, with appropriate checks for potential
falsified data, which provides higher certainty much earlier.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported,
see the appendix for details.
Exclusions
To avoid bias in the selection of studies, we analyze all
non-retracted studies. Here we show the results after excluding studies with
major issues likely to alter results, non-standard studies, and studies where
very minimal detail is currently available. Our bias evaluation is based on
analysis of each study and identifying when there is a significant chance that
limitations will substantially change the outcome of the study. We believe
this can be more valuable than checklist-based approaches such as Cochrane
GRADE, which may underemphasize serious issues not captured in the checklists,
overemphasize issues unlikely to alter outcomes in specific cases (for
example, lack of blinding for an objective mortality outcome, or certain
specifics of randomization with a very large effect size), or be easily
influenced by potential bias. However, they can also be very high
quality.
The studies excluded are as below.
Figure 12 shows a forest plot for random
effects meta-analysis of all studies after exclusions.
[Shehab], unadjusted results with no group details.
Figure 12. Random effects meta-analysis for all studies after exclusions.
This plot shows pooled effects, discussion can be found in the heterogeneity section,
and results for specific outcomes can be found in the individual outcome analyses.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported.
For details of effect extraction see the appendix.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Figure 13 shows the distribution of results for Randomized Controlled Trials and other studies, and
a chronological history of results.
The median effect size for
RCTs is 75% improvement,
compared to 31% for other studies.
Figure 14 and 15
show forest plots for a random effects meta-analysis of
all Randomized Controlled Trials and RCT mortality results.
Table 3 summarizes the results.
Figure 13. The distribution of results for Randomized Controlled Trials and other studies, and
a chronological history of results.
Figure 14. Random effects meta-analysis for all Randomized Controlled Trials.
This plot shows pooled effects, discussion can be found in the heterogeneity section,
and results for specific outcomes can be found in the individual outcome analyses.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported.
For details of effect extraction see the appendix.
Figure 15. Random effects meta-analysis for RCT mortality results.
Treatment time | Number of studies reporting positive effects | Total number of studies | Percentage of studies reporting positive effects | Random effects meta-analysis results |
Randomized Controlled Trials | 5 | 5 | 100% |
77% improvement RR 0.23 [0.09‑0.56] p = 0.0013 |
RCT mortality results | 3 | 3 | 100% |
79% improvement RR 0.21 [0.07‑0.65] p = 0.0069 |
Table 3. Randomized Controlled Trial results.
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
Treatment delay.
The time between infection
or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect how well a
treatment works. For example an antiviral may be very effective when used
early but may not be effective in late stage disease, and may even be harmful.
Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective for influenza
when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours [McLean, Treanor].
Figure 16 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy
as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 42 treatments, showing
that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is
critical for COVID-19.
Figure 16. Meta-regression
showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 42 treatments. Early
treatment is critical.
Patient demographics.
Details of the
patient population including age and comorbidities may critically affect how
well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19 studies with relatively
young low-comorbidity patients show all patients recovering quickly with or
without treatment. In such cases, there is little room for an effective
treatment to improve results (as in [López-Medina]).Effect measured.
Efficacy may differ
significantly depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment may be
very effective at reducing mortality, but less effective at minimizing cases
or hospitalization. Or a treatment may have no effect on viral clearance while
still being effective at reducing mortality.Variants.
There are many different
variants of SARS-CoV-2 and efficacy may depend critically on the distribution
of variants encountered by the patients in a study. For example, the Gamma
variant shows significantly different characteristics
[Faria, Karita, Nonaka, Zavascki]. Different mechanisms of action may be
more or less effective depending on variants, for example the viral entry
process for the omicron variant has moved towards TMPRSS2-independent fusion,
suggesting that TMPRSS2 inhibitors may be less effective
[Peacock, Willett].Regimen.
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
Treatments.
The use of other
treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including anything from
supplements, other medications, or other kinds of treatment such as prone
positioning.The distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta
analysis. Consider a simplified example where everything is equal except for
the treatment delay, and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with
increasing delay. If there are many studies using very late treatment, the
outcome may be negative, even though the treatment may be very effective when
used earlier.
In general, by combining heterogeneous studies, as all meta
analyses do, we run the risk of obscuring an effect by including studies where
the treatment is less effective, not effective, or harmful.
When including studies where a treatment is less effective we
expect the estimated effect size to be lower than that for the optimal case.
We do not a priori expect that pooling all studies will create a
positive result for an effective treatment. Looking at all studies is valuable
for providing an overview of all research, important to avoid cherry-picking,
and informative when a positive result is found despite combining less-optimal
situations. However, the resulting estimate does not apply to specific cases
such as
early treatment in high-risk populations.
Discussion
Publication bias.
Publishing is often biased
towards positive results, however evidence suggests that there may be a negative bias for
inexpensive treatments for COVID-19. Both negative and positive results are
very important for COVID-19, media in many countries prioritizes negative
results for inexpensive treatments (inverting the typical incentive for
scientists that value media recognition), and there are many reports of
difficulty publishing positive results
[Boulware, Meeus, Meneguesso].
For nigella sativa, there is currently not
enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.
One method to evaluate bias is to compare prospective vs.
retrospective studies. Prospective studies are more likely to be published
regardless of the result, while retrospective studies are more likely to
exhibit bias. For example, researchers may perform preliminary analysis with
minimal effort and the results may influence their decision to continue.
Retrospective studies also provide more opportunities for the specifics of
data extraction and adjustments to influence results.
The median effect size for
retrospective studies is 0% improvement,
compared to 72% for prospective
studies, suggesting a potential bias towards publishing results showing lower efficacy.
Figure 17 shows a scatter plot of
results for prospective and retrospective studies.
Figure 17. Prospective vs. retrospective studies.
Funnel plot analysis.
Funnel
plots have traditionally been used for analyzing publication bias. This is
invalid for COVID-19 acute treatment trials — the underlying assumptions
are invalid, which we can demonstrate with a simple example. Consider a set of
hypothetical perfect trials with no bias. Figure 18 plot A
shows a funnel plot for a simulation of 80 perfect trials, with random group
sizes, and each patient's outcome randomly sampled (10% control event
probability, and a 30% effect size for treatment). Analysis shows no asymmetry
(p > 0.05). In plot B, we add a single typical variation in COVID-19 treatment
trials — treatment delay. Consider that efficacy varies from 90% for
treatment within 24 hours, reducing to 10% when treatment is delayed 3 days.
In plot B, each trial's treatment delay is randomly selected. Analysis now
shows highly significant asymmetry, p < 0.0001, with six variants of
Egger's test all showing p < 0.05
[Egger, Harbord, Macaskill, Moreno, Peters, Rothstein, Rücker, Stanley].
Note that these tests fail even though treatment delay is uniformly
distributed. In reality treatment delay is more complex — each trial has
a different distribution of delays across patients, and the distribution
across trials may be biased (e.g., late treatment trials may be more common).
Similarly, many other variations in trials may produce asymmetry, including
dose, administration, duration of treatment, differences in SOC,
comorbidities, age, variants, and bias in design, implementation, analysis,
and reporting.Figure 18. Example funnel plot analysis for
simulated perfect trials.
Conflicts of interest.
Pharmaceutical drug
trials often have conflicts of interest whereby sponsors or trial staff have a
financial interest in the outcome being positive. Nigella Sativa for COVID-19
lacks this because it is
an inexpensive and widely available supplement.
In contrast, most COVID-19 nigella sativa trials have been run by
physicians on the front lines with the primary goal of finding the best
methods to save human lives and minimize the collateral damage caused by
COVID-19. While pharmaceutical companies are careful to run trials under
optimal conditions (for example, restricting patients to those most likely to
benefit, only including patients that can be treated soon after onset when
necessary, and ensuring accurate dosing), not all nigella sativa trials
represent the optimal conditions for efficacy.Early/late vs. mild/moderate/severe.
Some analyses classify treatment based on early/late administration (as we do
here), while others distinguish between mild/moderate/severe cases. We note
that viral load does not indicate degree of symptoms — for example
patients may have a high viral load while being asymptomatic. With regard to
treatments that have antiviral properties, timing of treatment is
critical — late administration may be less helpful regardless of
severity.Notes.
2 of 7 studies
combine treatments. The results of
nigella sativa
alone may differ.
2 of 5 RCTs use combined treatment.
Conclusion
Studies to date suggest that nigella sativa is
an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 5 studies from 4 different countries show statistically significant
improvements in isolation (3 for the most serious outcome).
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows
61% [40‑75%] improvement. Results are better for Randomized Controlled Trials, similar after exclusions, and similar for peer-reviewed studies. Early treatment is more effective than late treatment.
Study Notes
[Al-Haidari (B)]
Prophylaxis study with 376 mostly high-risk patients, 188 treated with nigella sativa, showing significantly lower cases with treatment. Black seeds 40mg/kg orally once daily.
[Al-Haidari]
Open-label RCT with 419 patients in Iraq, 160 treated with Nigella Sativa, showing lower mortality and severe cases with treatment. Black seeds 40mg/kg orally once daily for 14 days.
[Ashraf]
RCT with 157 patients treated with honey and nigella sativa, and 156 control patients, showing significantly faster recovery and viral clearance. NCT04347382.
Honey (1gm/kg/day) plus encapsulated Nigella sativa seeds (80mg/kg/day) orally in 2-3 divided doses daily for up to 13 days.
Honey (1gm/kg/day) plus encapsulated Nigella sativa seeds (80mg/kg/day) orally in 2-3 divided doses daily for up to 13 days.
[Bencheqroun]
52 patient RCT in the USA with nigella sativa component thymoquinone, showing improved recovery with treatment. There was a significantly faster decline in the total symptom burden, and a significant increase in CD8+ and helper CD4+ central memory T lymphocytes. The treatment group contained 5 more vaccinated patients and 7 more overweight patients. Authors also present in vitro results showing an inhibitory effect with five SARS-CoV-2 variants including omicron.
[Karimi]
RCT 358 hospitalized patients in Iran, 184 receiving treatment with a combination of nigella sativa and several other herbal medicines, showing shorter hospitalization time and improved recovery with treatment. IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1399.024.
[Koshak]
RCT 183 mild COVID-19 outpatients in Saudi Arabia, 91 treated with Nigella Sativa, showing lower hospitalization and faster recovery with treatment. 500mg Nigella Sativa oil (MARNYS Cuminmar) twice daily for 10 days. NCT04401202.
[Shehab]
Retrospective survey-based analysis of 349 COVID-19 patients, showing no significant difference with nigella sativa prophylaxis in unadjusted analysis. REC/UG/2020/03.
We performed ongoing searches of PubMed, medRxiv,
ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Collabovid, Research
Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press, the reference lists of other
studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19ns.com. Search terms were nigella sativa, filtered for papers containing the terms COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. Automated searches are performed
every few hours with notification of new matches.
All studies regarding the use of nigella sativa for COVID-19 that report
a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis.
Sensitivity analysis is performed, excluding studies with major issues,
epidemiological studies, and studies with minimal available information.
This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.
We extracted effect sizes and associated data from all studies.
If studies report multiple kinds of effects then the most serious
outcome is used in pooled analysis, while other outcomes are included in the
outcome specific analyses. For example, if effects for mortality and cases are
both reported, the effect for mortality is used, this may be different to the
effect that a study focused on.
If symptomatic
results are reported at multiple times, we used the latest time, for example
if mortality results are provided at 14 days and 28 days, the results at 28
days are used. Mortality alone is preferred over combined outcomes.
Outcomes with zero events in both arms were not used (the next most serious
outcome is used — no studies were excluded). For example, in low-risk
populations with no mortality, a reduction in mortality with treatment is not
possible, however a reduction in hospitalization, for example, is still
valuable.
Clinical outcome is considered more important than PCR testing status. When
basically all patients recover in both treatment and control groups,
preference for viral clearance and recovery is given to results mid-recovery
where available (after most or all patients have recovered there is no room
for an effective treatment to do better).
If only individual symptom data is available, the most serious symptom has
priority, for example difficulty breathing or low SpO2 is more
important than cough.
When results provide an odds ratio, we computed the relative risk when
possible, or converted to a relative risk according to [Zhang].
Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available,
using adjusted values when provided. If multiple types of adjustments are
reported including propensity score matching (PSM), the PSM results are used.
Adjusted primary outcome results have preference over unadjusted results for a more
serious outcome when the adjustments significantly alter results.
When needed, conversion between reported p-values and confidence
intervals followed [Altman, Altman (B)], and Fisher's exact test was
used to calculate p-values for event data. If continuity correction for
zero values is required, we use the reciprocal of the opposite arm with the
sum of the correction factors equal to 1 [Sweeting].
Results are expressed with RR < 1.0 favoring treatment, and using the risk of
a negative outcome when applicable (for example, the risk of death rather than
the risk of survival). If studies only report relative continuous values such
as relative times, the ratio of the time for the treatment group versus the
time for the control group is used. Calculations are done in Python
(3.9.12) with
scipy (1.8.0), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (1.22.2), statsmodels (0.14.0), and plotly (5.6.0).
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta [Deng]
with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (the fixed effect
assumption is not plausible in this case) and inverse variance weighting.
Mixed-effects meta-regression results are computed with R (4.1.2) using the metafor
(3.0-2) and rms (6.2-0) packages, and using the most serious sufficiently powered outcome.
We received no funding, this research is done in our spare
time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political
parties.
We have classified studies as early treatment if most patients
are not already at a severe stage at the time of treatment (for example based
on oxygen status or lung involvement), and treatment started within 5 days of
the onset of symptoms. If studies contain a mix of early treatment and late
treatment patients, we consider the treatment time of patients contributing
most to the events (for example, consider a study where most patients are
treated early but late treatment patients are included, and all mortality
events were observed with late treatment patients).
We note that a shorter time may be preferable. Antivirals are typically only
considered effective when used within a shorter timeframe, for example 0-36 or
0-48 hours for oseltamivir, with longer delays not being effective
[McLean, Treanor].
A summary of study results is below. Please submit
updates and corrections at https://c19ns.com/meta.html.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes.
For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may
differ from the effect a paper focuses on.
Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
[Al-Haidari], 1/31/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Iraq, Middle East, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of death, 95.8% lower, RR 0.04, p = 0.001, treatment 0 of 160 (0.0%), control 14 of 259 (5.4%), NNT 18, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
risk of severe case, 92.6% lower, RR 0.07, p < 0.001, treatment 2 of 160 (1.2%), control 44 of 259 (17.0%), NNT 6.4. | |
[Ashraf], 11/3/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, South Asia, preprint, 48 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with honey) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04347382. | risk of death, 81.9% lower, RR 0.18, p = 0.01, treatment 2 of 157 (1.3%), control 11 of 156 (7.1%), NNT 17, all cases. |
risk of death, 67.1% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.49, treatment 0 of 107 (0.0%), control 1 of 103 (1.0%), NNT 103, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), moderate cases. | |
risk of death, 78.8% lower, RR 0.21, p = 0.03, treatment 2 of 50 (4.0%), control 10 of 53 (18.9%), NNT 6.7, severe cases. | |
risk of no recovery, 83.6% lower, HR 0.16, p < 0.001, treatment 107, control 103, moderate cases. | |
risk of no recovery, 75.2% lower, HR 0.25, p < 0.001, treatment 50, control 53, severe cases. | |
risk of no viral clearance, 81.9% lower, HR 0.18, p < 0.001, treatment 107, control 103, moderate cases. | |
risk of no viral clearance, 76.9% lower, HR 0.23, p < 0.001, treatment 50, control 53, severe cases. | |
[Bencheqroun], 5/7/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, North America, peer-reviewed, mean age 45.0, 25 authors, study period 27 May, 2021 - 27 September, 2021. | risk of hospitalization, 69.3% lower, RR 0.31, p = 0.44, treatment 0 of 29 (0.0%), control 1 of 23 (4.3%), NNT 23, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
time to sustained clinical response, 9.1% lower, HR 0.91, p = 0.78, treatment 28, control 23, Kaplan–Meier. | |
time to sustained clinical response, 35.5% lower, HR 0.65, p = 0.25, treatment 28, control 23, Kaplan–Meier, high-risk patients. | |
risk of no viral clearance, 43.5% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.31, treatment 5 of 21 (23.8%), control 8 of 19 (42.1%), NNT 5.5, day 14. | |
[Koshak], 8/15/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Saudi Arabia, Middle East, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, trial NCT04401202. | risk of hospitalization, 74.7% lower, RR 0.25, p = 0.37, treatment 1 of 91 (1.1%), control 4 of 92 (4.3%), NNT 31. |
risk of no recovery, 42.7% lower, RR 0.57, p < 0.001, treatment 34 of 91 (37.4%), control 60 of 92 (65.2%), NNT 3.6. |
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes.
For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may
differ from the effect a paper focuses on.
Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
[Karimi], 10/4/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Iran, Middle East, peer-reviewed, 37 authors, study period March 2020 - July 2020, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with several herbal medicines) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 50.8% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.45, treatment 2 of 192 (1.0%), control 4 of 189 (2.1%), NNT 93. |
risk of ICU admission, 60.6% lower, RR 0.39, p = 0.28, treatment 2 of 192 (1.0%), control 5 of 189 (2.6%), NNT 62. | |
hospitalization time, 70.0% lower, HR 0.30, p < 0.001, treatment 184, control 174, Cox proportional hazards, primary outcome. | |
fever, 66.5% lower, OR 0.33, p = 0.001, treatment 184, control 174, RR approximated with OR. | |
dyspnea, 13.7% lower, OR 0.86, p < 0.001, treatment 184, control 174, RR approximated with OR. |
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes.
For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may
differ from the effect a paper focuses on.
Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
[Al-Haidari (B)], 1/31/2021, prospective, Iraq, Middle East, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of symptomatic case, 62.2% lower, RR 0.38, p < 0.001, treatment 68 of 188 (36.2%), control 180 of 188 (95.7%), NNT 1.7. |
[Shehab], 2/28/2022, retrospective, multiple countries, multiple regions, peer-reviewed, survey, 7 authors, study period September 2020 - March 2021, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of severe case, 0.2% lower, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 4 of 39 (10.3%), control 22 of 214 (10.3%), NNT 4173, unadjusted, severe vs. mild cases. |
Supplementary Data
References
Al-Haidari et al., Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, 15:3 (preprint 1/2021),
Clinical Trial of Black Seeds Against COVID – 19 in Kirkuk City / Iraq,
https://www.researchgate.net/publi..inst_COVID_-19_in_Kirkuk_City_Iraq.
Al-Haidari (B) et al., Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 15:1,
Preventive Value of Black Seed in People at Risk of Infection with COVID-19,
https://pjmhsonline.com/2021/jan/384.pdf.
Altman, D., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2304,
How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval,
https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2304.
Altman (B) et al., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090,
How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value,
https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2090.
Ashraf et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.30.20217364,
Honey and Nigella sativa against COVID-19 in Pakistan (HNS-COVID-PK): A multi-center placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial,
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20217364v4.
Banerjee et al., Natural Product Research, doi:10.1080/14786419.2021.2018430,
Nigellidine (Nigella sativa, black-cumin seed) docking to SARS CoV-2 nsp3 and host inflammatory proteins may inhibit viral replication/transcription,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786419.2021.2018430.
Bencheqroun et al., Pathogens, doi:10.3390/pathogens11050551,
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of ThymoQuinone Formula (TQF) for Treating Outpatient SARS-CoV-2,
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/11/5/551.
Bouchentouf et al., ChemRxiv, doi:10.26434/chemrxiv.12055716.v1,
Identification of Compounds from Nigella Sativa as New Potential Inhibitors of 2019 Novel Coronasvirus (Covid-19): Molecular Docking Study,
https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrx..e-details/60c7495c469df4070af43bbf.
Boulware, D.,
Comments regarding paper rejection,
https://twitter.com/boulware_dr/status/1311331372884205570.
Duru et al., Bulletin of the National Research Centre, doi:10.1186/s42269-021-00517-x,
In silico identification of compounds from Nigella sativa seed oil as potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 targets,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42269-021-00517-x.
Egger et al., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629,
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test,
https://syndication.highwire.org/content/doi/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
Esharkawy et al., Bioorganic Chemistry, doi:10.1016/j.bioorg.2021.105587,
In vitro Potential Antiviral SARS-CoV-19- Activity of Natural Product Thymohydroquinone and Dithymoquinone from Nigela sativia,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045206821009652.
Faria et al., Science, doi:10.1126/science.abh2644,
Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil,
https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abh2644.
Harbord et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2380,
A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints,
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fsim.2380.
Hardianto et al., Indonesian Journal of Chemistry, doi:10.22146/ijc.65951,
Exploring the Potency of Nigella sativa Seed in Inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Using Molecular Docking and Molecular Dynamics Simulations,
https://journal.ugm.ac.id/ijc/article/view/65951.
Karimi et al., Phytotherapy Research, doi:10.1002/ptr.7277,
Efficacy of Persian medicine herbal formulations (capsules and decoction) compared to standard care in patients with COVID-19, a multicenter open-labeled, randomized, controlled clinical trial,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ptr.7277.
Karita et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.08.27.21262754,
Trajectory of viral load in a prospective population-based cohort with incident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection,
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262754v1.
Khan et al., Brazilian Journal of Biology, doi:10.1590/1519-6984.25066,
Inhibitory effect of thymoquinone from Nigella sativa against SARS-CoV-2 main protease. An in-silico study,
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?sc..id=S1519-69842024000100270&tlng=en.
Koshak et al., Complementary Therapies in Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102769,
Nigella sativa for the treatment of COVID-19: An open-label randomized controlled clinical trial,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229921001102.
López-Medina et al., JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071,
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial,
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389.
Macaskill et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.698,
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis,
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fsim.698.
Maiti et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-26464/v1,
Active-site Molecular docking of Nigellidine to nucleocapsid/Nsp2/Nsp3/MPro of COVID-19 and to human IL1R and TNFR1/2 may stop viral-growth/cytokine-flood, and the drug source Nigella sativa (black cumin) seeds show potent antioxidant role in experimental rats,
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-26464/v1.
McLean et al., Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100,
Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525010/.
Meneguesso, A.,
Médica defende tratamento precoce da Covid-19,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5FCrIm_19U.
Mir et al., Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.09.002,
Identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors from the major phytochemicals of Nigella sativa: An in silico approach,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X21007968.
Moreno et al., BMC Medical Research Methodology, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2,
Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2288-9-2/fulltext.html.
Nonaka et al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.08.003,
SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern P.1 (Gamma) infection in young and middle-aged patients admitted to the intensive care units of a single hospital in Salvador, Northeast Brazil, February 2021,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221006354.
Peacock et al., bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.12.31.474653,
The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry,
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.31.474653.
Peters, J., JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676,
Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis,
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202337.
Rizvi et al., Processes, doi:10.3390/pr9101814,
Identifying the Most Potent Dual-Targeting Compound(s) against 3CLprotease and NSP15exonuclease of SARS-CoV-2 from Nigella sativa: Virtual Screening via Physicochemical Properties, Docking and Dynamic Simulation Analysis,
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/9/10/1814/pdf.
Rothstein, H.,
Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments,
https://www.wiley.com/en-ae/Public..nt+and+Adjustments-p-9780470870143.
Rücker et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2971,
Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes,
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fsim.2971.
Shehab et al., Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, doi:10.4314/tjpr.v21i2.13,
Immune-boosting effect of natural remedies and supplements on progress of, and recovery from COVID-19 infection,
https://www.tjpr.org/admin/12389900798187/2022_21_2_14.pdf.
Stanley et al., Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095,
Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias,
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrar..dm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjrsm.1095.
Sweeting et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761,
What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.1761.
Thomas et al., Toxicology Reports, doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2022.04.020,
A phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety of thymoquinone -rich black cumin oil (BlaQmax®) on healthy subjects: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled prospective study,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750022001019.
Treanor et al., JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016,
Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial,
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192425.
Willett et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.01.03.21268111,
The hyper-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant exhibits significant antigenic change, vaccine escape and a switch in cell entry mechanism,
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.03.21268111.
Zavascki et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-910467/v1,
Advanced ventilatory support and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 caused by Gamma (P.1) variant of concern compared to other lineages: cohort study at a reference center in Brazil,
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-910467/v1.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and
treatments are both valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and
safe means should be used. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100%
available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the
efficacy of any method increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and
the risk of endemic status. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking
any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized
advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and
situation. FLCCC and WCH
provide treatment protocols.