抗新冠肺炎中药复方NRICM101和NRICM102的毒理学评价:安全性和遗传毒性综合研究

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Frontiers in Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-09-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphar.2025.1596369
Chun-Tang Chiou, Chao-Lin Chang, Yu-Hwei Tseng, Geng-You Liao, Jiunn-Wang Liao, Yuh-Chiang Shen, Wen-Chi Wei, Keng-Chang Tsai, Yu-Ching Huang, Wen-Chiung Chang, Wen-Fei Chiou, Chia-Ching Liaw, Yi-Chang Su
{"title":"抗新冠肺炎中药复方NRICM101和NRICM102的毒理学评价:安全性和遗传毒性综合研究","authors":"Chun-Tang Chiou, Chao-Lin Chang, Yu-Hwei Tseng, Geng-You Liao, Jiunn-Wang Liao, Yuh-Chiang Shen, Wen-Chi Wei, Keng-Chang Tsai, Yu-Ching Huang, Wen-Chiung Chang, Wen-Fei Chiou, Chia-Ching Liaw, Yi-Chang Su","doi":"10.3389/fphar.2025.1596369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in 2019, the virus continues to circulate globally, even years later. In Taiwan, the novel traditional Chinese medicine formulas, NRICM101 and NRICM102, have been extensively used to treat COVID-19, with Chinese medicine practitioners frequently prescribing them to manage the disease. According to data from the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, approximately 22% of COVID-19 patients opted for NRICMs' treatments between 2021 and 2022. Despite the widespread use and reported effectiveness of these treatments, it is critical to evaluate the potential risks associated with their prolonged or frequent use. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive toxicological assessment of NRICM101 and NRICM102. Acute oral toxicity was evaluated by administering a single 5 g/kg bw dose to ICR mice and SD rats. No mortality, sex-related differences, or clinical signs of toxicity were observed. Subchronic toxicity was assessed through a 28-day repeated oral administration study with doses of 1.6, 3.1, and 4.8 g/kg bw per day of NRICM101 or 102, which showed no treatment-related deaths or organ pathology. While some hematological changes were noted, they were generally within physiological ranges and showed no consistent dose-dependent trends. Genotoxicity was assessed using three standard assays. The Ames test revealed no mutagenic activity. The <i>in vitro</i> mouse lymphoma assay showed genotoxicity only at the highest concentration (5.0 mg/mL) and only in the absence of S9 metabolic activation, suggesting a context-dependent response possibly linked to direct-acting or cytotoxic effects at excessive doses. In contrast, the <i>in vivo</i> micronucleus assay, which reflects systemic genotoxicity under physiologically relevant conditions, showed negative results. Together, these findings indicate that NRICM101 and NRICM102 are not associated with acute or subchronic toxicity at clinically relevant doses and durations, and they present a low genotoxic risk under standard conditions of use. Nonetheless, further long-term and pharmacokinetic studies are warranted to fully characterize their safety profiles, particularly with high-dose or prolonged administration.</p>","PeriodicalId":12491,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1596369"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12484172/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toxicological assessment of novel Anti-COVID traditional Chinese medicine formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102: a comprehensive study on safety and genotoxicity.\",\"authors\":\"Chun-Tang Chiou, Chao-Lin Chang, Yu-Hwei Tseng, Geng-You Liao, Jiunn-Wang Liao, Yuh-Chiang Shen, Wen-Chi Wei, Keng-Chang Tsai, Yu-Ching Huang, Wen-Chiung Chang, Wen-Fei Chiou, Chia-Ching Liaw, Yi-Chang Su\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fphar.2025.1596369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in 2019, the virus continues to circulate globally, even years later. In Taiwan, the novel traditional Chinese medicine formulas, NRICM101 and NRICM102, have been extensively used to treat COVID-19, with Chinese medicine practitioners frequently prescribing them to manage the disease. According to data from the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, approximately 22% of COVID-19 patients opted for NRICMs' treatments between 2021 and 2022. Despite the widespread use and reported effectiveness of these treatments, it is critical to evaluate the potential risks associated with their prolonged or frequent use. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive toxicological assessment of NRICM101 and NRICM102. Acute oral toxicity was evaluated by administering a single 5 g/kg bw dose to ICR mice and SD rats. No mortality, sex-related differences, or clinical signs of toxicity were observed. Subchronic toxicity was assessed through a 28-day repeated oral administration study with doses of 1.6, 3.1, and 4.8 g/kg bw per day of NRICM101 or 102, which showed no treatment-related deaths or organ pathology. While some hematological changes were noted, they were generally within physiological ranges and showed no consistent dose-dependent trends. Genotoxicity was assessed using three standard assays. The Ames test revealed no mutagenic activity. The <i>in vitro</i> mouse lymphoma assay showed genotoxicity only at the highest concentration (5.0 mg/mL) and only in the absence of S9 metabolic activation, suggesting a context-dependent response possibly linked to direct-acting or cytotoxic effects at excessive doses. In contrast, the <i>in vivo</i> micronucleus assay, which reflects systemic genotoxicity under physiologically relevant conditions, showed negative results. Together, these findings indicate that NRICM101 and NRICM102 are not associated with acute or subchronic toxicity at clinically relevant doses and durations, and they present a low genotoxic risk under standard conditions of use. Nonetheless, further long-term and pharmacokinetic studies are warranted to fully characterize their safety profiles, particularly with high-dose or prolonged administration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1596369\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12484172/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1596369\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1596369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管第一次COVID-19疫情发生在2019年,但即使多年后,该病毒仍在全球传播。在台湾,新型中药配方NRICM101和NRICM102已被广泛用于治疗COVID-19,中医经常开处方来控制疾病。根据台湾疾病控制中心的数据,在2021年至2022年期间,大约22%的COVID-19患者选择了nricm的治疗。尽管这些治疗方法已被广泛使用并有疗效报道,但评估其长期或频繁使用的潜在风险至关重要。在本研究中,我们对NRICM101和NRICM102进行了全面的毒理学评价。通过对ICR小鼠和SD大鼠单次给予5 g/kg bw的剂量来评估急性口服毒性。没有观察到死亡率、性别差异或临床毒性症状。亚慢性毒性是通过一项为期28天的重复口服研究来评估的,剂量分别为每天1.6、3.1和4.8 g/kg体重的NRICM101或102,没有出现与治疗相关的死亡或器官病理。虽然注意到一些血液学变化,但它们通常在生理范围内,并且没有一致的剂量依赖趋势。采用三种标准测定法评估遗传毒性。Ames试验显示无致突变活性。体外小鼠淋巴瘤实验显示,只有在最高浓度(5.0 mg/mL)和没有S9代谢激活的情况下,才有遗传毒性,这表明一种情境依赖性反应可能与过量剂量下的直接作用或细胞毒性作用有关。相比之下,反映生理相关条件下全身遗传毒性的体内微核试验结果为阴性。总之,这些发现表明,NRICM101和NRICM102在临床相关剂量和持续时间下与急性或亚慢性毒性无关,并且在标准使用条件下呈现低遗传毒性风险。尽管如此,需要进一步的长期和药代动力学研究来充分表征它们的安全性,特别是在高剂量或长期给药的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toxicological assessment of novel Anti-COVID traditional Chinese medicine formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102: a comprehensive study on safety and genotoxicity.

Although the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in 2019, the virus continues to circulate globally, even years later. In Taiwan, the novel traditional Chinese medicine formulas, NRICM101 and NRICM102, have been extensively used to treat COVID-19, with Chinese medicine practitioners frequently prescribing them to manage the disease. According to data from the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, approximately 22% of COVID-19 patients opted for NRICMs' treatments between 2021 and 2022. Despite the widespread use and reported effectiveness of these treatments, it is critical to evaluate the potential risks associated with their prolonged or frequent use. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive toxicological assessment of NRICM101 and NRICM102. Acute oral toxicity was evaluated by administering a single 5 g/kg bw dose to ICR mice and SD rats. No mortality, sex-related differences, or clinical signs of toxicity were observed. Subchronic toxicity was assessed through a 28-day repeated oral administration study with doses of 1.6, 3.1, and 4.8 g/kg bw per day of NRICM101 or 102, which showed no treatment-related deaths or organ pathology. While some hematological changes were noted, they were generally within physiological ranges and showed no consistent dose-dependent trends. Genotoxicity was assessed using three standard assays. The Ames test revealed no mutagenic activity. The in vitro mouse lymphoma assay showed genotoxicity only at the highest concentration (5.0 mg/mL) and only in the absence of S9 metabolic activation, suggesting a context-dependent response possibly linked to direct-acting or cytotoxic effects at excessive doses. In contrast, the in vivo micronucleus assay, which reflects systemic genotoxicity under physiologically relevant conditions, showed negative results. Together, these findings indicate that NRICM101 and NRICM102 are not associated with acute or subchronic toxicity at clinically relevant doses and durations, and they present a low genotoxic risk under standard conditions of use. Nonetheless, further long-term and pharmacokinetic studies are warranted to fully characterize their safety profiles, particularly with high-dose or prolonged administration.

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
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers in Pharmacology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
5163
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Pharmacology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across disciplines, including basic and clinical pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, pharmacy and toxicology. Field Chief Editor Heike Wulff at UC Davis is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信