Medical treatment of 55 patients with COVID-19 from seven cities in northeast China who fully recovered

  1. Lichao Fan
  2. Huan Liu
  3. Na Li
  4. Chang Liu
  5. Ye Gu
  6. Yongyu Liu
  7. Yu Chen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; no specific effective medication to treat the disease has been identified to date. We aimed to investigate the administered medications and intervention times for patients who completely recovered from COVID-19.

This single-center, retrospective, observational study included 55 patients with COVID-19 who were transferred to Shenyang Sixth People's Hospital between January 20 and March 15, 2020. Data on demographics, symptoms, laboratory indicators, treatment processes, and clinical outcomes were collected. Administered drugs and intervention times were compared in 47 and 8 patients with mild and severe symptoms, respectively.

All 55 patients recovered. Fifty-three patients (96.36%) received antiviral therapy, including 45 in the mild group (median treatment: 14 days; 17 received umifenovir) and all 8 severe-group patients (median treatment: 17.5 days; 4 received lopinavir/ritonavir). Twenty-nine patients (52.72%) were administered antibiotics, including 21 in the mild group (median treatment: 13.5 days; 15 received moxifloxacin) and all 8 in the severe group (median treatment: 9 days; 2 received linezolid). Moreover, 7 patients (12.72%) were treated with glucocorticoids and 9 (16.36%) with immunomodulators.

Given the 100% recovery rate, early administration of antiviral drugs can be considered. Umifenovir may benefit patients with mild symptoms, while lopinavir/ritonavir may benefit those with severe symptoms. Prophylactic administration of common antibiotics may reduce the risk of co-infection. The use of glucocorticoids is usually not necessary. Randomized, double-blind, and controlled trials remain necessary for more accurate conclusions.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1097/md.0000000000023923
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.28.20045955: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Patients were considered the ‘mild’ group (mild/moderate), whereas those were considered the ‘severe’ group (severe/critical); these classifications were according to the criteria stated in the COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatment Plan issued by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China.2 The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shenyang Chest Hospital (approval number: KYXM-2020-001-01) and was also documented by the Ethics Committee of the Shenyang Sixth People’s Hospital.
    Consent: Written informed consent forms were waived owing to the rapid development of the infectious COVID-19 disease.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study had some limitations given its single-center, retrospective, and observational nature. Owing to its small sample size, only descriptive data were available, and no statistical analyses were performed. Hence, randomized, double-blind, and controlled trials remain necessary for more accurate conclusions. Nevertheless, our data ought to provide helpful preliminary information at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.28.20045955v1 on medRxiv