Corrected QT interval in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Focus on drugs therapy.

ABSTRACT: Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation has been associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, we assessed the effects of different drugs and cardiac injury on QTc interval prolongation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The study cohort consisted of 395 confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus. All hospitalized patients were treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), quinolones, interferon, Arbidol, or Qingfei Paidu decoction (QPD) and received at least 1 electrocardiogram after drug administration.Fifty one (12.9%) patients exhibited QTc prolongation (QTc ≥ 470 ms). QTc interval prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality (both P < .001). Administration of CQ/HCQ (odds ratio [OR], 2.759; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.318-5.775; P = .007), LPV/r (OR, 2.342; 95% CI, 1.152-4.760; P = .019), and quinolones (OR, 2.268; 95% CI, 1.171-4.392; P = .015) increased the risk of QTc prolongation. In contrast, the administration of Arbidol, interferon, or QPD did not increase the risk of QTc prolongation. Notably, patients treated with QPD had a shorter QTc duration than those without QPD treatment (412.10 [384.39-433.77] vs 420.86 [388.19-459.58]; P = .042). The QTc interval was positively correlated with the levels of cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase-MB fraction [rho = 0.14, P = .016], high-sensitivity troponin I [rho = .22, P < .001], and B-type natriuretic peptide [rho = 0.27, P < .001]).In conclusion, QTc prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The risk of QTc prolongation was higher in patients receiving CQ/HCQ, LPV/r, and quinolones. QPD had less significant effects on QTc prolongation than other antiviral agents.

Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine versus Lopinavir-Ritonavir in adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A non-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited by suboptimal efficacy. METHODS: From January 30, 2020 to March 23, 2020, we conducted a non-randomised controlled trial, in which all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were assigned to three groups non-randomly and given supportive treatments: Group A, Lopinavir-Ritonavir; Group B, Huashi Baidu Formula (a Chinese medicineformula made by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences to treat COVID-19, which is now in the clinical trial period) and Lopinavir-Ritonavir; and Group C, Huashi Baidu Formula. The use of antibiotics, antiviruses, and corticosteroids was permitted in Group A and B. Traditional Chinese medicine injections were permitted in Group C. The primary outcomes were clinical remission time (interval from admission to the first time the patient tested negatively for novel coronavirus or an obvious improvement was observed from chest CT) and clinical remission rate (number of patients whose clinical time was within 16 days/total number of patients). RESULTS: A total of 60 adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled at sites in Wuhan, China, and the sample size of each group was 20. In Groups A, B and C, the clinical remission rates were 95.0%%(19/20), 100.0%%(20/20) and 100.0%%(20/20), respectively. Compared with Groups A and B, the clinical remission time of Group C was significantly shorter (5.9 days vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.05; 5.9 days vs. 9.7 days, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among Groups A, B, and C in terms of the time taken to be released from quarantine. The clinical biochemical indicators and safety indexes showed no significant differences among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that Lopinavir-Ritonavir has some efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, and the Huashi Baidu Formula might enhance this effect to an extent. In addition, superiority was displayed in the treatment of COVID-19 through a combination of the Huashi Baidu Formula and traditional Chinese medicine injection. In future, well-designed prospective double-blinded randomised control trials are required to confirm our findings.

Dual therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine could be a viable alternative for antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 infection regardless of HIV viral load or subgenotype in resource-limited settings: A randomised, open-label and non-inferiority study from China.

BACKGROUNDS: This randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1-infected patients to assess the efficacy and safety of 48-week dual therapy of LPV/r plus 3TC (DT group) compared with Chinese first-line triple-therapy regimen (TT group). METHODS: 198 were randomised to DT (n = 100) or TT (n = 98). RESULTS: Ninety-two DT patients (92%) and 88 TT patients (89.8%) achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml at week 48 (P = 0.629). Moreover, the safety profile was similar between two groups, and no secondary HIV resistance was observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that dual therapy of LPV/r plus 3TC is non-inferior to the first-line triple-therapy regimen in China.