Reported trial results for Long COVID
Every Long COVID trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.
18 trials have reported results.
AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI
-
NCT06038617 · results posted 13 May 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 347 children in total — 176 in the "simultaneous vaccination" group and 171 in the "sequential vaccination" group. The trial was comparing two different schedules for giving vaccines to young children: one where certain vaccines were given at the same visit at the same time, and one where they were spread across separate visits. The main thing the trial was measuring was how many children developed a fever (a temperature of 38.0°C or higher) in the two days following their vaccination visits. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — fever across all vaccination visits combined — 14 out of 176 children in the simultaneous group and 10 out of 171 children in the sequential group recorded a fever. Looking at each visit separately, after the first visit, 13 children in the simultaneous group and 4 in the sequential group had a fever; after the second visit, 1 child in the simultaneous group and 6 in the sequential group had a fever. The trial also tracked higher fevers (38.4°C or above, described as moderate or severe). For both visits combined, 6 children in the simultaneous group and 3 in the sequential group reached that higher temperature threshold. After the first visit alone, 5 simultaneous-group children and 0 sequential-group children had a higher fever; after the second visit, 1 simultaneous-group child and 3 sequential-group children did. The reported data shows that 174 of 176 children in the simultaneous group and 168 of 171 in the sequential group completed the trial, with only a small number not completing in each group. No reasons for non-completion were provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05092516 · results posted 30 April 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether a home-based brain stimulation technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) — which uses a mild electrical current applied to the scalp — had any measurable effect on thinking and mental processing. Thirty-one people took part in total: 16 were assigned to receive active tDCS and 15 received a "sham" (dummy) version that mimicked the experience without delivering the real stimulation. By the end of the study, 12 people in each group had completed it. The trial measured three areas of thinking: the ability to stop or control impulses (called inhibitory control), how quickly the brain processes information (processing speed), and mental flexibility and memory. The reported data shows that for inhibitory control — measured by how often participants gave a correct response during a challenging attention task — the active tDCS group scored 0.80 (meaning 80% correct responses) at the start, rising to 0.84 at the four-week mark. The sham group scored 0.79 at the start and 0.82 at four weeks. For processing speed, reaction times at the start of the study averaged 424 milliseconds (thousandths of a second) in the active group and 407 milliseconds in the sham group; end-of-study reaction time figures were not reported in the submitted data. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that cognitive flexibility scores (on a scale where 50 is average) moved from 41.4 to 47.5 in the active group and from 40 to 44.1 in the sham group. Working memory scores at the end of the study were reported as 46.9 for the active group and 43.7 for the sham group; baseline working memory figures were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05077254 · results posted 23 April 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 32 people in total — 18 in a group without a history of injection site reactions (ISR) to a previous COVID-19 vaccine, and 14 in a group with a history of such reactions. An ISR is a localised response at the spot where a needle is inserted, such as redness or swelling. The trial was looking at how a person's immune response — measured by the level of COVID-19 antibodies in the blood — changed after receiving an additional mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and it also tracked various side effects in both groups. Of the 18 people in the no-ISR group, 14 completed the trial; all 14 in the ISR group completed it. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome — how much antibody levels changed from before the vaccine dose to 30 days after — the no-ISR group showed a 13-fold increase on average (meaning antibody levels were about 13 times higher than before the dose), while the ISR group showed a 31-fold increase. Regarding side effects tracked in the 7 days after the vaccine dose, the reported data shows zero systemic allergic reactions were recorded in either group. Some participants in both groups reported local reactions (such as soreness at the injection site) and general body reactions (such as fatigue or fever), with small numbers affected across both groups. No potential allergic reactions were reported in either group. For serious adverse events — more significant medical events — in the 30 days after the dose, the reported data shows 2 events were recorded in the no-ISR group and none in the ISR group, with 16 and 14 participants respectively accounted for in that count (reflecting total participant-days or follow-up records, as the data did not provide further breakdown). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05954286 · results posted 13 February 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 92 people with COVID-19, split evenly into two groups of 46. One group received a drug called upamostat (400 mg), and the other received a placebo (a dummy capsule with no active ingredient). All 92 participants completed the trial. The study was measuring things like how quickly symptoms eased, how long the virus remained detectable, and how soon people got back to their normal health and activities. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — the number of days until all COVID-19 symptoms settled to mild or none for at least three days in a row — was 5.2 days in the upamostat group and 6.1 days in the placebo group. For overall symptom severity (rated on a scale where 0 means no symptoms and 3 means severe), both groups reported the same average score of 2.1. When it came to how long the virus remained detectable by PCR test, the reported figures were 14.2 days in the upamostat group and 21.8 days in the placebo group. The number of participants who developed new severe symptoms during the study was 8 in the upamostat group and 6 in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that by Day 7, 32 of 46 upamostat participants and 30 of 46 placebo participants said they had returned to their usual state of health, with those numbers climbing to all 46 upamostat participants and 44 of 46 placebo participants by Day 28. Return to usual activities followed a similar pattern, with nearly all participants in both groups reporting a return to normal activities by Day 28 and beyond. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT06057064 · results posted 15 August 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 116 participants in total — 87 received a treatment called AZD3152 and 29 received a placebo (an inactive substitute). The vast majority completed the study: 83 in the AZD3152 group and 28 in the placebo group. The trial was measuring several things: adverse events (unwanted health events that occurred during the study), and blood levels of neutralising antibodies — proteins the body can produce that may target the COVID-19 virus — at various points in time. The reported data shows that, among those who received AZD3152, 45 out of 87 participants experienced some kind of adverse event, compared with 17 out of 29 in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were recorded in 5 participants in the AZD3152 group and 2 in the placebo group. Medical events that were considered important enough to monitor closely (called MAAEs) occurred in 14 AZD3152 participants and 7 placebo participants. No participants in either group experienced a specific category of closely watched adverse events (AESIs). Regarding antibody levels, the reported data shows that at the start of the study both groups had similar low antibody readings (12.0 for AZD3152 and 9.8 for placebo). Over the following weeks, the AZD3152 group's readings rose to a peak of around 70.9 before gradually returning toward baseline, while the placebo group's readings remained relatively stable throughout, staying between roughly 9 and 13. The reported fold-rise figures (how many times antibody levels multiplied from the starting point) followed a similar pattern — up to about 5.8 times the starting level in the AZD3152 group compared with around 1.2 times in the placebo group at the same timepoints. Finally, 4 participants in the AZD3152 group and 2 in the placebo group developed symptomatic COVID-19 after receiving their treatment. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05394025 · results posted 7 August 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved two groups of United States veterans: 235 who had tested positive for COVID-19 (the "case" group) and 244 who had not tested positive (the "comparator" group). By the end of the study, 220 participants remained in each group. The trial was measuring whether having had COVID-19 was associated with changes in veterans' ability to carry out everyday tasks — things like cooking, managing money, bathing, and dressing — over time. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a disability score based on 14 everyday activities, where a score of 0 means no reported difficulties and a score of 14 means difficulties with everything asked about. Across multiple survey time points, the reported data shows that veterans who had tested positive for COVID-19 scored between approximately 3.31 and 3.60 out of 14, while veterans who had not tested positive scored between approximately 2.98 and 3.40 out of 14. The reported data shows that both groups recorded scores in a similar range across all time points, with neither group scoring particularly high or low on the scale. No other outcome measures were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05965752 · results posted 18 July 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05965752) enrolled a total of 328 people across five groups. Each group used a brain-training computer program called BrainHQ, either on its own or combined with other approaches — including a programme called PASC CoRE, or a form of mild electrical brain stimulation called tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation, where a very low electrical current is applied to the scalp). The trial appeared to be set up as an "umbrella" study, meaning the detailed results for each specific comparison are being reported separately under linked trial registrations rather than all in one place. The reported data shows that the five groups started with between 64 and 67 participants each. By the end of the study period, the number who completed their group ranged from 55 to 62 people. The primary outcome measure recorded for this registration was simply the count of participants enrolled in each group — 64, 67, 66, 66, and 65 respectively. No other outcome numbers (such as scores on memory or thinking tests) were reported under this particular trial ID; the data notes that those results are being reported separately under associated trial registrations. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05205460 · results posted 11 March 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05205460) involved 182 people in total — 91 in each of two groups. One group received home-based telerehabilitation (supervised exercise and support delivered remotely), while the other group received education and self-directed exercise. The trial ran for 12 weeks and measured changes in exercise capacity and lung function. Not everyone finished the trial: 56 of the 91 people in the telerehabilitation group completed it, and 66 of the 91 in the education and self-exercise group completed it. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the trial to 12 weeks. For exercise capacity, the telerehabilitation group showed an average increase of 2.4 ml/kg/min in peak oxygen uptake (a measure of how much oxygen the body can use during hard exercise), compared with 1.7 ml/kg/min in the education group. The change in peak workload on the exercise bike was reported as 7.0 watts for the telerehabilitation group and 7.3 watts for the education group. The point at which the body shifts to a less efficient energy source during exercise (called the anaerobic threshold) increased by 1.2 ml/kg/min in the telerehabilitation group and 1.0 ml/kg/min in the education group. For lung function, both groups showed very small changes: the amount of air breathed out in one second (FEV1) changed by 0.0 litres in both groups, and total air breathed out (FVC) changed by 0.0 litres in the telerehabilitation group and −0.1 litres in the education group. A combined lung function ratio (FEV1/FVC) changed by −1.2 percentage points in the telerehabilitation group and +0.7 percentage points in the education group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05618587 · results posted 5 March 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05618587) enrolled 52 people in total — 26 in the lithium group and 26 in the placebo group. Two people in the lithium group did not complete the study, while everyone in the placebo group finished. The trial was measuring changes in fatigue and "brain fog" (difficulty thinking clearly) in participants, using questionnaire-based rating scales, along with several secondary measures including overall wellbeing, quality of life, and participants' own sense of how their symptoms had changed. The reported data shows that, on the Fatigue Severity Scale (scored 1–49, where lower is better), the lithium group's scores dropped by an average of 11.3 points and the placebo group's scores dropped by 8.6 points — both groups showing a reduction from their starting scores. On the Brain Fog Severity Scale (also 1–49, lower is better), the lithium group's scores dropped by an average of 9.0 points, compared with 8.1 points in the placebo group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows participants in both groups rated their overall symptom change at around 4.7 (lithium) and 4.6 (placebo) out of 7, and their sense of wellbeing improved by roughly 1.0 and 0.9 points out of 10, respectively. Quality of life physical scores improved by 5.1 points (lithium) and 4.2 points (placebo) out of 100. When asked whether they wanted to continue therapy, 12 participants in the lithium group and 13 in the placebo group reported "yes." These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04728347 · results posted 30 December 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04728347) enrolled 65 people across four groups: Cohort 1a (12 people), Cohort 1b (12 people), Cohort 2 Younger Adults (25 people), and Cohort 2 Older Adults (16 people). The trial was looking at a vaccine called ARCT-021, and it was measuring two main things: reactions that participants experienced after receiving the vaccine (such as injection-site reactions, fever, fatigue, and similar symptoms), and blood antibody levels — that is, whether the body produced proteins that recognise the coronavirus after vaccination. The reported data shows that in Cohorts 1a and 1b (the groups who received the study drug in this trial), 11 out of 12 and 10 out of 12 participants respectively reported solicited local or systemic reactions (things like injection-site pain, headache, or fever). Unsolicited (spontaneously reported) side effects were recorded in 3 participants in Cohort 1a and 2 in Cohort 1b. For serious adverse events — defined as events involving hospitalisation, being life-threatening, or similarly significant — none were reported in Cohort 1a or in either Cohort 2 group, while 1 participant in Cohort 1b reported a serious adverse event. Regarding antibody levels, the reported data shows varying results across groups; the largest reported rise in neutralising antibody levels was seen in Cohort 1b, where the average level increased roughly 4.3-fold from before to after vaccination. In Cohort 1a (participants receiving ARCT-021 for the first time in this study), only 1 out of 12 participants reached the threshold defined as a meaningful antibody response (a four-fold increase in neutralising antibodies), and 0 out of 12 reached that threshold for a related antibody measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04889209 · results posted 11 December 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04889209) enrolled people who had already received a primary COVID-19 vaccine course and were given a booster dose from a different — or the same — vaccine brand. The main goal was to measure the level of antibodies (proteins the immune system makes in response to the vaccine) produced against several versions of the COVID-19 virus spike protein, including the original strain and variants such as Beta, Delta, and Omicron. In total, hundreds of participants were spread across 18 groups depending on which vaccine they received first ("prime") and which booster they received. Group sizes at the start ranged from about 16 to 106 people, with most groups having between 43 and 53 participants. The reported data shows antibody levels measured using a laboratory signal score — a higher number simply means more antibody was detected. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, for the original COVID-19 strain, groups that received an mRNA booster (either Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer BNT162b2) after any primary vaccine generally showed higher antibody score readings than groups that received a Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) booster. For example, against the original strain, the group primed with mRNA-1273 and boosted with mRNA-1273 recorded a score of approximately 26,102, while the group primed and boosted with Ad26.COV2.S recorded approximately 2,927. Similar patterns across the numbers were reported for the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, with Omicron-targeted scores being lower across all groups — for instance, the same mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 group recorded approximately 6,124 against Omicron compared with about 350 for the Ad26.COV2.S/Ad26.COV2.S group. The reported data for several groups (including Groups 12–17 covering 50 mcg mRNA-1273 and NVX-CoV2373 boosters, and Cohort 2) was not fully included in the data provided, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05096884 · results posted 3 December 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05096884) enrolled 14 participants, all of whom received a medication called metoprolol succinate (a type of beta blocker — a drug that slows the heart rate). The trial was looking at people experiencing breathlessness on exertion and a fast heart rate as part of Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (sometimes called "Long COVID"). Of the 14 who started, 10 completed the trial and 4 did not finish. The study took measurements at the start (baseline) and again about 12 weeks later, after 8 weeks of treatment, to see whether certain readings had changed. The reported data shows three things were measured. First, a "6-minute walk test" — how far someone could walk in six minutes — recorded an average of 275 metres at the start and 339 metres at the end of the treatment period. Second, a heart-related measurement taken by ultrasound called Zva (a figure that reflects how hard the heart has to work) showed an average of 4.24 units at the start and 3.70 units at the end. Third, participants filled in a quality-of-life questionnaire called the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, where a higher number means more symptoms; the reported average was 74 at the start and 52 at the end of the treatment period. The data as submitted does not include further statistical detail beyond these before-and-after figures. It is worth noting that this was a very small, single-group trial — meaning there was no comparison group of people who did not receive the medication — which limits how much can be read into the numbers on their own. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05323994 · results posted 17 October 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this study enrolled 104 people who had developed a depressive episode following a COVID-19 infection. One person did not complete the study, leaving 103 who finished. The study was observational — meaning researchers watched what happened in everyday clinical practice rather than randomly assigning people to different treatments — and it tracked patients taking agomelatine (an antidepressant medication) over 8 weeks. The main thing being measured was the change in depression severity using a standard rating tool called the HAMD-17 scale, which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 51 (very severe depression). The reported data shows that, on average, participants' HAMD-17 depression scores changed by 10.9 points over the 8 weeks (this figure represents the mean, or average, change across the group). For anxiety-related parts of the same scale, the reported average changes were 0.5 points for mental/psychological anxiety and 0.6 points for physical anxiety symptoms. A separate measure of overall clinical change (the CGI-I, a 7-point scale where lower numbers mean greater improvement) showed an average score of 1.3 after 8 weeks. Quality-of-life scores, measured on a 0–100 scale where higher means less disability, were reported at 50.5 and 58.7 (two different components of the questionnaire), though the data does not specify which components these correspond to, and baseline scores for these measures were not reported in the submitted data. The reported data also shows that 1 participant stopped taking the medication due to an unwanted side effect during the study period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04914364 · results posted 19 September 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04914364) enrolled 28 adults who had tested positive for COVID-19, of whom 25 completed the study and 3 did not finish. The trial was measuring balance and mobility in this group, looking at things like how steadily people could move and walk, how well their bodies used different senses to stay balanced, and how confident they felt in their own balance during everyday activities. The reported data shows that for the main measure — the Timed Up and Go test, which tracks how long it takes a person to stand up, walk a short distance, turn around, and sit back down — the average result across participants was about 20.57 seconds. For context, the test's own scale describes under 10 seconds as normal, under 20 seconds as good mobility, and under 30 seconds as indicating some walking and balance difficulties. For the sensory balance test, which asked participants to stand steadily under four different conditions (eyes open or closed, on a firm or foam surface), the reported averages ranged from 30 seconds (eyes open, firm surface) down to about 19.41 seconds (eyes closed, foam surface — the hardest condition). Finally, for the self-reported balance confidence questionnaire — where a score of 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence — the average score reported was 66.88 out of 100. The reported data shows results from a single group only, so there was no comparison group included in what was submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04359680 · results posted 26 June 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04359680) enrolled 1,407 people, split into two groups: 711 received a medicine called nitazoxanide, and 696 received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). The trial ran for six weeks and was measuring whether nitazoxanide could reduce the number of people who developed a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection or a confirmed, symptomatic respiratory viral illness during that period. The reported data shows that for the main questions the trial was designed to answer, the results were identical between the two groups. Roughly 2 in 100 participants in each group developed confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19, and roughly 5 in 100 in each group developed a confirmed symptomatic respiratory viral illness of any kind. For one of the secondary questions — whether participants died from COVID-19 or its complications — the reported data shows zero deaths occurred in either group, meaning no statistical comparison was performed. When looking at whether participants had developed COVID-19 antibodies (proteins the body makes after infection or exposure) by weeks 6 or 8, the figures were similar: 17 in 100 in the nitazoxanide group compared with 19 in 100 in the placebo group. Two additional analyses were carried out after the trial was designed (described as "post-hoc," meaning they were not part of the original plan). Among the smaller group of people who did get symptomatic COVID-19, the nitazoxanide group reported not feeling at their usual health for an average of 13.2 days, compared with 19.5 days in the placebo group; and reported being unable to do their normal activities for an average of 8.2 days, compared with 16.5 days in the placebo group. Because these last two analyses were unplanned, they should be interpreted with particular caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05059080 · results posted 28 July 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05059080) enrolled 72 participants, all placed in a single group with no comparison group. The trial was measuring several things in people with COVID-19 over a period of up to six months, including the percentage who experienced COVID-19 symptoms, their breathing difficulties (called dyspnea), their respiratory-related quality of life, medical visits related to COVID-19, deaths linked to COVID-19, and re-infection with the COVID-19 virus. Notably, of the 72 people who started the trial, only 5 were recorded as having completed it, and 67 did not complete it — the data does not explain why. The reported data shows that the percentage of participants experiencing COVID-19 symptoms (such as cough, fatigue, or fever) varied across the monthly check-ins, ranging from 0% to around 21% at different time points over the six months. For breathing difficulty, scores on a questionnaire (rated 0–30, where higher means more severe) were reported to start at around 2.04 and gradually fell to 0.00 by the final time point. For respiratory-related quality of life (rated 0–100, where higher means worse quality of life), scores started at around 12.93 and the last reported figure was 3.46. The reported data shows that approximately 2.8% of participants had a medical visit related to COVID-19, and 0% of participants were recorded as having died due to COVID-19 or as having been re-infected with the COVID-19 virus during the study period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04952402 · results posted 19 May 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 43 participants across two groups: 18 people who had previously taken part in another study called ACTIV-2/A5401 (which involved experimental COVID-19 treatments), and 25 people who had never had COVID-19 before (described as "COVID-19 Naïve"). The trial was measuring how the body responds to COVID-19 vaccination by looking at levels of neutralising antibodies — these are proteins the immune system makes that can potentially block a virus. All 43 participants completed the two-dose vaccine series, though a small number (1 in the first group and 4 in the second) did not complete all follow-up steps by the end of the study. The reported data shows that antibody levels after vaccination (the primary outcome, measured using a laboratory method called ND50) were 2,242 in the ACTIV-2 group who received an investigational therapy, 2,695 in the ACTIV-2 group who received a placebo or a drug called camostat, and 2,197 in the COVID-19 naïve group. A second measurement method (ND80) showed figures of 889, 972, and 795 respectively across those same groups. For the secondary outcome looking at how much antibody levels changed after vaccination compared to before, the reported ratios ranged from approximately 6.9 to 50.8 depending on the group and measurement method used — a ratio above 1 means levels went up after vaccination. The reported data also shows that no participants in any group experienced an allergic reaction of any grade. Regarding more serious unwanted events (grade 3 or higher), a proportion of 0.13 (roughly 13%) was reported in the ACTIV-2 investigational therapy group, while zero were reported in the other two groups. A small proportion of participants (0.10, or about 10%) in the ACTIV-2 placebo/camostat group reported a moderate or higher injection site reaction; none were reported in the other groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04328961 · results posted 16 December 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04328961) enrolled 829 adults in total — 422 in a group that received ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and 407 in a group that received hydroxychloroquine. The trial was looking at whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent COVID-19 infection in people who had recently been exposed to the virus (known as post-exposure prevention). Vitamin C was used as the comparison group. Participants collected their own swab samples daily for 14 days, and the main thing being measured was how many people in each group tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a PCR test (a type of test that detects the virus's genetic material). The reported data shows that, based on daily self-collected samples over 14 days, 45 people in the vitamin C group and 53 people in the hydroxychloroquine group had a PCR-confirmed positive result. When samples collected at the end of the study period were used, the reported figures were 48 in the vitamin C group and 58 in the hydroxychloroquine group. For a secondary measure looking at participants who tested positive *and* had symptoms meeting a standard definition of COVID-19 disease, the reported numbers were 26 in the vitamin C group and 37 in the hydroxychloroquine group. The trial also recorded how many participants reported any unwanted side effects: 46 in the vitamin C group and 66 in the hydroxychloroquine group reported at least one adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
See the full Long COVID page · What changed recently
Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.