4.5 Article

Subcutaneous injection of IFN alpha-2b for COVID-19: an observational study

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-05425-5

关键词

Interferon alpha-2b; Subcutaneous injection; Viral clearance; COVID-19

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is ongoing and associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injection of interferon alpha-2b (IFN alpha-2b) combined with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of COVID-19 infection, compared with that of using LPV/r alone.MethodsPatients diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in Wuhan Red Cross hospital during the period from January 23, 2020 to March 19, 2020 were included. The length of stay, the time to viral clearance and adverse reactions during hospitalization were compared between patients using oral LPV/r and combined therapy of LPV/r and subcutaneous injection of IFN alpha-2b.ResultsA total of 22 patients were treated with LPV/r alone and 19 with combined therapy with subcutaneous injection of IFN alpha-2b. The average length of hospitalization in the combination group was shorter than that of LPV/r group (169.7 vs 23 +/- 10.5days; P=0.028). Moreover, the days of hospitalization in early intervention group decreased from 25 +/- 8.5days to 10 +/- 2.9days compared with delayed intervention group (P=0.001). Combined therapy with IFN alpha-2b also significantly reduced the duration of detectable virus in the upper respiratory tract. No patient in each group was transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) or died during the treatment. There was no significant difference in the adverse effect composition between two groups.Conclusions Subcutaneous injection of IFN alpha-2b combined with LPV/r shortened the length of hospitalization and accelerated viral clearance in COVID-19 patients, which deserves further investigation in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据