| Literature DB >> 33419674 |
Bohua Yan1, Zhiwei Jiang2, Jing Yuan3, Minghui Li4, Jieping Zeng1, Jianyuan Tang5, Z Kevin Lu6, Hong Ding1, Jielai Xia7, Qiaoling Wang1, Jundong Wang1, Hongyan Xie1, Wenyuan Li1, Na Zhang1, Haiyan Li1, Xiaoya Sang1, Lina Wu1, Xiaomo Xiong8, Shiyun Tang1, Yan Li1, Mengyao Tao1, Chunguang Xie9, Shuguang Yu10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, countries are struggling with a shortage of medical capacities. It would be essential if the risk for preventable comorbidities, such as the common cold, can be reduced or prevented, so that the scarce medical resources and facilities can be focused on COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: Common cold; Coronavirus disease 2019; Herbal medicine; Respiratory tract infection
Year: 2020 PMID: 33419674 PMCID: PMC7642754 DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2020.153403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Phytomedicine ISSN: 0944-7113 Impact factor: 5.340
Fig. 1.Flowchart of randomization, enrollment, screening, and follow-up.
Baseline information of participants.
| Characteristics | Herbal medicine group N = 11,092 | Control group N = 10,973 |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | ||
| < 16 (No., %) | 35 (0.32) | 70 (0.64) |
| 16–59 (No., %) | 8,383 (75.58) | 6,574 (59.92) |
| ≥ 60 (No., %) | 2,659 (23.97) | 4,269 (38.91) |
| Gender | ||
| Male (No., %) | 5,398 (48.67) | 5,186 (47.27) |
| Female (No., %) | 5,694 (51.33) | 5,786 (52.73) |
| Had common cold or related symptoms during the screening period | ||
| Common cold symptoms (No., %) | 2 (0.02) | 8 (0.07) |
| Other related symptoms (No., %) | 1 (0.01) | 9 (0.08) |
| No symptoms (No., %) | 11,089 (99.97) | 10,956 (99.85) |
Effects of herbal medicine on the risk of the common cold and by age group.
| Herbal medicine group, n (%; 95% CI) | Control group, n (%; 95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | Protective effect (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 2 (0.02; 0.00–0.07) | 18 (0.16; 0.10–0.26) | 0.104 (0.023–0.471) | 89.6% (52.9%–97.7%) | 0.0033 |
| Age group, years | |||||
| < 16 | 0 (0.00; 0.00–10.00) | 0 (0.00; 0.00–5.13) | – | – | – |
| 16–59 | 1 (0.01; 0.00–0.07) | 13 (0.20; 0.11–0.34) | 0.060 (0.008–0.479) | 94.0% (52.1%–99.2%) | 0.0079 |
| ≥ 60 | 1 (0.04; 0.00–0.21) | 5 (0.12; 0.04–0.27) | 0.315 (0.037–2.673) | 68.5% (-167.3%–93.3%) | 0.2899 |
OR: Odds Ratio.
11,089 participants in the herbal medicine group and 10,956 in the control group.
35 patients in the herbal medicine group and 70 in the control group.
8,383 patients in the herbal medicine group and 6,574 in the control group.
2,659 patients in the herbal medicine group and 4,269 in the control group.
Sensitivity analysis of protective effect of herbal medicine and by age group.
| Herbal medicine group, n (%; 95% CI) | Control group, n (%; 95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | Protective effect (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 2 (0.02; 0.00–0.07) | 18 (0.16; 0.10–0.26) | 0.104 (0.023–0.470) | 89.6% (52.9%–97.7%) | 0.0033 |
| Age group, years | |||||
| < 16 | 0 (0.00; 0.00–10.00) | 0 (0.00; 0.00–5.13) | – | – | – |
| 16–59 | 1 (0.01; 0.00–0.07) | 13 (0.20; 0.11–0.34) | 0.060 (0.008–0.478) | 94.0% (52.2%–99.2%) | 0.0079 |
| ≥ 60 | 1 (0.04; 0.00–0.21) | 5 (0.12; 0.04–0.27) | 0.315 (0.037–2.665) | 68.5% (-166.5%–93.3%) | 0.2888 |
OR: Odds Ratio.
11,086 participants in the herbal medicine group and 10,931 in the control group.
35 patients in the herbal medicine group and 70 in the control group.
8,381 patients in the herbal medicine group and 6,553 in the control group.
2,655 patients in the herbal medicine group and 4,248 in the control group.
Fig. 2.Kaplan-Meier cumulative event rates for the primary outcome.
Fig. 3.Sensitivity analysis of Kaplan-Meier cumulative event rates for the primary outcome (excluding families with patients who had symptoms at baseline).