Curbing COVID-19 progression and mortality with traditional Chinese medicine among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Viral- and host-targeted traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102 were administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the mid-2021 outbreak in Taiwan. We report the outcomes by measuring the risks of intubation or admission to intensive care unit (ICU) for patients requiring no oxygen support, and death for those requiring oxygen therapy. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study retrieved data of 840 patients admitted to 9 hospitals between May 1 and July 26, 2021. After propensity score matching, 302 patients (151 received NRICM101 and 151 did not) and 246 patients (123 received NRICM102 and 123 did not) were included in the analysis to assess relative risks. RESULTS: During the 30-day observation period, no endpoint occurred in the patients receiving NRICM101 plus usual care while 14 (9.27%) in the group receiving only usual care were intubated or admitted to ICU. The numbers of deceased patients were 7 (5.69%) in the group receiving NRICM102 plus usual care and 27 (21.95%) in the usual care group. No patients receiving NRICM101 transitioned to a more severe status; NRICM102 users were 74.07% less likely to die than non-users (relative risk= 25.93%, 95% confidence interval 11.73%-57.29%). CONCLUSION: NRICM101 and NRICM102 were significantly associated with a lower risk of intubation/ICU admission or death among patients with mild-to-severe COVID-19. This study provides real-world evidence of adopting broad-spectrum oral therapeutics and shortening the gap between outbreak and effective response. It offers a new vision in our preparation for future pandemics.

A traditional Chinese medicine formula NRICM101 to target COVID-19 through multiple pathways: A bedside-to-bench study.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic, with over 50 million confirmed cases and 1.2 million deaths as of November 11, 2020. No therapies or vaccines so far are recommended to treat or prevent the new coronavirus. A novel traditional Chinese medicine formula, Taiwan Chingguan Yihau (NRICM101), has been administered to patients with COVID-19 in Taiwan since April 2020. Its clinical outcomes and pharmacology have been evaluated. Among 33 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted in two medical centers, those (n = 12) who were older, sicker, with more co-existing conditions and showing no improvement after 21 days of hospitalization were given NRICM101. They achieved 3 consecutive negative results within a median of 9 days and reported no adverse events. Pharmacological assays demonstrated the effects of the formula in inhibiting the spike protein/ACE2 interaction, 3CL protease activity, viral plaque formation, and production of cytokines interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. This bedside-to-bench study suggests that NRICM101 may disrupt disease progression through its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, offering promise as a multi-target agent for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of a Low-Level Light Therapy for Androgenetic Alopecia: A 24-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Self-Comparison, Sham Device-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported the benefits of low-level/light laser therapy (LLLT) for the promotion of hair regrowth. However, the effectiveness of LLLT for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is still a topic of debate. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of LLLT on hair regrowth in patients with AGA. METHODS: This 24-week, randomized, double-blind, self-comparison, sham device-controlled trial enrolled 100 patients with AGA. All participants were randomly assigned to receive the investigational LLLT on one side of the head and sham light treatment on the contralateral side, 3 times weekly for 30 minutes each, over a 24-week period. Global scalp photography, phototrichogram assessment, the investigator's global assessment (IGA) of hair regrowth, and the subject's assessment of the treatment satisfaction were used for evaluation. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of treatment, the LLLT-treated scalp exhibited significantly greater hair coverage than the sham light-treated side (14.2% vs. 11.8%, p < .001). A significantly greater improvement from baseline in hair thickness, hair count, hair coverage, and IGA were also observed in the LLLT-treated side than in the sham light-treated side at the 12- and 24-week visits. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: The use of LLLT might be an effective, safe, well-tolerated treatment for AGA.

Evaluation of the potential inhibitory activity of a combination of L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus and L. sporogenes on Helicobacter pylori: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether three strains of probiotics, L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, and L. sporogenes, had signifificant inhibitive effects on Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). METHODS: This is a 4-week, randomly assigned, parallel-group, doubled-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Fifty patients with a positive H. pylori infection urea breath test (△UBT) result > 10% and without ulcer symptoms were randomized into a treatment group and a placebo group by a computer generated allocation sheet with 1:1. These subjects took one capsule of probiotics or placebo twice daily. The primary measurement was the change in △UBT values. RESULTS: The △UBT values during the 4-week treatment period and the 2-week follow-up period were not signifificantly different between the treatment group and the placebo group, indicating that the inhibitive effects on H. pylori were comparable between both groups. The monocyte count (%) was 5.77±1.11 in the treatment group versus 5.09±1.12 in the placebo group (P=0.044), and the basophile count was 0.55±0.32 in the treatment group versus 0.36±0.23 in the placebo group (P=0.024) at week 2 of the treatment period, both of which reached statistical signifificance. The monocyte count was 5.75±1.26 in the treatment group and 4.72±0.99 in the placebo group at the end of the follow-up period (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: There was no signifificant inhibitive effects of the three probiotic strains (L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, and L. sporogenes) on H. pylori. Probiotics can not play the same role as antibiotics in the eradication of H. pylori, the role of probiotics is likely to be important as adjuvant to the triple or quadruple therapy for H. pylori, especially in resistance cases.

No additional cholesterol-lowering effect observed in the combined treatment of red yeast rice and Lactobacillus casei in hyperlipidemic patients: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To observe the effect of combining red yeast rice and Lactobacillus casei (L. casei) in lowering cholesterol in patients with primary hyperlipidemia, the later has also been shown to remove cholesterol in in vitro studies. METHODS: A double-blind clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the cholesterol-lowering effect of the combination of red yeast rice and L. casei. Sixty patients with primary hyperlipidemia were recruited and randomized equally to either the treatment group (red yeast rice + L. casei) or the control group (red yeast rice + placebo). One red yeast rice capsule and two L. casei capsules were taken twice a day. The treatment lasted for 8 weeks, with an extended follow-up period of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was a difference of serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at week 8. RESULTS: At week 8, the LDL-C serum level in both groups was lower than that at baseline, with a decrease of 33.85±26.66 mg/dL in the treatment group and 38.11±30.90 mg/dL in the control group; however, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The total cholesterol was also lower than the baseline in both groups, yet without a statistical difference between the two groups. The only statistically signifificant difference between the two groups was the average diastolic pressure at week 12, which dropped by 2.67 mm Hg in the treatment group and increased by 4.43 mm Hg in the placebo group (P<0.05). The antihypertensive activity may be associated with L. casei. Red yeast rice can signifificantly reduce LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglyceride. CONCLUSION: The combination of red yeast rice and L. casei did not have an additional effect on lipid profifiles.

Efficacy and safety of herbal medicine yun-cai tea in the treatment of hyperlipidemia: A double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Animal studies have demonstrated a lipid-modulating effect of yun-cai tea. However, little is known about the lipid-lowering effect in humans.The aim of this study was to evaluate the lipid lowering effects and safety of yun-cai tea in patients with elevated lipid levels in a human clinical trial. METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomly assigned, parallel-group, double-blind, and placebo-controlled pilot clinical study. Sixty primary hyperlipidemia patients were included and randomly assigned to the yun-cai tea group (30 patients) and the placebo group (30 patients), for 8 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of follow-up. The primary endpoint was changes in plasma low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints included total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG). RESULTS: Our results revealed no statistically signifificant differences in LDL-C and TC between the two groups. Despite the lack of a statistically signifificant difference in the level of TG between the two groups, a declining trend was noted. A signifificant reduction of TG was observed in the yun-cai tea group at week 8, compared to baseline (P=0.048). The incidence of stomach discomfort, gastroesophageal reflfl ux, diarrhea, and constipation was slightly higher in the yun-cai tea group. No other signifificant adverse events were found. CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that yun-cai tea used had a blood lipid reduction effect. Further larger scale clinical trials with a longer duration and larger dose are necessary.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Fufang Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) as add-on antihypertensive therapy in Taiwanese patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Hypertension generally requires the use of a combination therapy to achieve the satisfactory control of blood pressure. A traditional Chinese herb, Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza), has been shown to have cardioprotective effects in animals and humans. The study investigated the add-on effect of Fufang Danshen extract capsule in Taiwanese hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, single-center study clinical trial. Fifty-five patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate hypertension were enrolled under current conventional antihypertensive treatment, randomized equally to receive a Fufang Danshen capsule (formula mixture) 1000 mg twice-daily or a placebo capsule for 12 weeks. Primary endpoints were the control rate and the response rate. By ITT analysis at week 12, the control rates were 25.5% in the Fufang Danshen group and 7.3% in the control group (p = 0.016). The response rates were 45.6% in the Fufang Danshen group and 38.2% in the placebo group (p = 0.946). A significant reduction of systolic blood pressure at week 12 was noted in the Fufang Danshen group compared with the placebo group (13.8 vs 4.2 mmHg, p = 0.005). A decrease of pulse rate was also noted in the Fufang Danshen group (- 3.2 vs +2.7/min, p = 0.027). Adverse events were not statistically different between the two groups. It was concluded that Fufang Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) extract reduced systolic blood pressure and pulse rate, and was well tolerated in patients with hypertension.

A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. RESULTS: ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.

Adding the p16(INK4a) marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study.

OBJECTIVE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.

Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

PURPOSE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4a)), but also evaluate whether p16(INK4a) adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16(INK4a) marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16(INK4a)-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.