Tiotropium reduces clinically important deterioration in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A post hoc analysis of the Tie-COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint used to holistically assess the complex progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Tiotropium improves lung function and reduces the rate of COPD exacerbations in patients with COPD of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate). However, whether tiotropium reduces CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD remains unclear. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the 24-month Tie-COPD study comparing 18 µg tiotropium with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. CID was defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, an increase of ≥2 unit in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, or moderate-to-severe exacerbation. The time to the first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as the time to the first CID. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients stratified by CAT score, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and GOLD stage at baseline. RESULTS: Of the 841 randomized patients, 771 were included in the full analysis set. Overall, 643 patients (83.4 %) experienced at least one CID event. Tiotropium significantly reduced the CID risk and delayed the time to first CID compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.58, 95 % confidence interval = 0.49-0.68, P < 0.001). Significant reductions in CID risk were also observed in various subgroups, including patients with a CAT score <10, mMRC score <2, and mild COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium reduced CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD, even in patients with fewer respiratory symptoms or mild disease, which highlights tiotropium's effectiveness in treating COPD patients with mild disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Tie-COPD, NCT01455129).

Effects of Lianhuaqingwen Capsules in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019: an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized trial, Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) capsule was effective for accelerating symptom recovery among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the lack of blinding and limited sample sizes decreased the level of clinical evidence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW capsule in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (17 sites from China, Thailand, Philippine and Vietnam). Patients received standard-of-care alone or plus LHQW capsules (4 capsules, thrice daily) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of nine major symptoms. RESULTS: The full-analysis set consisted of 410 patients in LHQW capsules and 405 in placebo group. LHQW significantly shortened the primary endpoint in the full-analysis set (4.0 vs. 6.7 days, hazards ratio: 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-1.90). LHQW capsules shortened the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of stuffy or runny nose (2.8 vs. 3.7 days), sore throat (2.0 vs. 2.6 days), cough (3.2 vs. 4.9 days), feeling hot or feverish (1.0 vs. 1.3 days), low energy or tiredness (1.3 vs. 1.9 days), and myalgia (1.5 vs. 2.0 days). The duration to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of shortness of breath, headache, and chills or shivering did not differ significantly between the two groups. Safety was comparable between the two groups. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: LHQW capsules promote recovery of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 via accelerating symptom resolution and were well tolerated. Trial registration ChiCTR2200056727 .

[A multicenter prospective cohort study of Xuebijing injection in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Xuebijing injection on the improvement of pneumonia severity index (PSI) and prognosis in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study was designed. Adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of 28 designated COVID-19 hospitals in 15 provinces and cities of China from January to March 2020 were enrolled. All patients were treated according to the standard treatment plan of COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. They were divided into Xuebijing group and standard treatment group according to whether they received Xuebijing injection or not. In the standard treatment group, routine medical care measures such as antiviral, respiratory support, circulatory support and symptomatic treatment were taken. In the Xuebijing group, on the basis of standard treatment, Xuebijing was used within 12 hours of admission to the ICU, 100 mL each time, twice daily. The minimum duration of Xuebijing administration was 1 day. The improvement rate of PSI risk rating on the 8th day and clinical outcome on the 28th day were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 276 COVID-19 patients were screened continuously, and the data of 144 severe patients who met PSI risk rating III-V were analyzed. Seventy-two cases were involved each in standard treatment group and Xuebijing group. The average age of the standard treatment group and Xuebijing group were (65.7±7.9) years old and (63.5±10.9) years old, and male accounted for 75.0% (54/72) and 70.8% (51/72), respectively. There were no significant differences in general conditions, comorbidities, PSI risk rating and score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory support mode and other baseline indicators between the two groups. Compared with the standard treatment group, the improvement rate of PSI risk rating in Xuebijing group on the 8th day after admission was significantly improved [56.9% (41/72) vs. 20.8% (15/72), between-group difference and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 36.1% (21.3% to 50.9%), P < 0.01], PSI score, SOFA score and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved [PSI score: 83.7±34.8 vs. 108.2±25.6, between-group difference (95%CI) was -24.5 (-34.9 to -14.1); SOFA score: 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 7.0 (4.0, 10.0), between-group difference (95%CI) was -3.5 (-5.0 to -2.0); PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 289.4±111.6 vs. 188.5±98.1, between-group difference (95%CI) was 100.9 (65.3 to 136.5); all P < 0.01]. The 28-day discharge rate of Xuebijing group was 44.5% higher than that of standard treatment group [66.7% (48/72) vs. 22.2% (16/72), P < 0.01], and the 28-day survival rate was 9.8% [91.7% (66/72) vs. 81.9% (59/72), P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the combination of antiviral drugs, antibiotics, anticoagulants and vasopressor drugs between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Xuebijing group and standard treatment group [41.7% (30/72) vs. 43.1% (31/72), P > 0.05], and no serious adverse events and adverse reactions of Xuebijing were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Standard treatment combined with Xuebijing injection can significantly improve the PSI risk score and clinical prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19 without increasing drug safety risk.

Efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen capsules, a repurposed Chinese herb, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has resulted in a global outbreak. Few existing targeted medications are available. Lianhuaqingwen (LH) capsule, a repurposed marketed Chinese herb product, has been proven effective for influenza. PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of LH capsule in patients with Covid-19. METHODS: We did a prospective multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial on LH capsule in confirmed cases with Covid-19. Patients were randomized to receive usual treatment alone or in combination with LH capsules (4 capsules, thrice daily) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of symptom (fever, fatigue, coughing) recovery. RESULTS: We included 284 patients (142 each in treatment and control group) in the full-analysis set. The recovery rate was significantly higher in treatment group as compared with control group (91.5% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.022). The median time to symptom recovery was markedly shorter in treatment group (median: 7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001). Time to recovery of fever (2 vs. 3 days), fatigue (3 vs. 6 days) and coughing (7 vs. 10 days) was also significantly shorter in treatment group (all p < 0.001). The rate of improvement in chest computed tomographic manifestations (83.8% vs. 64.1%, p < 0.001) and clinical cure (78.9% vs. 66.2%, p = 0.017) was also higher in treatment group. However, both groups did not differ in the rate of conversion to severe cases or viral assay findings (both p > 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: In light of the safety and effectiveness profiles, LH capsules could be considered to ameliorate clinical symptoms of Covid-19.

Antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in patients with bronchiectasis: prevalence, risk factors and prognostic implications.

Background and aims: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the most common pathogen in bronchiectasis and frequently develops resistance to multiple classes of antibiotics, but little is known about the clinical impacts of PA-resistant (PA-R) isolates on bronchiectasis. We, therefore, investigated the prevalence, risk factors and prognostic implications of PA-R isolates in hospitalized bronchiectasis patients. Patients and methods: Between June 2011 and July 2016, data from adult bronchiectasis patients isolated with PA at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were retrospectively analyzed. PA was classified as PA-R in case antibiogram demonstrated resistance on at least one occasion. Results: Seven hundred forty-seven bronchiectasis patients were assessed. Of these, 147 (19.7%) had PA isolate in the sputum or bronchoscopic culture. PA-R and PA-sensitive accounted for 88 (59.9%) and 59 (31.1%) patients, respectively. In multivariate model, factors associated with PA-R isolate in bronchiectasis included prior exposure to antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] =6.18), three or more exacerbations in the previous year (OR =2.81), higher modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores (OR =1.93) and greater radiologic severity (OR =1.15). During follow-up (median: 26 months; interquartile range: 6-59 months), 36 patients died, of whom 24 (66.7%) had PA-R isolate at baseline. However, PA-R isolate was not associated with greater all-cause mortality in bronchiectasis. Conclusion: PA-R infection is common among bronchiectasis patients, mainly determined by prior exposure to antibiotics, frequent exacerbations, more pronounced dyspnea and more severe radiologic involvement. However, PA-R isolate is not an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality in bronchiectasis.