A Randomized, Single-blind, Group sequential, Active-controlled Study to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of α-Lipoic acid for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.3389/fmed.2021.566609
Abstract
Object: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of α-Lipoic acid (ALA) for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A randomized, single-blind, group sequential, active-controlled trial was performed at JinYinTan Hospital, Wuhan, China. Between February 2020 and March 2020, 17 patients with critically ill COVID-19 were enrolled in our study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either ALA (1200 mg/d, intravenous infusion) once daily plus standard care or standard care plus equal volume saline infusion (placebo) for 7 days. All patients were monitored within the 7 days therapy and followed up to day 30 after therapy. The primary outcome of this study was the Sequential Organ Failure Estimate (SOFA) score, and the secondary outcome was the all-cause mortality within 30 days. Result: Nine patients were randomized to placebo group and 8 patients were randomized to ALA group. SOFA score was similar at baseline, increased from 4.3 to 6.0 in the placebo group and increased from 3.8 to 4.0 in the ALA group (P=0.36) after 7 days. The 30-day all-cause mortality tended to be lower in the ALA group (3/8, 37.5%) compared to that in the placebo group (7/9, 77.8%, P=0.09). Conclusion: In our study, ALA use is associated with lower SOFA score increase and lower 30-day all-cause mortality as compared with the placebo group. Although the mortality rate was two-folds higher in placebo group than in ALA group, only borderline statistical difference was evidenced due to the limited patient number. Future studies with larger patient cohort are warranted to validate the role of ALA in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
To date, we are aware of two other similar efforts to ours.
“To date, we are aware of two other similar efforts to ours.42 43”
From Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 38 · Cited by 53
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kenneth Schulz, D.G.E., Essential Concepts in Clinical Research. 2nd Edition ed. 2019.
- Authors
- Zhong, M., Sun, A., Xiao, T., Yao, G., Sang, L., Zheng, X., Zhang, J., Jin, X., Xu, L., Yang, W., Wang, P., Hu, K., Zhang, D., & Ge, J.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University (CN)
- Jinyintan Hospital (CN)
- First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (CN)
- First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Dingyu
- Ge, Junbo
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Medicine
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2020-04-21
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 566609-566609
- ISSN
- 2296-858X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8854372
- OpenAlex
- W4226042190
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 2.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biochemistry › Biochemical Acid Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Keywords
- alpha-lipoic acid, COVID-19 pandemic, critically ill patients, SOFA score, 30-day mortality, intravenous administration, antioxidant therapy, organ failure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review