Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(21): e26059, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242122

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: : Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging and rapidly evolving disease, with no recommended effective anti-coronavirus treatments. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been widely used to treat COVID-19 in China, and the most used one is Lianhuaqingwen (LH). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of LH combined with usual treatment vs usual treatment alone in treating mild or moderate COVID-19 by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: : We systematically searched the Medline (OVID), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 4 Chinese databases from inception to July 2020 to include the RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of LH in combination with usual treatment vs usual treatment for mild or moderate COVID-19. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: : A total of 5 RCTs with 824 individuals with mild or moderate COVID 19 were included. Compared with the usual treatment alone, LH in combination with usual treatment significantly improved the overall clinical efficacy (RR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.61-3.55), increased the rate of recovery of chest computed tomographic manifestations (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.08-3.01), reduced the rate of conversion to severe cases (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.74), shorten the duration of fever (MD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.84). Moreover, LH in combination with usual treatment did not increase the occurrence of the adverse event compared to usual treatment alone. CONCLUSION: : Our meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that LH in combination with usual treatment may improve the clinical efficacy in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 without increasing adverse events. However, given the limitations and poor quality of included trials in this study, further large-sample RCTs or high-quality real-world studies are needed to confirm our conclusions.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/administration & dosage , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , China , Combined Modality Therapy/adverse effects , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/adverse effects , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Nutritional Support , Oxygen/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
3.
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol ; 320(1): L12-L16, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079133

ABSTRACT

Oxygen is the most commonly used therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In those patients who develop worsening pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), high concentrations of oxygen may need to be administered for prolonged time periods, often together with mechanical ventilation. Hyperoxia, although lifesaving and essential for maintaining adequate oxygenation in the short term, may have adverse long-term consequences upon lung parenchymal structure and function. How hyperoxia per se impacts lung disease in COVID-19 has remained largely unexplored. Numbers of experimental studies have previously established that hyperoxia is associated with deleterious outcomes inclusive of perturbations in immunologic responses, abnormal metabolic function, and alterations in hemodynamics and alveolar barrier function. Such changes may ultimately progress into clinically evident lung injury and adverse remodeling and result in parenchymal fibrosis when exposure is prolonged. Given that significant exposure to hyperoxia in patients with severe COVID-19 may be unavoidable to preserve life, these sequelae of hyperoxia, superimposed on the cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 virus, may well impact pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Immunity/immunology , Lung/pathology , Oxygen/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Hemodynamics , Humans , Lung/blood supply , Lung/immunology , Lung/virology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/pathology
4.
Artif Organs ; 45(7): 754-761, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978685

ABSTRACT

Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (NIV-CPAP) is effective in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Building evidence during the COVID-19 emergency reported that around 50% of patients in Italy treated with NIV-CPAP avoided the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Standard NIV-CPAP systems operate at high gas flow rates responsible for noise generation and inadequate humidification. Furthermore, open-configuration systems require a high concentration of oxygen to deliver the desired FiO2 . Concerns outlined the risk for aerosolization in the ambient air and the possible pressure drop in hospital supply pipes. A new NIV-CPAP system is proposed that includes automatic control of patient respiratory parameters. The system operates as a closed-loop breathing circuit that can be assembled, combining a sleep apnea machine with existing commercially available components. Analytical simulation of a breathing patient and simulation with a healthy volunteer at different FiO2 were performed. Inspired and expired oxygen fraction and inspired and expired carbon dioxide pressure were recorded at different CPAP levels with different oxygen delivery. Among the main findings, we report (a) a significant (up to 30-fold) reduction in oxygen feeding compared to standard open high flow NIV-CPAP systems, to assure the same FiO2 levels, and (b) a negligible production of the noise generated in ventilatory systems, and consequent minimization of patients' discomfort. The proposed NIV-CPAP circuit, reshaped in closed-loop configuration with the blower outside of the circuit, has the advantages of minimizing aerosol generation, environmental contamination, oxygen consumption, and noise to the patient. The system is easily adaptable and can be implemented using standard CPAP components.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Lung/virology , Noise/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Ventilators, Mechanical , Aerosols , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Computer Simulation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/adverse effects , Equipment Design , Filtration/instrumentation , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Noise/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted , Oxygen/adverse effects
5.
J Med Virol ; 93(4): 2210-2220, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893240

ABSTRACT

The evaluation of new therapeutic resources against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a priority in clinical research considering the minimal options currently available. To evaluate the adjuvant use of systemic oxygen-ozone administration in the early control of disease progression in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. PROBIOZOVID is an ongoing, interventional, randomized, prospective, and double-arm trial enrolling patient with COVID-19 pneumonia. From a total of 85 patients screened, 28 were recruited. Patients were randomly divided into ozone-autohemotherapy group (14) and control group (14). The procedure consisted in a daily double-treatment with systemic Oxygen-ozone administration for 7 days. All patients were treated with ad interim best available therapy. The primary outcome was delta in the number of patients requiring orotracheal-intubation despite treatment. Secondary outcome was the difference of mortality between the two groups. Moreover, hematological parameters were compared before and after treatment. No differences in the characteristics between groups were observed at baseline. As a preliminary report we have observed that one patient for each group needed intubation and was transferred to ITU. No deaths were observed at 7-14 days of follow up. Thirty-day mortality was 8.3% for ozone group and 10% for controls. Ozone therapy did not significantly influence inflammation markers, hematology profile, and lymphocyte subpopulations of patients treated. Ozone therapy had an impact on the need for the ventilatory support, although did not reach statistical significance. Finally, no adverse events related to the use of ozone-autohemotherapy were reported. Preliminary results, although not showing statistically significant benefits of ozone on COVID-19, did not report any toxicity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Ozone/administration & dosage , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Lymphocyte Subsets/drug effects , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/adverse effects , Ozone/adverse effects , Probiotics/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...