朗根连桥口服液与连花清瘟胶囊治疗2019年冠状病毒病轻型病例的比较临床试验(COVID-19)。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Yan-Mo Yang, Qin-Xuan Li, Yi-Zhao Liu, Mi Zhou
{"title":"朗根连桥口服液与连花清瘟胶囊治疗2019年冠状病毒病轻型病例的比较临床试验(COVID-19)。","authors":"Yan-Mo Yang, Qin-Xuan Li, Yi-Zhao Liu, Mi Zhou","doi":"10.1186/s41043-024-00649-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Langenlianqiao (LGLQ) oral liquid treatment and provide a reference basis for the clincal treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An experimental clinical study was conducted on three groups with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. SITE: This study was conducted at Changde Hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 253 patients were enrolled in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patients were divided into the LGLQ treatment group (100 cases), the Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) treatment group (100 cases) and the placebo control group (53 cases), according to the treatment each group received. The occurrence of major clinical symptoms, the duration of symptom disappearance, the number of days in hospitalisation and the duration of infection were compared among the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the placebo control group (10.0 [1.2] d, 9.4 [1.3] d), the duration of infection and hospitalisation effectively decreased in the LGLQ group (6.8 [0.6] d, 7.4 [0.8] d) and the LHQW group (6.8 [1.0] d, 7.3 [1.0] d). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in the LGLQ group (4.0%) was lower compared to the LHQW group (14.0%) and the placebo control group (15.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.580 for LGLQ vs. LHQW, P = 0.246 for LGLQ vs. placebo). In the treatment of cough, the LGLQ group showed a significantly different effect compared to both the LHQW group (P = 0.014) and the placebo group (P = 0.016). Additionally, for dry cough specifically, LHQW was effective in reducing its incidence compared to the placebo control group (P < 0.05), while LGLQ showed no statistically significant difference from either LHQW (P = 0.39) or the placebo group (P = 0.14). However, neither the LGLQ group nor the LHQW group showed a reduction in the duration of symptom disappearance in patients with pre-existing symptoms (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the placebo control group, the LGLQ group showed an improvement in the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and a decrease in the duration of hospitalisation and infection, which confirmed that the LGLQ treatment had the same antiviral effect as the LHQW treatment. This may provide in-depth insights for antiviral therapy research.</p>","PeriodicalId":15969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition","volume":"43 1","pages":"158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11479534/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative clinical trial of Langenlianqiao oral liquid and Lianhuaqingwen capsule in the treatment of mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).\",\"authors\":\"Yan-Mo Yang, Qin-Xuan Li, Yi-Zhao Liu, Mi Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41043-024-00649-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Langenlianqiao (LGLQ) oral liquid treatment and provide a reference basis for the clincal treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An experimental clinical study was conducted on three groups with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. SITE: This study was conducted at Changde Hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 253 patients were enrolled in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patients were divided into the LGLQ treatment group (100 cases), the Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) treatment group (100 cases) and the placebo control group (53 cases), according to the treatment each group received. The occurrence of major clinical symptoms, the duration of symptom disappearance, the number of days in hospitalisation and the duration of infection were compared among the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the placebo control group (10.0 [1.2] d, 9.4 [1.3] d), the duration of infection and hospitalisation effectively decreased in the LGLQ group (6.8 [0.6] d, 7.4 [0.8] d) and the LHQW group (6.8 [1.0] d, 7.3 [1.0] d). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in the LGLQ group (4.0%) was lower compared to the LHQW group (14.0%) and the placebo control group (15.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.580 for LGLQ vs. LHQW, P = 0.246 for LGLQ vs. placebo). In the treatment of cough, the LGLQ group showed a significantly different effect compared to both the LHQW group (P = 0.014) and the placebo group (P = 0.016). Additionally, for dry cough specifically, LHQW was effective in reducing its incidence compared to the placebo control group (P < 0.05), while LGLQ showed no statistically significant difference from either LHQW (P = 0.39) or the placebo group (P = 0.14). However, neither the LGLQ group nor the LHQW group showed a reduction in the duration of symptom disappearance in patients with pre-existing symptoms (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the placebo control group, the LGLQ group showed an improvement in the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and a decrease in the duration of hospitalisation and infection, which confirmed that the LGLQ treatment had the same antiviral effect as the LHQW treatment. This may provide in-depth insights for antiviral therapy research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11479534/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-024-00649-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-024-00649-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评价兰根连翘口服液的临床疗效,为2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的临床治疗提供参考依据:设计:对确诊为COVID-19的三组患者进行临床实验研究。地点:本研究在常德医院进行:方法:将患者分为LGL-19、LGL-19和LGL-19三组:方法:根据各组接受的治疗方法,将患者分为LGLQ治疗组(100例)、连花清瘟治疗组(100例)和安慰剂对照组(53例)。比较了三组患者的主要临床症状发生率、症状消失时间、住院天数和感染持续时间:与安慰剂对照组(10.0 [1.2] d,9.4 [1.3] d)相比,LGLQ 组(6.8 [0.6] d,7.4 [0.8] d)和 LHQW 组(6.8 [1.0] d,7.3 [1.0] d)的感染和住院时间有效缩短。此外,与 LHQW 组(14.0%)和安慰剂对照组(15.1%)相比,LGLQ 组的疲劳发生率(4.0%)较低,但这一差异在统计学上并不显著(LGLQ 与 LHQW 相比,P = 0.580;LGLQ 与安慰剂相比,P = 0.246)。在治疗咳嗽方面,LGLQ 组与 LHQW 组(P = 0.014)和安慰剂组(P = 0.016)相比,效果显著不同。此外,与安慰剂对照组相比,LHQW能有效减少干咳的发生率(P 0.05):结论:与安慰剂对照组相比,LGLQ组的COVID-19临床症状有所改善,住院时间和感染时间也有所缩短,这证实了LGLQ治疗与LHQW治疗具有相同的抗病毒效果。这为抗病毒治疗研究提供了深入的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative clinical trial of Langenlianqiao oral liquid and Lianhuaqingwen capsule in the treatment of mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Langenlianqiao (LGLQ) oral liquid treatment and provide a reference basis for the clincal treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design: An experimental clinical study was conducted on three groups with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. SITE: This study was conducted at Changde Hospital.

Participants: A total of 253 patients were enrolled in this study.

Methods: The patients were divided into the LGLQ treatment group (100 cases), the Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) treatment group (100 cases) and the placebo control group (53 cases), according to the treatment each group received. The occurrence of major clinical symptoms, the duration of symptom disappearance, the number of days in hospitalisation and the duration of infection were compared among the three groups.

Results: Compared with the placebo control group (10.0 [1.2] d, 9.4 [1.3] d), the duration of infection and hospitalisation effectively decreased in the LGLQ group (6.8 [0.6] d, 7.4 [0.8] d) and the LHQW group (6.8 [1.0] d, 7.3 [1.0] d). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in the LGLQ group (4.0%) was lower compared to the LHQW group (14.0%) and the placebo control group (15.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.580 for LGLQ vs. LHQW, P = 0.246 for LGLQ vs. placebo). In the treatment of cough, the LGLQ group showed a significantly different effect compared to both the LHQW group (P = 0.014) and the placebo group (P = 0.016). Additionally, for dry cough specifically, LHQW was effective in reducing its incidence compared to the placebo control group (P < 0.05), while LGLQ showed no statistically significant difference from either LHQW (P = 0.39) or the placebo group (P = 0.14). However, neither the LGLQ group nor the LHQW group showed a reduction in the duration of symptom disappearance in patients with pre-existing symptoms (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Compared with the placebo control group, the LGLQ group showed an improvement in the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and a decrease in the duration of hospitalisation and infection, which confirmed that the LGLQ treatment had the same antiviral effect as the LHQW treatment. This may provide in-depth insights for antiviral therapy research.

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
Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition
Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition brings together research on all aspects of issues related to population, nutrition and health. The journal publishes articles across a broad range of topics including global health, maternal and child health, nutrition, common illnesses and determinants of population health.
×
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