Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
J Ethnopharmacol ; 277: 113888, 2021 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1056890

ABSTRACT

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formed a global pandemic since late 2019. Benefitting from the application experience of Chinese Medicine (CM) for influenza and SARS, CM has been used to save patients at the early stage of COVID-19 outbreak in China. AIM OF THE STUDY: In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CM, and compare with Western Medicine (WM) for COVID-19, we conducted a retrospective case series study based on the patients in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China. METHODS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria of data extraction were set for this retrospective study. All patients who were admitted by the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital between January 17th and February 25th 2020 were considered. In addition, patients enrolled met the severe defined by the guidelines released by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. In these cases included in the study, CM or WM treatment was selected according to the wishes of the patients at the beginning of hospitalization. The patients in CM group were treated with Huashi Baidu granule (137 g po, bid) combined with the injections of Xiyanping (100 mg iv, bid), Xuebijing (100 ml iv, bid) and Shenmai (60 ml iv, qd) according to the syndrome of epidemic toxin blocking the lung in the theory of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The WM group received antiviral therapy (including abidor capsule 0.2 g po, tid; Lopinavir-Ritonavir tablets, 500 mg po, bid), antibiotics (such as cefoperazone 2 g iv, bid; moxifloxacin hydrochloride tablets, 0.4 g po, qd) or corticosteroid therapy (such as methylprednisolone succinate sodium 40 mg iv, qd; prednisone, 30 mg po, qd). In addition, patients in both groups received routine supportive treatment, including oxygen inhalation, symptomatic therapy, and/or human intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or serum albumin, and treatment for underlying diseases. The clinical outcomes were evaluated based on changes related with clinical manifestations, computer tomography (CT) scan images, and laboratory examinations before and after the treatment. RESULTS: 55 severe COVID-19 patients, with 23 in CM group and 32 in WM group, were included for analyzed. There was no case of death, being transferred to ICU, or receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in two groups during hospitalization. The median time of SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in CM and WM group were 12 days and 15.5 days respectively, the ratio of nucleic acid negative conversion of CM group at different follow-up time points was significantly higher than that of WM group (HR: 2.281, P = 0.018). Further, the chest CT imaging showed more widely lung lesion opacity absorbed in the CM group. The high sensitivity C-reactive protein and serum ferritin decreased significantly in the CM group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events in terms of liver function and renal function between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Based on this retrospective analysis from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, CM has better effects in SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance, promoting lung lesion opacity absorbed and reducing inflammation in severe COVID-19 patients, which is effective and safe therapy for treating severe COVID-19 and reducing mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/adverse effects , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/methods , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/mortality , China , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Inflammation/drug therapy , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Lymphopenia/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/drug effects , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
2.
N Engl J Med ; 382(19): 1787-1799, 2020 05 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-9371

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Acuity , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Proportional Hazards Models , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Ritonavir/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment Failure , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL