r/LongCovidTrials

Lc trial (completion date)

• Tvgn489. Ph2 tbd

• 5b8 / thn391. Ph1 Alzheimer

• Maraviroc 2026 04 DL

• Lumbrokinase 2026 12 DL

• Sipavibart. 2026 12

• Truvada 2026 12 DL

• Vyd2311. Tbd ph2 start mid 2026

• Anktiva 2026 10

• Barticinib 2027 12 / 2029? (Ph3)

• Upadacitinib & pirfenidone 2027 12 (Ph 3)

• Abrocitinib 2026 10

• ensitrelvir 2026 12 DL

• Larazotide 2027 04

• daratumumab tbd ph2 2028?

• Rapamycine 2x 2026 06, 2026 12

• Mestinon 2026 11 (& ldn)

• Vericiguat 2026 12 DL

• Inebilizumab / Uplizna ??

• Bezisterim 2026 08 DL

• semaglutide ??

• Tirzepatide 2027 01

• Anakinra 2028 03

• Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) ?? Ph1

So just wanted to share a list of trials that im following and that have potential in symptom relief or cures. DL means delayed. This is mainly phase 2 trials.

Dates are estimated end dates from clinicaltrial.gov

My personal favorite 5b8 is unclear if it will even be trialled for LC. Anyway thought you guys might like this.

(Xocova= Covid antiviral) I believe I read that it's before the FDA in June for approval. Is this correct? Does anyone know more? Has anyone in the US tried it before? Does anyone know where to obtain it if you live in the US? I've obtained drugs from Canada, so I know it's possible. Curious about any experiences within the CC community with trying it or obtaining it.

Great piece from Dr. W. Michael Brode, an internal medicine doctor who treats LC patients.

He writes that while we are not there yet, the day when we have a real, established biomarker for Long COVID is coming.

This will be amazing news for the LC community, when it happens. We'll finally have a test doctors can order to show what's going on with us. Numerous reachers have noted that pharma companies won't be excited to invest in LC *until* there is a biomarker to show what's going on. So it's encouraging that Dr. Brode doesn't think we're too far off.

However, the downside that we need to be prepared for is that any biomarker test may not be perfect. It may not be able to pick up on everything that's going on with every single patient - and it's not too soon to start acknowledging that. As Dr. Brode writes, "The time to prepare is now, not after people are left behind."

He goes on to explain,

>"Clinics and health systems need clear policies, created in partnership with people with Long COVID and other IACCs, that spell out how care continues when a test comes back negative. That includes protocols for ongoing evaluation, treatment access, and thoughtful referral so that no one is denied the care they need. Researchers should study how treatments perform in people without biomarker positivity: supervised access programs, open-label extensions, and dedicated follow-up groups that collect real-world evidence. "

This is such an important point - we should start laying the groundwork now for how a test will change what care looks like for LC - and for what exactly we should expect for a test.

A test that only tests positive for some patients, but no others whose symptoms are very real, shouldn't be used to exclude those who do test negative.

All this said, it is very encouraging to see a doctor in the Long COVID space say it's not too soon to think about this, and that a biomarker is on the horizon!

Thanks Dr. Brode and The Sick Times for calling attention to this!

​Hi everyone! I’m researching a protocol involving Nattokinase, Serrapeptase, Famotidine, Loratadine, EGCG, and Curcumin for microclots and inflammation. If you’ve tried this combo or a similar regimen, I’d love to hear about your experience. Which dosages worked best for you, whose protocol did you follow, and how long did it take to see results? Any insights on what to expect or specific side effects would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for sharing.

In this new paper, researchers from the NIH and UCFS, along with Long COVID patients themselves, argue for a priority shift in Long COVID research funding.

They emphasize that researchers should focus on clinical trials of the treatments most likely to have tangible, near-term results - rather than more abstractly broadening our understanding of the condition.

With a more immediate emphasis on disease-modifying medications, researchers are more likely to discover treatments that work, not only providing help and hope to patients, but also providing evidence to pharmaceutical companies and other potential stakeholders that there ARE answers to be discovered here, and that LC is worthy of future investment.

The authors also explain that the field of LC research has now arrived at a place where we have established a framework of understanding for different possible (and interrelated) disease mechanisms. They write, "The knowledge gained has helped identify possible disease-modifying treatment targets, including several types of immunomodulatory, neurological, antiviral and other drugs, as well as some other therapeutic approaches such as devices^(.")

They also argue that we now have enough of an evidence base to suggest that many of the treatment candidates are likely to be safe for LC patients, whether that is through evidence generated through past clinical trials (as in the case of monoclonal antibodies) or evidence gained through observing use in other diseases (such as GLP-1 agonists).

Additionally, they argue that in the absence of real, established treatments, many LC patients will continue to experiment with unproven, potentially dangerous self-treatments - posing a real risk of harm.

What do you think?

We know the LC community has a range of different opinions on this topic. Some have argued for clinical trials of medications to be top priority (as argued in this paper). Yet we know many others believe we need a more detailed understanding of the mechanisms of Long COVID, as well as biomarkers to know which patients belong to each subgroup, before clinical trials are likely to truly discover meaningful results.

Where do you fall on this range of opinions? Let us know in the comments below!

On May 12, 2026 the FDA put out a call for a renewed focus on repurposed medications. They signaled their willingness to consider treatment data under existing legislation known as the Real World Evidence (RWE) pathway.  

Real World Evidence is a legal and regulatory pathway that allows the FDA to make decisions about drug approval based on the real life experiences of patients, rather than relying only on clinical trials.  

This pathway can be used to bring answers to patients more urgently.  In the past, RWE has been used to expand access to lifesaving medications based on small numbers of case studies, whereas a full placebo-controlled clinical trial wouldn’t have been ethical.  It has also been used to expand the eligibility criteria for who can receive a certain medication without waiting for expensive, multi-year clinical trials (source).  

In this recent announcement, the FDA signalled that they’re specifically looking to repurpose medications for these conditions - particularly for drugs which don’t currently have much commercial interest.

This is a perfect opportunity for those in the Long COVID Community to make ourselves heard!  

While it thankfully would be inaccurate to say there is no commercial interest in LC, we all know that pharmaceutical investment has been slow, as the companies say they are waiting for more established biomarkers before running trials.

We believe, as many researchers do, that there are existing medications currently sitting unused on shelves right now that could be treating, or even curing people, as in our founder Rohan’s personal experience. 

We are interested in repurposed treatments such as:

• Antivirals: Paxlovid, molnupiravir, anti-EBV medications,  ensitrelvir (which is under review for possible approval as post-exposure prophylaxis) 
• Monoclonal antibodies - Evusheld is what cured Rohan, see also this case study of recoveries from Regen-Cov, we are also gathering data from patients in our Patient Registry who’ve seen improvements on Pemgarda and Sipavibart
• IVIG
• Immunomodulators to increase antiviral immune response - PD-1 inhibitors are an existing treatment for cancer and are about to be studied for Long COVID in an upcoming clinical trial.

The FDA has requested public comment here.  You can share your thoughts and upload any supporting documentation.  The deadline to comment is June 11, 2026.

Long COVID Labs will be submitting a comment ourselves, along with anonymized data from the first round of patients who shared their experiences in our Patient Registry! (We’ll be sharing all of that data open-source with the community - stay tuned for that as well!).

For now we wanted to get the word out.  Anyone who wants the FDA to seriously consider repurposed medications for Long COVID, please do make your voice heard!

Great to see Nature highlighting the importance of a post-exposure prophylaxis!

Ensitrelvir is currently under review by the FDA with a decision date listed of June 16, 2026. Very much hoping for a positive outcome here!

Paywall free version