4.6 Article

High SARS-CoV-2 load in the nasopharynx of patients with a mild form of COVID-19 is associated with clinical deterioration regardless of the hydroxychloroquine administration

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246396

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [18-15-00420]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [18-15-00420] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite being included in COVID-19 treatment protocols in some countries, current research shows that HCQ therapy at the dose used neither shortens the viral shedding period nor reduces the virus RNA load.
Because of the constantly growing numbers of COVID-19 infections and deaths, attempts were undertaken to find drugs with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity among ones already approved for other pathologies. In the framework of such attempts, in a number of in vitro, as well as in vivo, models it was shown that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has an effect against SARS-CoV-2. While there were not enough clinical data to support the use of HCQ, several countries including Russia have included HCQ in treatment protocols for infected patients and for prophylaxis. In the current non-randomized, observational study we evaluated the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharynx swabs from infected patients 7-10 days post symptoms with clinically mild disease and compared the viral RNA load dynamics between patients receiving HCQ (200 mg twice per day according to the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation treatment instructions, n = 33) and a control group without antiviral pharmacological therapy (n = 12). We found a statistically significant relationship between maximal RNA quantity and deterioration of patients' medical conditions, and as well we confirmed arterial hypertension to be a risk factor for people with COVID-19. However, we showed that at the dose used in the study HCQ therapy neither shortened the viral shedding period nor reduced the virus RNA load.

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

4.6
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