Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324487

ABSTRACT

Background: The World Health Organization characterized the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11. Many clinical trials on COVID-19 have been registered, and we aim to review the characteristics of the trials and provide guidance for future trials to avoid duplicated effort. Methods All the studies on COVID-19 registered before Mar 3, 2020 on eight registry platforms worldwide were searched and the data of design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. The most promising trials were screened based on study design, rationale, and resource availability. Results 393 studies registered were identified until Mar 3 2020 and 380 (96.7%) studies were from mainland China, while 3 in Japan, 3 in France, 2 in the US, and 3 were international collaborative studies. 363 studies (92.4%) recruited participants from hospitals and 266 studies (67.7%) aimed at therapeutic effect, others were for prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. 202 studies (51.4%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The average sample size was 1061 and ranged from 8 to 150,000 per study. 177 out of 266 therapeutic studies (66.5% ) tested Western medicines including antiviral drugs (17.7%), stem cell and cord blood therapy (10.2%), chloroquine and derivatives (8.3%), 16 (6.0%) on Chinese medicines, and 73 (27.4%) on integrated therapy of Western and Chinese medicines. 14 Chinese medicines had its clear rationale for evaluation of therapeutic effects. 31 studies among 266 therapeutic studies (11.7%) used mortality as primary outcome, while the most designed secondary outcomes were symptoms and signs (47.0%). 106 studies (27.0%) were funded by the government, and 268 (68.2%) demonstrated ethical approval. 45.5% studies (179 out of 266) had not started recruiting till Mar 3. Eight RCTs were evaluated as the most promising trials. Conclusions Majority of the studies focused on assessing therapeutics for COVID-19 but inappropriate outcome setting, delayed recruitment and insufficient numbers of new cases in China implied many studies may fail to complete. Strategies and protocols of the studies with robust and rapid data sharing from international collaboration are warranted for emergency public health events, helping to accelerate priority setting for timely evidence-based decision-making.

2.
Integr Med Res ; 9(3): 100426, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-324585

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization characterized the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11th. Many clinical trials on COVID-19 have been registered, and we aim to review the study characteristics and provide guidance for future trials to avoid duplicated effort. METHODS: Studies on COVID-19 registered before March 3rd, 2020 on eight registry platforms worldwide were searched and the data of design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-three studies were identified and 380 (96.7%) were from mainland China, while 3 in Japan, 3 in France, 2 in the US, and 3 were international collaborative studies. Two hundred and sixty-six (67.7%) aimed at therapeutic effect, others were for prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. Two hundred and two studies (51.4%) were randomized controlled trials. Two third of therapeutic studies tested Western medicines including antiviral drugs (17.7%), stem cell and cord blood therapy (10.2%), chloroquine and derivatives (8.3%), 16 (6.0%) on Chinese medicines, and 73 (27.4%) on integrated therapy of Western and Chinese medicines. Thirty-one studies among 266 therapeutic studies (11.7%) used mortality as primary outcome, while the most designed secondary outcomes were symptoms and signs (47.0%). Half of the studies (45.5%) had not started recruiting till March 3rd. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate outcome setting, delayed recruitment and insufficient numbers of new cases in China implied many studies may fail to complete. Strategies and protocols of the studies with robust and rapid data sharing are warranted for emergency public health events, helping the timely evidence-based decision-making.

3.
Chin J Integr Med ; 26(4): 243-250, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Since December 2019, an outbreak of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, and rapidly spread to almost all parts of China. This was followed by prevention programs recommending Chinese medicine (CM) for the prevention. In order to provide evidence for CM recommendations, we reviewed ancient classics and human studies. METHODS: Historical records on prevention and treatment of infections in CM classics, clinical evidence of CM on the prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 influenza, and CM prevention programs issued by health authorities in China since the COVID-19 outbreak were retrieved from different databases and websites till 12 February, 2020. Research evidence included data from clinical trials, cohort or other population studies using CM for preventing contagious respiratory virus diseases. RESULTS: The use of CM to prevent epidemics of infectious diseases was traced back to ancient Chinese practice cited in Huangdi's Internal Classic (Huang Di Nei Jing) where preventive effects were recorded. There were 3 studies using CM for prevention of SARS and 4 studies for H1N1 influenza. None of the participants who took CM contracted SARS in the 3 studies. The infection rate of H1N1 influenza in the CM group was significantly lower than the non-CM group (relative risk 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.52; n=4). For prevention of COVID-19, 23 provinces in China issued CM programs. The main principles of CM use were to tonify qi to protect from external pathogens, disperse wind and discharge heat, and resolve dampness. The most frequently used herbs included Radix astragali (Huangqi), Radix glycyrrhizae (Gancao), Radix saposhnikoviae (Fangfeng), Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae (Baizhu), Lonicerae Japonicae Flos (Jinyinhua), and Fructus forsythia (Lianqiao). CONCLUSIONS: Based on historical records and human evidence of SARS and H1N1 influenza prevention, Chinese herbal formula could be an alternative approach for prevention of COVID-19 in high-risk population. Prospective, rigorous population studies are warranted to confirm the potential preventive effect of CM.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Epidemics , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Astragalus propinquus , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Epidemics/history , Epidemics/prevention & control , History, Ancient , Humans , Infection Control/history , Infection Control/methods , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/therapy , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/history , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/methods , Pandemics , Qi , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL