Efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen capsules, a repurposed Chinese herb, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has resulted in a global outbreak. Few existing targeted medications are available. Lianhuaqingwen (LH) capsule, a repurposed marketed Chinese herb product, has been proven effective for influenza.Purpose
To determine the safety and efficacy of LH capsule in patients with Covid-19.Methods
We did a prospective multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial on LH capsule in confirmed cases with Covid-19. Patients were randomized to receive usual treatment alone or in combination with LH capsules (4 capsules, thrice daily) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of symptom (fever, fatigue, coughing) recovery.Results
We included 284 patients (142 each in treatment and control group) in the full-analysis set. The recovery rate was significantly higher in treatment group as compared with control group (91.5% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.022). The median time to symptom recovery was markedly shorter in treatment group (median: 7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001). Time to recovery of fever (2 vs. 3 days), fatigue (3 vs. 6 days) and coughing (7 vs. 10 days) was also significantly shorter in treatment group (all p < 0.001). The rate of improvement in chest computed tomographic manifestations (83.8% vs. 64.1%, p < 0.001) and clinical cure (78.9% vs. 66.2%, p = 0.017) was also higher in treatment group. However, both groups did not differ in the rate of conversion to severe cases or viral assay findings (both p > 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusion
In light of the safety and effectiveness profiles, LH capsules could be considered to ameliorate clinical symptoms of Covid-19.
SUBMITTER: Hu K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7229744 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 caused a series of acute atypical respiratory diseases worldwide. However, there is still a lack of drugs with clear curative effects, and the clinical trial research of vaccines has not been completely finished. Purpose LH capsules are approved TCM patent medicine that are widely used for the treatment of respiratory tract infectious diseases caused by colds and flu. On April 12, 2020, LH capsules and granules were officially repurposed by the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for patients with mild COVID-19 based on their safety and efficacy demonstrated through multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trials. We hope to conduct a comprehensive review of it through modern pharmacy methods, and try to explain its possible mechanism. Methods Using the full names of LH capsules Lianhuaqingwen, Lianhua Qingwen andSARS-COV-2, COVID-19 as the keywords of the search terms, systemically search for existing related papers in various databases such as Web of Science and PubMed. And completed the collection of clinical data in ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Last but not least, we have sorted out the anti-inflammatory and antiviral mechanisms of LH capsules through literature and Selleck. Results This review systematically sorted out the active ingredients in LH capsules. Furthermore, the related pharmacological and clinical trials of LH capsule on SARS-CoV-2, IAV and IBV were discussed in detail. Moreover, the present review provides the first summary of the potential molecular mechanism of specific substances in LH capsules involved in resistance to SARS-COV-2 infection and the inhibition of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) caused by IL-6. Conclusion This review summarizes the available reports and evidence that support the use of LH capsules as potential drug candidates for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. However, TCM exerts its effects through multiple targets and multiple pathways, and LH capsules are not an exception. Therefore, the relevant mechanisms need to be further improved and experimentally verified. Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract
| S-EPMC7833308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a randomized trial, Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) capsule was effective for accelerating symptom recovery among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the lack of blinding and limited sample sizes decreased the level of clinical evidence.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW capsule in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (17 sites from China, Thailand, Philippine and Vietnam). Patients received standard-of-care alone or plus LHQW capsules (4 capsules, thrice daily) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of nine major symptoms.ResultsThe full-analysis set consisted of 410 patients in LHQW capsules and 405 in placebo group. LHQW significantly shortened the primary endpoint in the full-analysis set (4.0 vs. 6.7 days, hazards ratio: 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-1.90). LHQW capsules shortened the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of stuffy or runny nose (2.8 vs. 3.7 days), sore throat (2.0 vs. 2.6 days), cough (3.2 vs. 4.9 days), feeling hot or feverish (1.0 vs. 1.3 days), low energy or tiredness (1.3 vs. 1.9 days), and myalgia (1.5 vs. 2.0 days). The duration to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of shortness of breath, headache, and chills or shivering did not differ significantly between the two groups. Safety was comparable between the two groups. No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationLHQW capsules promote recovery of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 via accelerating symptom resolution and were well tolerated. Trial registration ChiCTR2200056727 .
| S-EPMC10685492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the outbreak of unknown pneumonia in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, a new coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), aroused the attention of the entire world. The current outbreak of infections with SARS-CoV-2 is termed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 in China as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Two other coronavirus infections-SARS in 2002-2003 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012-both caused severe respiratory syndrome in humans. All 3 of these emerging infectious diseases leading to a global spread are caused by ?-coronaviruses. Although coronaviruses usually infect the upper or lower respiratory tract, viral shedding in plasma or serum is common. Therefore, there is still a theoretical risk of transmission of coronaviruses through the transfusion of labile blood products. Because more and more asymptomatic infections are being found among COVID-19 cases, considerations of blood safety and coronaviruses have arisen especially in endemic areas. In this review, we detail current evidence and understanding of the transmission of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 through blood products as of February 10, 2020, and also discuss pathogen inactivation methods on coronaviruses.
| S-EPMC7135848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) a global pandemic. As of July 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 14 million people and provoked more than 590,000 deaths, worldwide. From the beginning, a variety of pharmacological treatments has been empirically used to cope with the life-threatening complications associated with Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thus far, only a couple of them and not consistently across reports have been shown to further decrease mortality, respect to what can be achieved with supportive care. In most cases, and due to the urgency imposed by the number and severity of the patients' clinical conditions, the choice of treatment has been limited to repurposed drugs, approved for other indications, or investigational agents used for other viral infections often rendered available on a compassionate-use basis. The rationale for drug selection was mainly, though not exclusively, based either i) on the activity against other coronaviruses or RNA viruses in order to potentially hamper viral entry and replication in the epithelial cells of the airways, and/or ii) on the ability to modulate the excessive inflammatory reaction deriving from dysregulated host immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2. In several months, an exceptionally large number of clinical trials have been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-COVID-19 therapies in different clinical settings (treatment or pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis) and levels of disease severity, but only few of them have been completed so far. This review focuses on the molecular mechanisms of action that have provided the scientific rationale for the empirical use and evaluation in clinical trials of structurally different and often functionally unrelated drugs during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7375972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, only dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and sarilumab have conclusively been shown to reduce mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Safe and effective treatments will need to be both affordable and widely available globally to be used alongside vaccination programs. This analysis will estimate and compare potential generic minimum costs of a selection of approved COVID-19 drug candidates with available international list prices.MethodsWe searched for repurposed drugs that have been approved by at least one of the World Health Organization, US Food and Drug Administration, or the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence organizations or at least given emergency use authorization or recommended for off-label prescription. Drug prices were searched for dexamethasone, budesonide, baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, and sarilumab, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) data extracted from global shipping records. This was compared with national pricing data from a range of low-, medium-, and high-income countries. Annual API export volumes from India were used to estimate the current availability of each drug.ResultsRepurposed therapies can be generically manufactured for some treatments at very low per-course costs, ranging from US $2.58 for intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (or US $0.19 orally) and US $4.34 for inhaled budesonide. No export price data were available for baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, or sarilumab, but courses of these treatments have higher prices, ranging from US $6.67 for baricitinib to US $875.5 for sarilumab. When comparing international list prices, we found wide variations between countries.ConclusionsSuccessful management of COVID-19 will require equitable access to treatment for all populations, not just those able to pay high prices. Dexamethasone and budesonide are widely available and affordable, whereas monoclonal antibodies and IV treatment courses are more expensive.
| S-EPMC8709896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice.MethodsWe designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group.ResultsComplete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75-9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns.ConclusionsOur results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic.Clinical Trial NumberNot applicable.
| S-EPMC7885930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice.MethodsWe designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group.ResultsComplete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75-9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns.ConclusionsOur results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic.Clinical trial numberNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8134805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To describe the risk factors for and outcomes after myoclonus in a cohort of patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN:Multicenter case series. SETTING:Three tertiary care hospitals in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Virginia. PATIENTS:Eight patients with clinical myoclonus in the setting of coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS & MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Outcomes in patients with myoclonus were variable, with one patient who died during the study period and five who were successfully extubated cognitively intact and without focal neurologic deficits. In five cases, the myoclonus completely resolved within 2 days of onset, while in three cases, it persisted for 10 days or longer. Seven patients experienced significant metabolic derangements, hypoxemia, or exposure to sedating medications that may have contributed to the development of myoclonus. One patient presented with encephalopathy and developed prolonged myoclonus in the absence of clear systemic provoking factors. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that myoclonus may be observed in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infected patients, even in the absence of hypoxia. This association warrants further evaluation in larger cohorts to determine whether the presence of myoclonus may aid in the assessment of disease severity, neurologic involvement, or prognostication.
| S-EPMC7448712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8379002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData on safety and immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with compensated (C-cirrhosis) and decompensated cirrhosis (D-cirrhosis) are limited.MethodsIn this prospective multicenter study, adult participants with C-cirrhosis and D-cirrhosis were enrolled and received two doses of inactivated whole-virion COVID-19 vaccines. Adverse events were recorded within 14 days after any dose of vaccination, and serum samples of enrolled patients were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies at least 14 days after the second dose. Risk factors for negative neutralizing antibody were analyzed.ResultsIn total, 553 patients were enrolled from 15 centers in China, including 388 and 165 patients with C-cirrhosis and D-cirrhosis. The vaccines were well tolerated, most adverse reactions were mild and transient, and injection site pain (23/388 [5.9%] vs 9/165 [5.5%]) and fatigue (5/388 [1.3%] vs 3/165 [1.8%]) were the most frequently local and systemic adverse events in both the C-cirrhosis and D-cirrhosis groups. Overall, 4.4% (16/363) and 0.3% (1/363) of patients were reported Grades 2 and 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations (defined as ALT > 2 upper limit of normal [ULN] but ≤ 5 ULN, and ALT > 5 ULN, respectively). The positive rates of COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies were 71.6% (278/388) and 66.1% (109/165) in C-cirrhosis and D-cirrhosis groups. Notably, Child-Pugh score of B and C levels was an independent risk factor of negative neutralizing antibody.ConclusionsInactivated COVID-19 vaccinations are safe with acceptable immunogenicity in cirrhotic patients, and Child-Pugh score of B and C levels is associated with hyporesponsive to COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC8995697 | biostudies-literature