The clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Wen-Kuei Chang, Chieh-Jen Wang, Tung-Hu Tsai, Fang-Ju Sun, Chao-Hsien Chen, Kuan-Chih Kuo, Hsin-Pei Chung, Yen-Hsiang Tang, Yen-Ting Chen, Kuo-Lun Wu, Jou-Chun Wu, Chang-Yi Lin, Hai-Bo Zhang
{"title":"The clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.","authors":"Wen-Kuei Chang, Chieh-Jen Wang, Tung-Hu Tsai, Fang-Ju Sun, Chao-Hsien Chen, Kuan-Chih Kuo, Hsin-Pei Chung, Yen-Hsiang Tang, Yen-Ting Chen, Kuo-Lun Wu, Jou-Chun Wu, Chang-Yi Lin, Hai-Bo Zhang","doi":"10.1080/14787210.2024.2313054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study from 20 April 2021 to 8 July 2021, and evaluated the safety and outcomes (mortality, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, oxygen support, diarrhea, serum potassium) in COVID-19 patients. Propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio was performed to reduce confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 201 patients were analyzed. The experimental group (<i>n</i> = 67) received NRICM101 and standard care, while the control group (<i>n</i> = 134) received standard care alone. No significant differences were observed in mortality (10.4% vs. 14.2%), intubation (13.8% vs. 11%), time to intubation (10 vs. 11 days), mechanical ventilation days (0 vs. 9 days), or oxygen support duration (6 vs. 5 days). However, the experimental group had a shorter length of hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.12, <i>p</i> = 0.043) and fewer mechanical ventilation days (odds ratio = 0.068, <i>p</i> = 0.008) in initially severe cases, along with an increased diarrhea risk (<i>p</i> = 0.035).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NRICM101 did not reduce in-hospital mortality. However, it shortened the length of hospitalization and reduced mechanical ventilation days in initially severe cases. Further investigation is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12213,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"587-595"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2313054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Research design and methods: We conducted a retrospective study from 20 April 2021 to 8 July 2021, and evaluated the safety and outcomes (mortality, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, oxygen support, diarrhea, serum potassium) in COVID-19 patients. Propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio was performed to reduce confounding factors.

Results: A total of 201 patients were analyzed. The experimental group (n = 67) received NRICM101 and standard care, while the control group (n = 134) received standard care alone. No significant differences were observed in mortality (10.4% vs. 14.2%), intubation (13.8% vs. 11%), time to intubation (10 vs. 11 days), mechanical ventilation days (0 vs. 9 days), or oxygen support duration (6 vs. 5 days). However, the experimental group had a shorter length of hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.12, p = 0.043) and fewer mechanical ventilation days (odds ratio = 0.068, p = 0.008) in initially severe cases, along with an increased diarrhea risk (p = 0.035).

Conclusion: NRICM101 did not reduce in-hospital mortality. However, it shortened the length of hospitalization and reduced mechanical ventilation days in initially severe cases. Further investigation is needed.

中药 NRICM101 在 COVID-19 住院患者中的临床应用。
研究背景本研究旨在评估NRICM101对COVID-19住院患者的疗效和安全性:我们从 2021 年 4 月 20 日至 7 月 8 日进行了一项回顾性研究,评估了 COVID-19 患者的安全性和结局(死亡率、住院时间、机械通气、氧支持、腹泻、血清钾)。为减少混杂因素,按1:2的比例进行了倾向得分匹配:结果:共分析了 201 名患者。实验组(n = 67)接受 NRICM101 和标准治疗,对照组(n = 134)仅接受标准治疗。在死亡率(10.4% 对 14.2%)、插管率(13.8% 对 11%)、插管时间(10 天对 11 天)、机械通气天数(0 天对 9 天)或氧气支持持续时间(6 天对 5 天)方面未观察到明显差异。然而,实验组的住院时间更短(几率比=0.12,p=0.043),初期重症病例的机械通气天数更少(几率比=0.068,p=0.008),同时腹泻风险增加(p=0.035):结论:NRICM101 没有降低院内死亡率。结论:NRICM101 没有降低院内死亡率,但缩短了初期重症病例的住院时间,减少了机械通气天数。需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy (ISSN 1478-7210) provides expert reviews on therapeutics and diagnostics in the treatment of infectious disease. Coverage includes antibiotics, drug resistance, drug therapy, infectious disease medicine, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral approaches, and diagnostic tests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信