Dataset Information

Effect of an Echinacea-Based Hot Drink Versus Oseltamivir in Influenza Treatment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Echinacea has antiviral activity against influenza viruses in vitro and has traditionally been used for treatment of colds and flu. OBJECTIVES: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, controlled clinical trial compared a new echinacea formulation with the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir, the gold standard treatment for influenza. METHODS: Following informed consent, 473 patients with early influenza symptoms (?48 hours) were recruited in primary care in the Czech Republic and randomized to either 5 days of oseltamivir followed by 5 days of placebo, or 10 days of an Echinacea purpurea-based formulation called Echinaforce Hotdrink (A. Vogel Bioforce AG, Roggwil, Switzerland). The proportion of recovered patients (influenza symptoms rated as absent or mild in the evening) was analyzed for noninferiority between treatment groups using a generalized Wilcoxon test with significance level ? = 0.05 (2-sided) and using a CI approach in the per-protocol sample. RESULTS: Recovery from illness was comparable in the 2 treatment groups at 1.5% versus 4.1% after 1 day, 50.2% versus 48.8% after 5 days, and 90.1% versus 84.8% after 10 days of treatment with Echinaforce Hotdrink and oseltamivir, respectively. Noninferiority was demonstrated for each day and overall (95% CI, 0.487-0.5265 by generalized Wilcoxon test). Very similar results were obtained in the group with virologically confirmed influenza virus infections and in a retrospective analysis during the peak influenza period. The incidence of complications was lower with Echinaforce Hotdrink than with oseltamivir (2.46% vs 6.45%; P = 0.076) and fewer adverse events (particularly nausea and vomiting) were observed with Echinaforce Hotdrink. CONCLUSIONS: Echinaforce Hotdrink is as effective as oseltamivir in the early treatment of clinically diagnosed and virologically confirmed influenza virus infections with a reduced risk of complications and adverse events. It appears to be an attractive treatment option, particularly suitable for self-care. Clinical trial identifier: Eudra-CT: 2010-021571-88. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2015; 77:66-72).

SUBMITTER: Raus K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4528044 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of an Echinacea-Based Hot Drink Versus Oseltamivir in Influenza Treatment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Rauš Karel K Pleschka Stephan S Klein Peter P Schoop Roland R Fisher Peter P

Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental 20150420

<h4>Background</h4>Echinacea has antiviral activity against influenza viruses in vitro and has traditionally been used for treatment of colds and flu.<h4>Objectives</h4>This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, controlled clinical trial compared a new echinacea formulation with the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir, the gold standard treatment for influenza.<h4>Methods</h4>Following informed consent, 473 patients with early influenza symptoms (≤48 hours) were recruited in prima ...[more]

PMID: 26265958

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a prodrug of a nucleotide analogue. As an antiviral drug, TDF has been proposed in the first-line treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Qingzhong, a brand name of TDF, commercialized by Jiangsu Chia-tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Co Ltd., and Viread, another brand name of TDF, commercialized by GlaxoSmithKline, have both been approved by the State Food and Drug Administration, China.AimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of the two TDF agents in the treatment of Chinese CHB patients.MethodsThis trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number of NCT02287857. A total of 330 Chinese CHB patients, among which 232 were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive, were included in this 5-year-long, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized-controlled, non-inferiority phase III trial. The participants were initially randomized into two groups: Group A (n = 161), in which the participants received 300 mg Qingzhong once a day for 48 wk; and Group B, in which the participants received 300 mg Viread once a day for 48 wk. Starting from week 49, all the participants in Groups A and B received 300 mg Qingzhong once a day until the 96th week. In this study, the primary endpoint was the decrease in plasma level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA at the 96th week, while the secondary endpoints were suppression of HBV replication, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, HBeAg loss, and HBeAg seroconversion rates.ResultsFor the participants with HBeAg-positive CHB, the decrease in mean HBV DNA level relative to the baseline value was comparable between Groups A and B (5.77 vs 5.73 log10 IU/mL, P > 0.05) at the 96th week. In addition, similar percentages of HBeAg-positive participants in the two groups exhibited undetectable levels of HBV DNA, HBeAg loss, and HBeAg seroconversion (71.05% vs 77.97%, 31.00% vs 27.27%, and 20.22% vs 15.79%, respectively, in Group A vs Group B; P > 0.05). For the participants with HBeAg-negative CHB, the decrease in mean HBV DNA level relative to the baseline value was also comparable between Groups A and B (4.46 vs 4.70 log10 IU/mL, P > 0.05) at the 96th week. In addition, similar percentages of HBeAg-negative participants in the two groups exhibited undetectable levels of HBV DNA (87.23% vs 94.12% in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05). Finally, similar percentages of CHB patients (HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative) in the two groups exhibited normalization of ALT (80.14% vs 84.57% in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05), and similar incidences of adverse events were observed (106 vs 104 in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05).ConclusionBoth Qingzhong and Viread are effective and safe in the treatment of Chinese CHB patients according to the results of our clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Project description:ObjectiveTraditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has certain curative effect against acute gouty arthritis (AGA), but it lacks high-quality evidence-based studies. In this randomized controlled trial, we try to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Qinpi Tongfeng Formula (QPTFF) in the treatment of AGA.MethodsOne hundred and fourteen patients with AGA (damp heat accumulation syndrome) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly divided into treatment group and control group in a ratio of 1 : 1. Patients in the treatment group were treated with QPTFF, and patients in the control group were treated with diclofenac sodium sustained-release tablets for 7 days. The primary outcome measure was the change in visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain from the baseline to day 8. The secondary outcome measures were joint symptom score, TCM syndrome score, total effective rate, pain cure rate, complete pain relief time, patient satisfaction score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and serum uric acid level. The safety outcome measures were routine blood test, urinalysis, liver function including alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, renal function including blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine, and the rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).Results105 patients with 53 in the treatment group and 52 in the control group completed the 7-day treatment. There was no significant difference between two groups in demographic characteristics, VAS score for pain, joint symptom score, TCM syndrome score, ESR, CRP, and serum uric acid level before enrollment at baseline (based on both the full analysis set (FAS) and per protocol set (PPS), P > 0.05). The 95% confidence interval of the difference between the eighth and first VAS score for pain of the two groups was (-0.57, 0.42) in FAS and (-0.48, 0.47) in PPS. The lower bound of both FAS and PPS is greater than the bound value of -0.7. On day 8, there was no significant difference between the two groups in joint symptom score, TCM syndrome score, total effective rate, pain cure rate, complete pain relief time, patient satisfaction score, ESR, and CRP (FAS and PPS, P > 0.05). The serum uric acid level and TRAEs in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (FAS and PPS, P < 0.05).ConclusionsQPTFF could alleviate the symptoms of patients with AGA, which is not inferior to diclofenac sodium sustained-release tablets in analgesic. Moreover, QPTFF overmatches diclofenac sodium sustained-release tablets in decreasing serum uric acid level and TRAEs. Therefore, the results provide reliable foundation for QPTTF in the treatment of AGA. Trial Registration. This study protocol was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100050638).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Effect of an Echinacea-Based Hot Drink Versus Oseltamivir in Influenza Treatment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Publications

Effect of an Echinacea-Based Hot Drink Versus Oseltamivir in Influenza Treatment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets