Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the major public health problem worldwide. Neutral electrolyzed saline solution that contains reactive chlorine and oxygen species may be an effective therapeutic. In the present study, the treatment efficacy of intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone was evaluated in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. A prospective, 2-arm, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multi-center, phase I-II clinical trial including 214 patients was performed. The following two outcomes were evaluated during the 20-day follow-up: i) The number of patients with disease progression; and ii) the patient acceptable symptom state. Serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 naso/oro-pharyngeal detection by reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q) PCR was performed in certain patients of the experimental group. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were also evaluated in the experimental group. The experimental treatment decreased the risk of hospitalization by 89% [adjusted relative risk (RR)=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.37, P<0.001] and the risk of death by 96% (adjusted RR=0.04, 95% CI: 0.01-0.42, P=0.007) and also resulted in an 18-fold higher probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR=18.14, 95% CI: 7.29-45.09, P<0.001), compared with usual medical care alone. Overall, neutral electrolyzed saline solution was better than usual medical care alone. Of the patients analyzed, >50% were negative for the virus as detected by RT-qPCR in naso/oro-pharyngeal samples on day 4, with only a small number of positive patients on day 6. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, aberrant monocytes and increased lymphocytes and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated and a decrease in cortisol levels and an increase in the testosterone-cortisol ratio were observed on days 2 and 4. The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, neutral electrolyzed saline solution markedly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. The present clinical trial was registered in the Cuban public registry of clinical trials (RPCEC) database (May 5, 2020; no. TX-COVID19: RPCEC00000309).

SUBMITTER: Delgado-Enciso I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8281484 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial.

Delgado-Enciso Ivan I Paz-Garcia Juan J Barajas-Saucedo Carlos E CE Mokay-Ramírez Karen A KA Meza-Robles Carmen C Lopez-Flores Rodrigo R Delgado-Machuca Marina M Murillo-Zamora Efren E Toscano-Velazquez Jose A JA Delgado-Enciso Josuel J Melnikov Valery V Walle-Guillen Mireya M Galvan-Salazar Hector R HR Delgado-Enciso Osiris G OG Cabrera-Licona Ariana A Danielewicz-Mata Eduardo J EJ Mandujano-Diaz Pablo J PJ Guzman-Esquivel José J Montes-Galindo Daniel A DA Perez-Martinez Henry H Jimenez-Villegaz Jesus M JM Hernandez-Rangel Alejandra E AE Montes-Diaz Patricia P Rodriguez-Sanchez Iram P IP Martinez-Fierro Margarita L ML Garza-Veloz Idalia I Tiburcio-Jimenez Daniel D Zaizar-Fregoso Sergio A SA Gonzalez-Alcaraz Fidadelfo F Gutierrez-Gutierrez Laydi L Diaz-Lopez Luciano L Ramirez-Flores Mario M Guzman-Solorzano Hannah P HP Gaytan-Sandoval Gustavo G Martinez-Perez Carlos R CR Espinoza-Gómez Francisco F Rojas-Larios Fabián F Hirsch-Meillon Michael J MJ Baltazar-Rodriguez Luz M LM Barrios-Navarro Enrique E Oviedo-Rodriguez Vladimir V Mendoza-Hernandez Martha A MA Prieto-Diaz-Chavez Emilio E Paz-Michel Brenda A BA

Experimental and therapeutic medicine 20210629 3

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the major public health problem worldwide. Neutral electrolyzed saline solution that contains reactive chlorine and oxygen species may be an effective therapeutic. In the present study, the treatment efficacy of intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone was evaluated in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. A prospective, 2-arm, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multi- ...[more]

PMID: 34306189

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Methods: A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group. Results: The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22-200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4. Conclusions: The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Trial registration: Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En.

Project description:ImportanceIt is critically important to evaluate the effect of nonpharmacological treatments on low back pain and associated disability.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care results in better pain relief and pain-related function when compared with usual medical care alone.Design, setting, and participantsA 3-site pragmatic comparative effectiveness clinical trial using adaptive allocation was conducted from September 28, 2012, to February 13, 2016, at 2 large military medical centers in major metropolitan areas and 1 smaller hospital at a military training site. Eligible participants were active-duty US service members aged 18 to 50 years with low back pain from a musculoskeletal source.InterventionsThe intervention period was 6 weeks. Usual medical care included self-care, medications, physical therapy, and pain clinic referral. Chiropractic care included spinal manipulative therapy in the low back and adjacent regions and additional therapeutic procedures such as rehabilitative exercise, cryotherapy, superficial heat, and other manual therapies.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were low back pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [no low back pain] to 10 [worst possible low back pain]) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; scores ranging from 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included perceived improvement, satisfaction (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [not at all satisfied] to 10 [extremely satisfied]), and medication use. The coprimary outcomes were modeled with linear mixed-effects regression over baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, and 12.ResultsOf the 806 screened patients who were recruited through either clinician referrals or self-referrals, 750 were enrolled (250 at each site). The mean (SD) participant age was 30.9 (8.7) years, 175 participants (23.3%) were female, and 243 participants (32.4%) were nonwhite. Statistically significant site × time × group interactions were found in all models. Adjusted mean differences in scores at week 6 were statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care compared with usual medical care alone overall for low back pain intensity (mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.7), disability (mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to -1.2), and satisfaction (mean difference, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.8) as well as at each site. Adjusted odd ratios at week 6 were also statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care overall for perceived improvement (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.25) and self-reported pain medication use (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No serious related adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceChiropractic care, when added to usual medical care, resulted in moderate short-term improvements in low back pain intensity and disability in active-duty military personnel. This trial provides additional support for the inclusion of chiropractic care as a component of multidisciplinary health care for low back pain, as currently recommended in existing guidelines. However, study limitations illustrate that further research is needed to understand longer-term outcomes as well as how patient heterogeneity and intervention variations affect patient responses to chiropractic care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01692275.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.FundingUK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Project description:ImportancePostpartum depression (PPD) affects as many as 20% of mothers, yet just 1 in 10 of these women receives evidence-based treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased PPD risk, reduced treatment access, and shifted preferences toward virtual care.ObjectiveTo determine whether an online 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based workshop added to treatment as usual improves PPD, anxiety, social support, mother-infant relationship quality, and infant temperament more than treatment as usual alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included 403 women with PPD who were recruited across Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 20 to October 4, 2020). Women with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores of at least 10 who were 18 years or older and had an infant younger than 12 months were eligible.InterventionsWomen were randomly assigned to receive a live, interactive online 1-day CBT-based workshop delivered by a registered psychotherapist, psychiatrist, or clinical psychology graduate student in addition to treatment as usual (n = 202) or to receive treatment as usual and wait-listed to receive the workshop 12 weeks later (n = 201).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in PPD (EPDS scores) in experimental and wait list control groups 12 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes included maternal anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7]), social support (Social Provisions Scale), quality of the mother-infant relationship (Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire), and infant temperament (Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised Very Short Form).ResultsParticipants all identified as women with a mean (SD) age of 31.8 (4.4) years. The workshop led to significant mean (SD) reductions in EPDS scores (from 16.47 [4.41] to 11.65 [4.83]; B = -4.82; P < .001) and was associated with a higher odds of exhibiting a clinically significant decrease in EPDS scores (odds ratio, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.66-6.46). The mean (SD) GAD-7 scores decreased from 12.41 (5.12) to 7.97 (5.54) after the workshop (B = -4.44; 95% CI, -5.47 to -3.38; P < .001) and participants were more likely to experience a clinically significant change (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.99-4.81). Mothers also reported improvements in bonding (B = -3.22; 95% CI, -4.72 to -1.71; P < .001), infant-focused anxiety (B = -1.64; 95% CI, -2.25 to 1.00; P < .001), social support (B = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.57; P < .001), and positive affectivity/surgency in infants (B = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, an online 1-day CBT-based workshop for PPD provides an effective, brief option for mothers, reducing PPD and anxiety as well as improving social support, the mother-infant relationship, and positive affectivity/surgency in offspring.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04485000.

Project description:BackgroundEndometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain worldwide. Non-surgical treatments are effective for only 30-50% of women and have a significant side effect burden that leads to high discontinuation rates. Surgery can be effective but is expensive and invasive, and symptoms tend to recur within 5 years. There is early evidence that acupuncture may be effective in treating endometriosis-related chronic pelvic pain, showing clinically significant analgesia. Both levels of inflammation and pain processing have been shown to be altered in women with chronic pelvic pain. Acupuncture has been shown to reduce inflammation and change central pain processing in other conditions, but research on women with endometriosis is currently lacking. The aim of this feasibility study is to provide data on recruitment rates, retention, appropriateness of outcome measures, minimal clinically important difference in numeric rated scales for pain and the potential effect of acupuncture on pain processing and markers of inflammation in endometriosis-related CPP.MethodsWe will include women aged 18-45 years with a diagnosis of endometriosis via laparoscopy in the past 5 years. A total of 30 participants will be recruited and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive acupuncture or usual care. Women in the acupuncture group will receive two 45-min treatment sessions per week for 8 weeks (total of 16 sessions). Women in the usual care group will continue with their current treatment regimen. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment rates, retention rates and the safety and acceptability of the intervention; secondary patient-centred outcomes include a change in 0-10 daily pelvic pain ratings, the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) and changes in conditioned pain modulation, resting and task-related EEG activity and inflammatory markers. Analyses will be performed blind to group allocation.DiscussionThis is a two-armed, assessor blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial. Data will be compared at baseline and trial completion 8 weeks later. Outcomes from this feasibility study will inform a larger, fully powered clinical trial should the treatment show trends for potential effectiveness.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000053325 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12617000053325.aspx).

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial.

Publications

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets