| Literature DB >> 33583756 |
Miao-Yan Shi1, Shi-Qi Sun1, Wei Zhang2, Xing Zhang3, Gui-Hua Xu1, Xuan Chen1, Zi-Jian Su1, Xiu-Ming Song1, Lu-Jiong Liu1, Yi-Bao Zhang1, Yi-le Zhang1, Meng Sun1, Qi Chen1, Yan Xue1, Hua Lü4, Wei-An Yuan5, Xiao-Rong Chen6, Yun-Fei Lu6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the early interventions of traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) on the conversion time of nucleic acid in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and find possible underlying mechanisms of action.Entities:
Keywords: Conversion time of viral nucleic acid; Coronavirus disease 2019; Early interventions; Inflammatory indicators; Traditional Chinese medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33583756 PMCID: PMC7832636 DOI: 10.1016/j.joim.2021.01.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Integr Med
Basic information of the 300 patients with COVID-19.
| Baseline characteristic | TCM1 ( | TCM2 ( | TCM3 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male ( | 96 (56.5) | 41 (42.7) | 21 (61.8) | 5.935 | 0.051 |
| Age (mean ± standard deviation, year)2 | 45.93 ± 17.06 | 48.71 ± 15.29 | 52.32 ± 16.29 | 2.501 | 0.084 |
| Time interval between onset to admission (median [P25, P75], d)3 | 4 (2–8) | 4 (2–6.75) | 4 (3–7) | 2.909 | 0.234 |
| Fever ( | 74 (43.5) | 40 (41.7) | 16 (47.1) | 0.303 | 0.859 |
| Antiviral medications ( | 82 (48.2) | 37 (38.5) | 14 (41.2) | 2.491 | 0.288 |
| Antibiotics ( | 31 (18.2) | 20 (20.8) | 8 (23.5) | 0.624 | 0.732 |
| Underlying diseases ( | 45 (26.5) | 28 (29.2) | 8 (23.5) | 0.461 | 0.794 |
Statistical methods: Chi-square test1, analysis of variance2 and Kruskal-Wallis test3. COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Clinical classification of the 300 patients with COVID-19.
| Group | Clinical classification, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild type | Moderate type | Severe type | Critical type | ||
| TCM1 | 170 | 14 (8.2) | 145 (85.3) | 8 (4.7) | 3 (1.8) |
| TCM2 | 96 | 2 (2.1) | 92 (95.8) | 2 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| TCM3 | 34 | 0 (0.0) | 30 (88.2) | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) |
Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test (χ2 = 4.709, P = 0.095). COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Comparison of the conversion time of pharyngeal swab nucleic acid among the three groups.
| Group | Conversion time of pharyngeal swabs nucleic acid (d) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCM1 | 170 | 5.5 (2–11)*△△ | 40.382 | < 0.001 |
| TCM2 | 96 | 7 (4.3–12)△△ | ||
| TCM3 | 34 | 16 (11–20.3)** |
Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test was used for the comparison among the three groups; Bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, vs. TCM2; △△P < 0.01, vs. TCM3. TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Comparison of the conversion time of fecal nucleic acid among the three groups.
| Group | Conversion time of fecal nucleic acid (d) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCM1 | 133 | 7.0 (3.0–12.0)**△△ | 50.904 | < 0.001 |
| TCM2 | 85 | 9.0 (6.0–14.0)△△ | ||
| TCM3 | 33 | 17.0 (15.0–22.0)** |
Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test was used for the comparison among the three groups; Bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. **P < 0.01, vs. TCM2; △△P < 0.01, vs. TCM3. ※Number of effective observation cases of fecal nucleic acid turning negative. Fecal nucleic acid test was not detected on all the 300 patients involved. TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Comparison of the length of hospital stay among the three groups.
| Group | Length of hospital stay (d) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCM1 | 170 | 13.00 (10.00–21.00)**△△ | 58.444 | < 0.001 |
| TCM2 | 96 | 16.00 (13.00–24.50)△△ | ||
| TCM3 | 34 | 21.00 (19.00–28.00)** |
Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test was used for the comparison among the three groups; Bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. **P < 0.01, vs. TCM2; △△P < 0.01, vs. TCM3; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Comparison of the inflammatory indicators among the three groups.
| Item | Time | TCM1 | TCM2 | TCM3 | Kruskal-Wallis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leucocyte count (×109/L) | Admission day | 4.84 (4.01–6.09) | 5.14 (4.30–6.23) | 5.72 (4.24–7.23) | 4.407 | 0.110 |
| 3rd day | 5.00 (4.03–6.35) | 5.24 (4.24–6.51) | 5.24 (4.07–7.86) | 1.998 | 0.368 | |
| 6th day | 5.16 (4.26–6.48) | 5.54 (4.12–6.71) | 5.46 (4.30–6.74) | 0.365 | 0.883 | |
| Discharge day | 5.73 (4.64–6.73) | 5.87 (4.58–7.00) | 5.53 (4.65–7.11) | 0.065 | 0.968 | |
| Friedman test | 22.312 | 4.220 | 8.147 | |||
| < 0.001 | 0.239 | 0.043 | ||||
| Lymphocyte count (×109/L) | Admission day | 1.23 (0.90–1.53) | 1.22 (0.85–1.71) | 1.28 (0.94–1.79) | 0.385 | 0.825 |
| 3rd day | 1.53 (1.20–2.12) | 1.37 (1.04–1.88) | 1.53 (0.84–1.79) | 4.963 | 0.084 | |
| 6th day | 1.60 (1.06–2.12) | 1.51 (1.03–2.18) | 1.61 (0.96–1.92) | 0.125 | 0.939 | |
| Discharge day | 1.78 (1.42–2.19) | 1.73 (1.44–2.35) | 1.70 (1.32–2.22) | 0.187 | 0.911 | |
| Friedman test | 72.514 | 32.541 | 8.431 | |||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.038 | ||||
| Lymphocyte percentage | Admission day | 24.65 (19.90–30.94) | 24.12 (18.15–31.48) | 24.80 (18.40–35.16) | 0.865 | 0.649 |
| 3rd day | 32.01 (24.89–39.25) | 28.65 (21.90–35.38) | 27.70 (12.50–42.26) | 6.254 | 0.044 | |
| 6th day | 31.52 (24.82–37.70) | 31.41 (24.82–38.11) | 29.18 (21.77–39.17) | 0.133 | 0.936 | |
| Discharge day | 31.86 (27.11–36.41) | 32.47 (26.56–39.01) | 33.15 (25.63–38.96) | 0.234 | 0.890 | |
| Friedman test | 52.958 | 25.040 | 3.814 | |||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.282 | ||||
Friedman test was performed in each group to compare the difference at different time points. Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test was used for the comparison among the three groups; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Fig. 1Comparison of inflammatory indicators showing median value and interquartile range of three groups. (A) comparison of leucocyte count; (B) comparison of lymphocyte count; (C) comparison of lymphocyte percentage. TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Fig. 2Dynamic changes of inflammatory indicators in the three groups. (A) dynamic changes of leucocyte count in each group; (B) dynamic changes of lymphocyte count in each group; (C) dynamic changes of lymphocyte percentage in each group. TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.