对抗 COVID-19:比较不同医疗体系可行治疗方案的研究

IF 0.1 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
V. Bhapkar, Supriya Bhalerao
{"title":"对抗 COVID-19:比较不同医疗体系可行治疗方案的研究","authors":"V. Bhapkar, Supriya Bhalerao","doi":"10.47552/ijam.v15i1.4416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During COVID-19, while many drugs from conventional medicine (CM) were falling short, those from Ayurveda, Siddha, Herbal Medicine, and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) showed promising potential. The published recovery-aimed clinical studies on medicines from above-mentioned systems were retrieved. For CM, meta-analyses of studies using ICMR-protocol drugs, viz. hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, favipiravir, ivermectin & remdesivir were searched. For other systems, preferably active-controlled, stand-alone studies, were considered.  Their general characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were documented.  The outcomes were evaluated on basis of a methodology inspired from ‘WHO-Minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research’. The CM drugs were utilized either in multiple combinations or independently. Most studied combination was HCQ and azithromycin. HCQ efficacy was studied in biggest sample. These drugs did not exhibit significant efficacy for early clinical recovery and viral clearance. The adverse event (AE) incidences were also prominent. Barring TCM, studies using Ayurveda regime Tab. Immunofree and Cap. Regimmune and CVO+C, were done in only symptomatic patients. The efficacy of Tab. Immunofree- Cap. Regimmune regime was better than conventional care including azithromycin and favipiravir. The AE incidences in these studies were minimal. Medicines from alternative systems except CM exhibited better efficacy and safety in all outcome measures.","PeriodicalId":13751,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fighting COVID-19: A Study to Compare Viable Treatment Options across Different Medical Systems\",\"authors\":\"V. Bhapkar, Supriya Bhalerao\",\"doi\":\"10.47552/ijam.v15i1.4416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During COVID-19, while many drugs from conventional medicine (CM) were falling short, those from Ayurveda, Siddha, Herbal Medicine, and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) showed promising potential. The published recovery-aimed clinical studies on medicines from above-mentioned systems were retrieved. For CM, meta-analyses of studies using ICMR-protocol drugs, viz. hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, favipiravir, ivermectin & remdesivir were searched. For other systems, preferably active-controlled, stand-alone studies, were considered.  Their general characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were documented.  The outcomes were evaluated on basis of a methodology inspired from ‘WHO-Minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research’. The CM drugs were utilized either in multiple combinations or independently. Most studied combination was HCQ and azithromycin. HCQ efficacy was studied in biggest sample. These drugs did not exhibit significant efficacy for early clinical recovery and viral clearance. The adverse event (AE) incidences were also prominent. Barring TCM, studies using Ayurveda regime Tab. Immunofree and Cap. Regimmune and CVO+C, were done in only symptomatic patients. The efficacy of Tab. Immunofree- Cap. Regimmune regime was better than conventional care including azithromycin and favipiravir. The AE incidences in these studies were minimal. Medicines from alternative systems except CM exhibited better efficacy and safety in all outcome measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47552/ijam.v15i1.4416\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47552/ijam.v15i1.4416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 期间,虽然许多传统医学(CM)的药物疗效不佳,但阿育吠陀、悉达、草药和传统中医(TCM)的药物却显示出了巨大的潜力。我们检索了已发表的针对上述系统药物的康复临床研究。对于中药,检索了使用 ICMR 协议药物(即羟氯喹、阿奇霉素、法非拉韦、伊维菌素和雷米替韦等)进行的荟萃分析研究。对于其他系统,最好考虑主动对照的独立研究。 这些研究的一般特征、疗效和安全性结果均已记录在案。 评估结果的方法借鉴了 "世界卫生组织--COVID-19 临床研究最低通用结果测量集"。中药有多种组合或单独使用。研究最多的组合是 HCQ 和阿奇霉素。在最大的样本中研究了 HCQ 的疗效。这些药物对早期临床康复和病毒清除没有明显疗效。不良事件(AE)的发生率也很高。除中药外,使用阿育吠陀疗法 Tab.Immunofree 和 Cap.Regimmune 和 CVO+C 的研究仅针对有症状的患者。Tab.Immunofree- Cap.Regimmune 方案的疗效优于包括阿奇霉素和法非比拉韦在内的常规治疗方案。在这些研究中,AE 发生率极低。在所有结果指标中,除中药外,其他替代系统药物的疗效和安全性都更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fighting COVID-19: A Study to Compare Viable Treatment Options across Different Medical Systems
During COVID-19, while many drugs from conventional medicine (CM) were falling short, those from Ayurveda, Siddha, Herbal Medicine, and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) showed promising potential. The published recovery-aimed clinical studies on medicines from above-mentioned systems were retrieved. For CM, meta-analyses of studies using ICMR-protocol drugs, viz. hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, favipiravir, ivermectin & remdesivir were searched. For other systems, preferably active-controlled, stand-alone studies, were considered.  Their general characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were documented.  The outcomes were evaluated on basis of a methodology inspired from ‘WHO-Minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research’. The CM drugs were utilized either in multiple combinations or independently. Most studied combination was HCQ and azithromycin. HCQ efficacy was studied in biggest sample. These drugs did not exhibit significant efficacy for early clinical recovery and viral clearance. The adverse event (AE) incidences were also prominent. Barring TCM, studies using Ayurveda regime Tab. Immunofree and Cap. Regimmune and CVO+C, were done in only symptomatic patients. The efficacy of Tab. Immunofree- Cap. Regimmune regime was better than conventional care including azithromycin and favipiravir. The AE incidences in these studies were minimal. Medicines from alternative systems except CM exhibited better efficacy and safety in all outcome measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine
International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
50.00%
发文量
87
×
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