Effectiveness and Safety of Lianhua Qingwen Capsules for COVID-19: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort Study.

As a traditional Chinese medicine, Lianhua Qingwen capsules have been widely used to treat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was aimed to demonstrate the association between treatment with Lianhua Qingwen capsules and the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This retrospective study was conducted at four hospitals in Central China. Data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients were collected between December 19, 2019 and April 26, 2020. Based on whether Lianhua Qingwen capsules were used, patients were classified into Lianhua Qingwen and non-Lianhua Qingwen (control) groups. To control for confounding factors, we used conditional logistic regression in a propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort (1 : 1 balanced), as well as logistic regression without matching as sensitivity analysis. A total of 4918 patients were included, 2760 of whom received Lianhua Qingwen capsules and 2158 of whom did not. In the PSM model, after adjusting for confounders, the in-hospital mortality was similar between the Lianhua Qingwen group and the control group (6.8% vs. 3.3%, adjusted OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.38-1.15], p = 0.138). The negative conversion rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was higher in the Lianhua Qingwen group (88.3% vs. 96.1%, adjusted OR, 4.02 [95% CI, 2.58-6.25], p < 0.001). The incidence of acute liver injury was comparable between the two groups (14.0% vs. 11.5%, adjusted OR: 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.02], p = 0.083), and the incidence of acute kidney injury was lower in the Lianhua Qingwen group (5.3% vs. 3.0%, adjusted OR: 0.71 [95% CI, 0.50-1.00], p = 0.048). Treatment with Lianhua Qingwen capsules was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. In the Lianhua Qingwen group, the negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher and the incidence of acute kidney injury was lower than in the control group.

Vaccination effects on post-infection outcomes in the Omicron BA.2 outbreak in Shanghai.

Omicron and its sublineages are currently predominant and have triggered epidemiological waves of SARS-CoV-2 around the world due to their high transmissibility and strong immune escape ability. Vaccines are key measures to control the COVID-19 burden. Omicron BA.2 caused a large-scale outbreak in Shanghai since March 2022 and resulted in over 0.6 million laboratory-confirmed infections. The vaccine coverage of primary immunization among residents aged 3 years and older in Shanghai exceeded 90%, and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were mainly delivered. In the context of high vaccine coverage, we conducted a cohort study to assess vaccine effects on reducing the probability of developing symptoms or severity of disease in infections or nonsevere cases. A total of 48,243 eligible participants were included in this study, the majority of whom had asymptomatic infections (31.0%) and mild-to-moderate illness (67.9%). Domestically developed COVID-19 vaccines provide limited protection to prevent asymptomatic infection from developing into mild-to-moderate illness and durable protection to prevent nonsevere illness from progressing to severe illness caused by Omicron BA.2. Partial vaccination fails to provide effective protection in any situation. The level of vaccine effects on disease progression in the elderly over 80 years old was relatively lower compared with other age groups. Our study results added robust evidence for the vaccine performance against Omicron infection and could improve vaccine confidence.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous immunization schedules with COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules. METHODS: Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.

A practical scoring model to predict the occurrence of critical illness in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection.

Background: The variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have emerged repeatedly, especially the Omicron strain which is extremely infectious, so early identification of patients who may develop critical illness will aid in delivering proper treatment and optimizing use of resources. We aimed to develop and validate a practical scoring model at hospital admission for predicting which patients with Omicron infection will develop critical illness. Methods: A total of 2,459 patients with Omicron infection were enrolled in this retrospective study. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to evaluate predictors associated with critical illness. Moreover, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), continuous net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination index were assessed. Results: The derivation cohort included 1721 patients and the validation cohort included 738 patients. A total of 98 patients developed critical illness. Thirteen variables were independent predictive factors and were included in the risk score: age > 65, C-reactive protein > 10 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 250 U/L, lymphocyte < 0.8*10^9/L, white blood cell > 10*10^9/L, Oxygen saturation < 90%, malignancy, chronic kidney disease, chronic cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and non-vaccination. AUROC in the derivation cohort and validation cohort were 0.926 (95% CI, 0.903-0.948) and 0.907 (95% CI, 0.860-0.955), respectively. Moreover, the critical illness risk scoring model had the highest AUROC compared with CURB-65, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and 4C mortality scores, and always obtained more net benefit. Conclusion: The risk scoring model based on the characteristics of patients at the time of admission to the hospital may help medical practitioners to identify critically ill patients and take prompt measures.

Ambroxol for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Ambroxol is a commonly used mucolytic agent principally used to treat respiratory diseases, which may have a role as adjunctive therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but there is lack of evidence about its effectiveness on coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. To study the association between ambroxol use and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients of COVID-19 infection. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study involving 3,111 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from three hospitals in Wuhan from 19 December 2019 to 15 April 2020, and the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 patients were classified into ambroxol and non-ambroxol groups based on the administration of ambroxol during hospitalization. Two analyses including propensity score matching (PSM) to obtain a 1:1 balanced cohort and logistic regression were used to control for confounding factors. The average age of 3,111 patients was 57.55 ± 14.93 years old, 127 of them died during hospitalization, and 924 of them used ambroxol. Treatment with ambroxol did not have a significant effect on in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients when compared with non-ambroxol in PSM model after adjusting for confounders (8.0% vs. 3.5%, adjusted OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.54-1.97], p = 0.936). Adverse events such as nausea/vomiting, headache, and rash were comparable between the two groups. Our results suggest that the use of ambroxol is not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, which provides evidence for evaluating the effects of ambroxol on COVID-19 patient outcomes and may be helpful for physicians considering medication alternatives for COVID-19 patients.

A review on quality control, toxicity and clinical application of Amomum tsao-ko Crevost & Lemarié

The dried fruit of Amomum tsao-ko Crevost & Lemarié, a perennial herb of Cardamom in Zingiberaceae, has been widely used in food and as a folk medicine. It is used not only as an important food additive and spice for removing peculiar smell and improving taste, but also as a traditional Chinese medicine with significant efficacy in treating many kinds of disorders. Based on the high edible and medicinal value, large amounts of investigation have been reported for A. tsaoko in the past several years. This review specifically summarises its quality control, toxicology and clinical application, about which no literature had systematically reviewed, based on our best acknowledge. The current quality control of A. tsaoko is based on the content of volatile oil, which should be no less than 1.4% according to the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China (2020 edition), while a more possible Q-Markers should be developed to focus on either a specific bioactive ingredient or a component correlated with a certain clinical efficacy. Toxicity research suggests that A. tsaoko actually belongs to the non-toxic substance, although citral and 1,8-cineole, two main components of A. tsaoko, is hepatotoxic for the former and displays low acute toxicity and sub-chronic oral toxicity for the latter, but no obviously accumulative toxicity has so far been discovered for A. tsaoko. In clinical practice, A. tsaoko is often used in treatment of dampness/cold resistance, malaria, vomiting, fullness and epigastric distension across additional disorders, such as SARS, COVID-19 and hepatitis.

Analysis on the medication rule of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of COVID-19 patients

Objective: To describe patterns of utilization of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Adult patients with COVID-19 who received TCM treatment were divided into a non-serious group (mild and moderate types) and a serious group (severe and critical types) according to their admission conditions. The medical records and prescriptions of these patients were investigated to determine their TCM utilization patterns. Results: In all, 3,872 COVID-19 patients were included. Oral Chinese traditional patent medicine (CPM) was the most commonly used type of TCM, followed by decoction. The proportion of multi-drug combinations was higher than single drug use (55.0% vs. 45.0%). Decoction combined with oral CPM was the most common combination (39.1%, 1,514/3,872). Orally administered, injected, and externally applied CPM were significantly more common in the serious group than in the non-serious, while decoction and non-drug TCM treatments were more common in the non-serious than in the serious group. Multi-drug combinations were used for the majority of patients in both groups, mainly in the form of decoctions combined with oral CPM. Among the serious patients, injected CPM was more often used in patients who died during treatment (35.0%, 36/103). The two most common medication patterns were decoction combined with oral CPM and oral CPM alone in the two finally discharged groups. Oral CPM alone or used in combination with injected CPM were seen most commonly in the death group. Significant differences were established in TCM utilization and medication patterns among patients in three groups who had different prognoses and outcomes. Conclusions: The treatment measures and medication patterns of TCM commonly used in COVID-19 patients with the range of conditions found in this study should be further explored in the future to provide a more complete reference for COVID-19 treatment.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC. METHODS: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0-91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3-79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9-73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7-82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9-67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2-96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6-91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (pinteraction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines). CONCLUSIONS: Full vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.

Feasibility analysis and mechanism exploration of Rhei Radix et Rhizome-Schisandrae Sphenantherae Fructus (RS) against COVID-19.

Introduction. As a novel global epidemic, corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 brought great suffering and disaster to mankind. Recently, although significant progress has been made in vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, there are still no drugs for treating COVID-19. It is well known that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has achieved excellent efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19 in China. As a treasure-house of natural drugs, Chinese herbs offer a promising prospect for discovering anti-COVID-19 drugs.Hypothesis/Gap Statement. We proposed that Rhei Radix et Rhizome-Schisandrae Sphenantherae Fructus (RS) may have potential value in the treatment of COVID-19 patients by regulating immune response, protecting the cardiovascular system, inhibiting the production of inflammatory factors, and blocking virus invasion and replication processes.Aim. We aimed to explore the feasibility and molecular mechanisms of RS against COVID-19, to provide a reference for basic research and clinical applications.Methodology. Through literature mining, it is found that a Chinese herbal pair, RS, has potential anti-COVID-19 activity. In this study, we analysed the feasibility of RS against COVID-19 by high-throughput molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations. Furthermore, we predicted the molecular mechanisms of RS against COVID-19 based on network pharmacology.Results. We proved the feasibility of RS anti-COVID-19 by literature mining, virtual docking and molecular dynamics simulations, and found that angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and 3C-like protease (3 CL pro) were also two critical targets for RS against COVID-19. In addition, we predicted the molecular mechanisms of RS in the treatment of COVID-19, and identified 29 main ingredients, 21 potential targets and 16 signalling pathways. Rhein, eupatin, (-)-catechin, aloe-emodin may be important active ingredients in RS. ALB, ESR1, EGFR, HMOX1, CTSL, and RHOA may be important targets against COVID-19. Platelet activation, renin secretion, ras signalling pathway, chemokine signalling pathway, and human cytomegalovirus infection may be important signalling pathways against COVID-19.Conclusion. RS plays a key role in the treatment of COVID-19, which may be closely related to immune regulation, cardiovascular protection, anti-inflammation, virus invasion and replication processes.

Association Between Drug Treatments and the Incidence of Liver Injury in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the emergence of global health care. In this study, we aimed to explore the association between drug treatments and the incidence of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A retrospective study was conducted on 5113 COVID-19 patients in Hubei province, among which 395 incurred liver injury. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. The results showed that COVID-19 patients who received antibiotics (HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.55-2.51, p < 0.001), antifungal agents (HR 3.10, 95% CI: 1.93-4.99, p < 0.001) and corticosteroids (HR 2.31, 95% CI: 1.80-2.96, p < 0.001) had a higher risk of DILI compared to non-users. Special attention was given to the use of parenteral nutrition (HR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.31-2.52, p < 0.001) and enteral nutrition (HR 2.71, 95% CI: 1.98-3.71, p < 0.001), which were the risk factors for liver injury. In conclusion, this study suggests that the development of DILI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 needs to be closely monitored, and the above-mentioned drug treatments may contribute to the risk of DILI.

Reinfection rates among patients previously infected by SARS-CoV-2: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic or symptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be followed by reinfection. The protection conferred by prior infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is unclear. We assessed the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and the protection effect of previous infection against reinfection. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications up until the end date of May 1, 2021. The reinfection rate of recovered patients and the protection against reinfection were analyzed using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies of 1096 reinfection patients were included. The pooled reinfection rate was 0.65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.98%). The symptomatic reinfection rate was a bit lower (0.37% [95% CI 0.11-0.78%], I2 = 99%). The reinfection rate was much higher in high-risk populations (1.59% [95% CI 0.30-3.88%], I2 = 90%). The protection against reinfection and symptomatic reinfection was similar (87.02% [95% CI 83.22-89.96%] and 87.17% [95% CI 83.09-90.26%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low. The protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to that estimated for vaccine efficacy. These data may help guide public health measures and vaccination strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. High-quality clinical studies are needed to establish the relevant risk factors in recovered patients.

Prevalence and Correlates of Alexithymia and Its Relationship With Life Events in Chinese Adolescents With Depression During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives: The incidence of psychological and behavioral problems and depression among adolescents is increasing year by year, which has become an important public health problem. Alexithymia, as an important susceptible factor of adolescent depression, may continue to develop and strengthen under the stimulation of COVID-19-related stressors. However, no studies have focused on alexithymia in adolescent depression during the pandemic in China. This study aims to investigate the incidence and related factors of alexithymia in adolescent depression during the pandemic. Methods: Three hundred adolescent patients were enrolled from October 2020 to May 2021. The general demographic information of all participants was collected, and the clinical characteristics were assessed by the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Adolescent Self-Rating Life Events Check (ASLEC) List, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and the Positive and Negative Suicide Ideation (PANSI) Inventory. Results: The incidence of alexithymia was significantly higher among adolescents with depression (76.45%) during the pandemic. There were significant differences in school bullying, disease severity, ASLEC score, CTQ score and PANSI score between adolescents with and without alexithymia. In addition, learning stress, health and adaptation problems during the pandemic may be influential factors in alexithymia of adolescent depression (P < 0.05). Conclusions: According to the results, we found a high incidence of alexithymia in adolescent depression during the pandemic. More support and attention from families, schools and society is needed to develop preventive and targeted psychological interventions as early as possible.

Prediction of Road Network Traffic State Using the NARX Neural Network

To provide reliable traffic information and more convenient visual feedback to traffic managers and travelers, we proposed a prediction model that combines a neural network and a Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram (MFD) for predicting the traffic state of regional road networks over long periods. The method is broadly divided into the following steps. To obtain the current traffic state of the road network, the traffic state efficiency index formula proposed in this paper is used to derive it, and the MFD of the current state is drawn by using the classification of the design speed and free flow speed of the classified road. Then, based on the collected data from the monitoring stations and the weighting formula of the grade roads, the problem of insufficient measured data is solved. Meanwhile, the prediction performance of NARX, LSTM, and GRU is experimentally compared with traffic prediction, and it is found that NARX NN can predict long-term flow and the prediction performance is slightly better than both LSTM and GRU models. Afterward, the predicted data from the four stations were integrated based on the classified road weighting formula. Finally, according to the traffic state classification interval, the traffic state of the road network for the next day is obtained from the current MFD, the predicted traffic flow, and the corresponding speed. The results indicate that the combination of the NARX NN with the MFD is an effective attempt to predict and describe the long-term traffic state at the macroscopic level.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of 32 pharmacological interventions recommended by guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 66 trials.

BACKGROUND: The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: COR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

An analytical study of drug utilization, disease progression, and adverse events among 165 COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has lasted for nearly 4 months by this study was conducted. We aimed to describe drug utilization, disease progression, and adverse drug events of COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center case series study enrolled 165 consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were followed up until March 25, 2020, from a designated hospital in Wuhan. Patients were grouped by a baseline degree of severity: non-severe and severe. An analytical study of drug utilization, disease progression, and adverse events (AEs) of COVID-19 was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 165 COVID-19 cases, antivirals, antibacterials, glucocorticoids, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) were administered to 92.7%, 98.8%, 68.5%, and 55.2% of patients, respectively. The total kinds of drugs administered to the severe subgroup [26, interquartile range (IQR) 18-39] were 11 more than the non-severe subgroup (15, IQR 10-24), regardless of comorbidities. The 2 most common combinations of medications in the 165 cases were 'antiviral therapy + glucocorticoids + TCM' (81, 49.1%) and 'antiviral therapy + glucocorticoids' (23, 13.9%). Compared with non-severe cases, severe cases received more glucocorticoids (88.5% vs. 66.2%, P=0.02), but less TCM (50.0% vs. 63.3%, P=0.20), and suffered a higher percentage of death (34.6% vs. 7.2%, P=0.001). At the end of the follow-up, 130 (78.8%) patients had been discharged, and 24 (14.5%) died. There were 13 patients (7.9%) who had elevated liver enzymes, and 49 patients (29.7%) presented with worsening kidney function during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 165 COVID-19 patients, the fatality rate remained high (14.5%). Drug utilization for COVID-19 was diverse and generally complied with the existing guidelines. Combination regimens containing antiviral drugs might be beneficial to assist COVID-19 recovery. Additionally, liver and kidney AEs should not be ignored.

Add-On Chinese Medicine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (ACCORD): A Retrospective Cohort Study of Hospital Registries.

Chinese medicine (CM) was extensively used to treat COVID-19 in China. We aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of add-on semi-individualized CM during the outbreak. A retrospective cohort of 1788 adult confirmed COVID-19 patients were recruited from 2235 consecutive linked records retrieved from five hospitals in Wuhan during 15 January to 13 March 2020. The mortality of add-on semi-individualized CM users and non-users was compared by inverse probability weighted hazard ratio (HR) and by propensity score matching. Change of biomarkers was compared between groups, and the frequency of CMs used was analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed to stratify disease severity and dose of CM exposure. The crude mortality was 3.8% in the semi-individualized CM user group and 17.0% among the non-users. Add-on CM was associated with a mortality reduction of 58% (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.77, [Formula: see text] = 0.005) among all COVID-19 cases and 66% (HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.76, [Formula: see text] = 0.009) among severe/critical COVID-19 cases demonstrating dose-dependent response, after inversely weighted with propensity score. The result was robust in various stratified, weighted, matched, adjusted and sensitivity analyses. Severe/critical patients that received add-on CM had a trend of stabilized D-dimer level after 3-7 days of admission when compared to baseline. Immunomodulating and anti-asthmatic CMs were most used. Add-on semi-individualized CM was associated with significantly reduced mortality, especially among severe/critical cases. Chinese medicine could be considered as an add-on regimen for trial use.

Corticosteroid prevents COVID-19 progression within its therapeutic window: a multicentre, proof-of-concept, observational study.

Critically ill patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) are of grave concern. Those patients usually underwent a stage of excessive inflammation before developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. In this study, we test the hypothesis that short-term, low-to-moderate-dose corticosteroids would benefit patients when used in the early phase of excessive inflammation, namely, the therapeutic window. Among a Shanghai cohort and a validation cohort, we enrolled COVID-19 patients showing marked radiographic progression. Short-term, low-to-moderate-dose corticosteroids were considered for them. After identifying the possible markers for the therapeutic window, we then divided the patients, based on whether they were treated with corticosteroids within the therapeutic window, into the early-start group and control group. We identified that the therapeutic window for corticosteroids was characterized by a marked radiographic progression and lactase dehydrogenase (LDH) less than two times the upper limit of normal (ULN). The Shanghai cohort comprised of 68 patients, including 47 in the early-start group and 21 in the control group. The proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly lower in the early-start group than in the control group (10.6% vs. 33.3%, difference, 22.7%, 95% confidence interval 2.6-44.8%). Among the validation cohort of 51 patients, similar difference of the primary outcome was observed (45.0% vs. 74.2%, P = 0.035). Among COVID-19 patients with marked radiologic progression, short-term, low-to-moderate-dose corticosteroids benefits patients with LDH levels of less than two times the ULN, who may be in the early phase of excessive inflammation.

Risks and features of secondary infections in severe and critical ill COVID-19 patients.

Objectives Severe or critical COVID-19 is associated with intensive care unit admission, increased secondary infection rate, and would lead to significant worsened prognosis. Risks and characteristics relating to secondary infections in severe COVID-19 have not been described. Methods Severe and critical COVID-19 patients from Shanghai were included. We collected lower respiratory, urine, catheters, and blood samples according to clinical necessity and culture and mNGS were performed. Clinical and laboratory data were archived. Results We found 57.89% (22/38) patients developed secondary infections. The patient receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or in critical state has a higher chance of secondary infections (P<0.0001). The most common infections were respiratory, blood-stream and urinary infections, and in respiratory infections, the most detected pathogens were gram-negative bacteria (26, 50.00%), following by gram-positive bacteria (14, 26.92%), virus (6, 11.54%), fungi (4, 7.69%), and others (2, 3.85%). Respiratory Infection rate post high flow, tracheal intubation, and tracheotomy were 12.90% (4/31), 30.43% (7/23), and 92.31% (12/13) respectively. Secondary infections would lead to lower discharge rate and higher mortality rate. Conclusion Our study originally illustrated secondary infection proportion in severe and critical COVID-19 patients. Culture accompanied with metagenomics sequencing increased pathogen diagnostic rate. Secondary infections risks increased after receiving invasive respiratory ventilations and intravascular devices, and would lead to a lower discharge rate and a higher mortality rate.

Comparative analysis of clinical characteristics, imaging and laboratory findings of different age groups with COVID-19.

Objective: This study aims to provide scientific basis for rapid screening and early diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through analysing the clinical characteristics and early imaging/laboratory findings of the inpatients. Methods: Three hundred and three patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from the East Hospital of People's Hospital of Wuhan University (Wuhan, China) were selected and divided into four groups: youth (20-40 years, n = 64), middle-aged (41-60 years, n = 89), older (61-80 years, n = 118) and elderly (81-100 years, n = 32). The clinical characteristics and imaging/laboratory findings including chest computed tomography (CT), initial blood count, C-reactive protein [CRP]), procalcitonin (PCT) and serum total IgE were captured and analysed. Results: (1) The first symptoms of all age groups were primarily fever (76%), followed by cough (12%) and dyspnoea (5%). Beside fever, the most common initial symptom of elderly patients was fatigue (13%). (2) Fever was the most common clinical manifestation (80%), with moderate fever being the most common (40%), followed by low fever in patients above 40 years old and high fever in those under 40 years (35%). Cough was the second most common clinical manifestation and was most common (80%) in the middle-aged. Diarrhoea was more common in the middle-aged (21%) and the older (19%). Muscle ache was more common in the middle-aged (15%). Chest pain was more common in the youth (13%), and 13% of the youth had no symptoms. (3) The proportion of patients with comorbidities increased with age. (4) Seventy-one per cent of the patients had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction results and 29% had positive chest CT scans before admission to the hospital. (5) Lesions in all lobes of the lung were observed as the main chest CT findings (76%). (6) Decrease in lymphocytes and increase in monocytes were common in the patients over 40 years old but rare in the youth. Eosinophils (50%), red blood cells (39%) and haemoglobin (40%) decreased in all age groups. (7) The proportion of patients with CRP and PCT elevation increased with age. (8) Thirty-nine per cent of the patients had elevated IgE, with the highest proportion in the old (49%). Conclusion: The clinical characteristics and imaging/laboratory findings of COVID-19 patients vary in different age groups. Personalised criteria should be formulated according to different age groups in the early screening and diagnosis stage.

Lactate dehydrogenase and susceptibility to deterioration of mild COVID-19 patients: a multicenter nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 4 million people within 4 months. There is an urgent need to properly identify high-risk cases that are more likely to deteriorate even if they present mild diseases on admission. METHODS: A multicenter nested case-control study was conducted in four designated hospitals in China enrolling confirmed COVID-19 patients who were mild on admission. Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between patients with stable mild illness (stable mild group) and those who deteriorated from mild to severe illness (progression group). RESULTS: From Jan 17, 2020, to Feb 1, 2020, 85 confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled, including 16 in the progression group and 69 in the stable mild group. Compared to stable mild group (n = 69), patients in the progression group (n = 16) were more likely to be older, male, presented with dyspnea, with hypertension, and with higher levels of lactase dehydrogenase and c-reactive protein. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, advanced age (odds ratio [OR], 1.012; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.020-1.166; P = 0.011) and the higher level of lactase dehydrogenase (OR, 1.012; 95% CI, 1.001-1.024; P = 0.038) were independently associated with exacerbation in mild COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Advanced age and high LDH level are independent risk factors for exacerbation in mild COVID-19 patients. Among the mild patients, clinicians should pay more attention to the elderly patients or those with high LDH levels.