Efficacy and Safety of Huashi Baidu Granules in Treating Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huashi Baidu Granules (HSBD) in treating patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted during COVID-19 Omicron epidemic in the Mobile Cabin Hospital of Shanghai New International Expo Center from April 1st to May 23rd, 2022. All COVID-19 patients with asymptomatic or mild infection were assigned to the treatment group (HSBD users) and the control group (non-HSBD users). After propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio, 496 HSBD users of treatment group were matched by propensity score to 496 non-HSBD users. Patients in the treatment group were administrated HSBD (5 g/bag) orally for 1 bag twice a day for 7 consecutive days. Patients in the control group received standard care and routine treatment. The primary outcomes were the negative conversion time of nucleic acid and negative conversion rate at day 7. Secondary outcomes included the hospitalized days, the time of the first nucleic acid negative conversion, and new-onset symptoms in asymptomatic patients. Adverse events (AEs) that occurred during the study were recorded. Further subgroup analysis was conducted in vaccinated (378 HSBD users and 390 non-HSBD users) and unvaccinated patients (118 HSBD users and 106 non-HSBD users). RESULTS: The median negative conversion time of nucleic acid in the treatment group was significantly shortened than the control group [3 days (IQR: 2-5 days) vs. 5 days (IQR: 4-6 days); P<0.01]. The negative conversion rate of nucleic acid in the treatment group were significantly higher than those in the control group at day 7 (91.73% vs. 86.90%, P=0.014). Compared with the control group, the hospitalized days in the treatment group were significantly reduced [10 days (IQR: 8-11 days) vs. 11 days (IQR: 10.25-12 days); P<0.01]. The time of the first nucleic acid negative conversion had significant differences between the treatment and control groups [3 days (IQR: 2-4 days) vs. 5 days (IQR: 4-6 days); P<0.01]. The incidence of new-onset symptoms including cough, pharyngalgia, expectoration and fever in the treatment group were lower than the control group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). In the vaccinated patients, the median negative conversion time and hospitalized days were significantly shorter than the control group after HSDB treatment [3 days (IQR: 2-5 days) vs. 5 days (IQR: 4-6 days), P<0.01; 10 days (IQR: 8-11 days) vs. 11 days (IQR: 10-12 days), P<0.01]. In the unvaccinated patients, HSBD treatment efficiently shorten the median negative conversion time and hospitalized days [4 days (IQR: 2-6 days) vs. 5 days (IQR: 4-7 days), P<0.01; 10.5 days (IQR: 8.75-11 days) vs. 11.0 days (IQR: 10.75-13 days); P<0.01]. No serious AEs were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: HSBD treatment significantly shortened the negative conversion time of nuclear acid, the length of hospitalization, and the time of the first nucleic acid negative conversion in patients infected with SARS-COV-2 Omicron variant (Trial registry No. ChiCTR2200060472).

Efficacy and safety of Huashi Baidu granule plus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir combination therapy in patients with high-risk factors infected with Omicron (B.1.1.529): A multi-arm single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Huashi Baidu granule (HSBD) and Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir) are antiviral Chinese patent medicine and western medicine specially developed for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 are still under investigated. PURPOSE: To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of HSBD, Paxlovid, and the combination in treating high-risk patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. STUDY DESIGN: The study was a prospective single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from April 18 to June 5, 2022. (ClinicalTrial.gov registration number: ChiCTR2200059390) METHODS: 312 severe patients aged 18 years and older infected with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron from Shuguang Hospital in Shanghai were randomly allocated to HSBD monotherapy (orally 137 g twice daily for 7 days, n = 105), Paxlovid monotherapy (orally 300 mg of Nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of Ritonavir every 12 h for 5 days, n = 103), or combination therapy (n = 104). The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negative conversion within 7-day treatment. The secondary outcome included hospital discharging conditions, severe conversion of symptom, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 312 participants, 85 (82%) of 104 in combination therapy, 71 (68%) of 105 in HSBD monotherapy, and 73 (71%) of 103 in Paxlovid monotherapy had a primary outcome event. The hazard ratios of primary outcome were 1.37 (95% CI 1.03 - 1.84, p = 0.012) for combination versus HSBD, 1.28 (0.98-1.69, p = 0.043) for combination versus Paxlovid, and 0.88 (0.66-1.18, p = 0.33) for HSBD versus Paxlovid. There was no statistical difference of efficacy between HSBD and Paxlovid, while combination therapy exhibited more effective than either alone. For secondary outcomes, the hospital discharging rates within 7 days exhibited the significant increase in combination therapy than in HSBD or Paxlovid monotherapy (71% (74/104) vs 55% (58/105) vs 52% (54/103), p < 0.05). The risk of severe conversion of symptom showed no statistical significance among three interventions (1% (1/104) vs 3% (3/105) vs 3% (3/103), p > 0.05). No severe adverse events occurred among combination therapy and monotherapies in the trial. CONCLUSION: For patients with severe COVID-19, HSBD exhibits similar efficacy to Paxlovid, while combination therapy is more likely to increase the curative efficacy of Omicron variant than monotherapies, with few serious adverse events.

Efficacy and safety assessment of severe COVID-19 patients with Chinese medicine: A retrospective case series study at early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formed a global pandemic since late 2019. Benefitting from the application experience of Chinese Medicine (CM) for influenza and SARS, CM has been used to save patients at the early stage of COVID-19 outbreak in China. AIM OF THE STUDY: In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CM, and compare with Western Medicine (WM) for COVID-19, we conducted a retrospective case series study based on the patients in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China. METHODS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria of data extraction were set for this retrospective study. All patients who were admitted by the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital between January 17th and February 25th 2020 were considered. In addition, patients enrolled met the severe defined by the guidelines released by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. In these cases included in the study, CM or WM treatment was selected according to the wishes of the patients at the beginning of hospitalization. The patients in CM group were treated with Huashi Baidu granule (137 g po, bid) combined with the injections of Xiyanping (100 mg iv, bid), Xuebijing (100 ml iv, bid) and Shenmai (60 ml iv, qd) according to the syndrome of epidemic toxin blocking the lung in the theory of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The WM group received antiviral therapy (including abidor capsule 0.2 g po, tid; Lopinavir-Ritonavir tablets, 500 mg po, bid), antibiotics (such as cefoperazone 2 g iv, bid; moxifloxacin hydrochloride tablets, 0.4 g po, qd) or corticosteroid therapy (such as methylprednisolone succinate sodium 40 mg iv, qd; prednisone, 30 mg po, qd). In addition, patients in both groups received routine supportive treatment, including oxygen inhalation, symptomatic therapy, and/or human intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or serum albumin, and treatment for underlying diseases. The clinical outcomes were evaluated based on changes related with clinical manifestations, computer tomography (CT) scan images, and laboratory examinations before and after the treatment. RESULTS: 55 severe COVID-19 patients, with 23 in CM group and 32 in WM group, were included for analyzed. There was no case of death, being transferred to ICU, or receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in two groups during hospitalization. The median time of SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in CM and WM group were 12 days and 15.5 days respectively, the ratio of nucleic acid negative conversion of CM group at different follow-up time points was significantly higher than that of WM group (HR: 2.281, P = 0.018). Further, the chest CT imaging showed more widely lung lesion opacity absorbed in the CM group. The high sensitivity C-reactive protein and serum ferritin decreased significantly in the CM group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events in terms of liver function and renal function between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Based on this retrospective analysis from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, CM has better effects in SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance, promoting lung lesion opacity absorbed and reducing inflammation in severe COVID-19 patients, which is effective and safe therapy for treating severe COVID-19 and reducing mortality.