Statistical analysis
VIRUS, ORF
The sample size calculation was based on the expected reduction of virus load during the treatment considering 3 treatment arms. It was assumed that all treatment groups present identical baseline virus load at enrolment with a mean value of 5.5 logData was analysed primarily exploratively; there was no formal testing of a given hypothesis. Analyses were done on the entire data set (ITT) as well as on a subset population with high viral load defined by baseline Ct values below 25 (Ct < 25). Both descriptive and exploratory statistics were performed. Subgroups were analysed exploratorily (e.g., subgroups regarding gender, age, symptom severity, etc.).Continuous data were described by statistical estimates (mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum values). Categorical data were described by absolute frequencies and percentage of valid cases. Ct values reported as “negative” were replaced with the value 45, and respective cp/mL values with the value 1, and cp/mL values < 2116 (ORF 1a/b gene) and cp/mL values < 1950 (E gene) were replaced with the value 1.Study endpoints were presented by descriptive statistics, aiming to compare the course of viral load between the three treatment groups. Whereas PCR data of individual days served for daily comparisons between treatment groups, the area under the curve (AUC) value was used for the evaluation of the overall development of viral kinetics. While comparison of categorial variables between groups were performed by Chi square testing, continuous variables were compared using ANCOVA with the factors baseline, visit, and treatment group. All tests were performed two-sided and the type 1 error (α) was set to 5%. Three-group comparisons were analysed with Kruskal–Wallis test. For pairwise comparisons between treatment groups, Mann Whitney 