Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Front Pharmacol ; 12: 683296, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430716

ABSTRACT

Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014). Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable.

2.
SSRN; 2020.
Preprint | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-1043

ABSTRACT

Background: Asymptomatic carriers were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) without developing symptoms, which might be a

3.
SSRN; 2020.
Preprint | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-570

ABSTRACT

Emerging worldwide pandemic COVID-19 is spreading around the world. At present, the diagnosis of COVID-19 mainly depends on qRT-PCR assay of throat swabs. Howev

4.
EClinicalMedicine ; 26: 100510, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-758754

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic carriers were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) without developing symptoms, which might be a potential source of infection outbreak. Here, we aim to clarify the epidemiologic and influencing factors of asymptomatic carriers in the general population. METHODS: In our hospital, all hospital staff have received throat swab RT-PCR test, plasma COVID-19 IgM/IgG antibodies test and chest CT examination. We analyzed the correlation between infection rates and gender, age, job position, work place and COVID-19 knowledge training of the staff. After that, all asymptomatic staff were re-examined weekly for 3 weeks. FINDINGS: A total of 3764 hospital staff were included in this single-center cross-sectional study. Among them, 126 hospital staff had abnormal findings, and the proportion of asymptomatic infection accounted for 0.76% (28/3674). There were 26 staff with IgM+, 73 with IgG+, and 40 with ground glass shadow of chest CT. Of all staff with abnormal findings, the older they are, the more likely they are to be the staff with abnormal results, regardless of their gender. Of 3674 hospital staff, the positive rate of labor staff is obviously higher than that of health care workers (HCWs) and administrative staff (P<0.05). In the course of participating in the treatment of COVID-19, there was no statistically significant difference in positive rates between high-risk departments and low-risk departments (P>0.05). The positive rate of HCWs who participated in the COVID-19 knowledge training was lower than those did not participate in early training (P <0.01). Importantly, it was found that there was no statistical difference between the titers of IgM antibody of asymptomatic infections and confirmed patients with COVID-19 in recovery period (P>0.05). During 3 weeks follow-up, all asymptomatic patients did not present the development of clinical symptoms or radiographic abnormalities after active intervention in isolation point. INTERPRETATION: To ensure the safety of resumption of work, institutions should conduct COVID-19 prevention training for staff and screening for asymptomatic patients, and take quarantine measures as soon as possible in areas with high density of population. FUNDING: The Key Project for Anti-2019 novel Coronavirus Pneumonia from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China; Wuhan Emergency Technology Project of COVID-19 epidemic, China.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL