Interim analysis of an open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating nasal irrigations in non-hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.
Interim analysis of an open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating nasal irrigations in non-hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.
复制标题
DOI:
10.1002/alr.22703
复制
发表时间:
2020-12
影响因子:
6.4
通讯作者:
Turner JH
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Kimura KS;Freeman MH;Wessinger BC;Gupta V;Sheng Q;Huang LC;Von Wahlde K;Das SR;Chowdhury NI;Turner JH
MethodsWe identified patients diagnosed with a positive qualitative RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and affiliated testing centers. Patients were enrolled in the study within 24 hours of testing and were given swabs, viral preservation media, and a symptom diary incorporating a modified version of the validated Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom-21 Survey (WURSS-21)(Supp. Fig. 1) 7. Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: 1) twice daily irrigation with 250cc hypertonic saline (HTS), 2) twice daily irrigation with hypertonic saline with 1% surfactant (HTSS) and 3) a non-intervention (NI) group (Supp. Fig. 2). Participants performed scheduled mid-turbinate swabs and recorded daily temperatures and symptom scores over the 21-day study duration. A prior cross-sectional study found equivalent sensitivity and high correlation between patient-performed mid-turbinate swabs and nasopharyngeal swabs performed by health care workers 8. Comprehensive details of study methodology and power analysis are provided in the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix.ResultsWe performed an interim analysis on the first 45 patients with completed symptom questionnaires, which included 17 patients in the no intervention group, and 14 each in the hypertonic saline and saline+ surfactant groups (Supp. Table 1). The groups were similar with respect to age, sex, comorbidities, and other demographic and/or clinical factors. The median number of symptomatic days before diagnosis ranged from 2.0 to 2.5 and did not differ between groups. Study completion was also similar with three patients lost to follow-up in each treatment arm.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
7.2
作者:
Barrett, B;Brown, R;Alt, J
通讯作者:
Alt, J
影响因子:
4.6
作者:
Ramalingam, Sandeep;Graham, Catriona;Sheikh, Aziz
通讯作者:
Sheikh, Aziz
影响因子:
6.4
作者:
Turner, Justin H.;Wu, Jeffanie;Chandra, Rakesh K.
通讯作者:
Chandra, Rakesh K.
影响因子:
6.4
作者:
Lee, Sung Bu;Yi, Jong Sook;Jang, Yong Ju
通讯作者:
Jang, Yong Ju
影响因子:
158.5
作者:
Corbett, Kizzmekia S.;Flynn, Barbara;Graham, Barney S.
通讯作者:
Graham, Barney S.