4.7 Article

A Phase II Safety and Efficacy Study on Prognosis of Moderate Pneumonia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Regular Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 223, 期 9, 页码 1538-1543

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiab098

关键词

COVID-19; immunoglobulin; IVIG; pneumonia; SARS-CoV-2

资金

  1. Virchow Biotech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is safe and effective in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, reducing hospital stay and promoting recovery. IVIG can be used as an adjunct therapy with other antiviral drugs in clinical practice.
Background. Currently, there is no specific drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therapeutic benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have been demonstrated in wide range of diseases. The present study is conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. Methods. An open-label, multicenter, comparative, randomized study was conducted on COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. One hundred eligible patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio either to receive IVIG + standard of care (SOC) or SOC. Results. Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the IVIG group compared with that of SOC alone (7.7 vs 17.5 days). Duration for normalization of body temperature, oxygen saturation, and mechanical ventilation were significantly shorter in IVIG compared with SOC. Percentages of patients on mechanical ventilation in 2 groups were not significantly different (24% vs 38%). Median time to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction negativity was significantly shorter with IVIG than SOC (7 vs 18 days). There were only mild to moderate adverse events in both groups except for 1 patient (2%), who died in SOC. Conclusions. Intravenous immunoglobulin was safe and efficacious as an adjuvant with other antiviral drugs in the treatment of COVID-19.

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

4.7
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