ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in patients with severe/critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this retrospective study, data were collected from 662 patients with severe/critical COVID-19 who were admitted to a designated hospital to treat patients with severe COVID-19 in Wuhan before March 20, 2020. All patients were divided into an exposed group (CHM users) and a control group (non-users). After propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio, 156 CHM users were matched by propensity score to 156 non-users. No significant differences in seven baseline clinical variables were found between the two groups of patients. All-cause mortality was reported in 13 CHM users who died and 36 non-users who died. After multivariate adjustment, the mortality risk of CHM users was reduced by 82.2% (odds ratio 0.178, 95% CI 0.076-0.418; P < 0.001) compared with the non-users. Secondly, age (odds ratio 1.053, 95% CI 1.023-1.084; P < 0.001) and the proportion of severe/critical patients (odds ratio 0.063, 95% CI 0.028-0.143; P < 0.001) were the risk factors of mortality. These results show that the use of CHM may reduce the mortality of patients with severe/critical COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Age Factors , Aged , China , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Survival RateABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The global outbreak of human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 infection represents an urgent need for readily available, accurate and rapid diagnostic tests. Nucleic acid testing of respiratory tract specimens for SARS-CoV-2 is the current gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the diagnostic accuracy of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid may be lower than optimal. The detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies should be used as a serological non-invasive tool for the diagnosis and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic value of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and nucleic acid detection in COVID-19. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 652 suspected COVID-19 patients, and 206 non-COVID-19 patients in Wuhan Integrated TCM and Western Medicine Hospital. Data on SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests and serum antibody tests were collected to investigate the diagnostic value of nucleic acid RT-PCR test kits and immunoglobulin (Ig)M/IgG antibody test kits. The χ2 test was used to compare differences between categorical variables. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was provided by the Wilson score method. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). RESULTS: Of the 652 suspected COVID-19 patients, 237 (36.3%) had positive nucleic acid tests, 311 (47.7%) were positive for IgM, and 592 (90.8%) were positive for IgG. There was a significant difference in the positive detection rate between the IgM and IgG test groups (P < 0.001). Using the RT-PCR results as a reference, the specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of IgM/IgG combined tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection were 98.5%, 95.8%, and 97.1%, respectively. Of the 415 suspected COVID-19 patients with negative nucleic acid test results, 366 had positive IgM/IgG tests with a positive detection rate of 88.2%. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that serological IgM/IgG antibody combined test had high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and can be used in combination with RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.