-
Acta Medica Indonesiana Oct 2022Most COVID-19 patients have mild or moderate illnesses that can progress to severe illness, leading to hospitalization and/or mortality. The use of antivirals to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most COVID-19 patients have mild or moderate illnesses that can progress to severe illness, leading to hospitalization and/or mortality. The use of antivirals to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in non-hospitalized patients shows conflicting result and efficacy remain unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of antivirals therapy in COVID-19 outpatients.
METHODS
Search were conducted in Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Springer, medRxiv, Journal Storage [JSTOR], and Directory of Open Access Journals [DOAJ] for articles investigating antivirals in COVID-19 outpatients. In addition, clinical and virological outcomes, COVID-19 hospitalization, all caused mortality, and adverse events were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in this review. The consecutive data from these studies suggested that favipiravir is more optimally used in early disease, but improvement in symptoms shows inconsistent results. Meanwhile, molnupiravir shows consistent results, which can reduce hospitalization and mortality risk. In addition, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have the potential to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in outpatients, but the data provided in this study are very limited. Finally, there is no significant difference in serious and non-serious adverse events, highlighting that antivirals have a good safety profile.
CONCLUSION
This study provides an overview of the role of various antivirals therapy in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir, remdesivir, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have shown potential to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in early disease. However, this review was based on very limited data. Therefore, further clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Antiviral Agents; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Outpatients; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36624710
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Aug 2023This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.
METHODS
Five bibliographic databases were searched for studies reporting clinical features, management, and patient outcomes of mpox. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
In total, 73 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 33 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Previous outbreaks substantially affected children, whereas the 2022 outbreak primarily affected male adults, of which 94.66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.03-98.95) were men who have sex with men. Furthermore, 72.47% (95% CI, 51.04-89.71) reported high-risk sexual activity and the overall human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was 37.65% (95% CI, 30.09-45.50). Skin lesions remain the typical symptom; however, their anatomic distribution differed. Systemic manifestations were common, but rectal pain was unique to the 2022 outbreak. The estimated overall fatality during past outbreaks in Africa was 4.61% (95% CI, 2.39%-7.35%), whereas 6.34% (95% CI, 3.35%-10.10%) of patients from the 2022 outbreak required hospitalization. Antiviral treatment, in particular tecovirimat, has been prescribed for a subset of patients, but the efficacy remains inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings are important for better understanding the disease and guiding adequate response to mpox outbreaks.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Male; Female; Homosexuality, Male; Mpox (monkeypox); Sexual and Gender Minorities; Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36735342
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad034 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2023The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment.
METHODS
Using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, we performed a systematic literature search for articles related to HBVr in RA patients under anti-IL-6 treatment. The search was performed with no date limits and was last updated 28 January 2023. The results from all the databases were combined and duplicates were excluded, as were non-English articles, case reports, position articles, comments, and paediatric studies.
RESULTS
Our initial search led to 427 articles; 28 were duplicates, 46 non-English, 169 reviews, 31 books/letters, 25 case reports, and 88 irrelevant to the meta-analysis aim; 21 were excluded due to inadequate information, leaving 19 articles, with a sum of 372 RA patients with chronic HBV (CHB) or resolved HBV infection, for further analysis. The overall risk for HBVr in RA patients with CHB was 6.7%, increasing to 37% when only RA patients with CHB and no antiviral prophylaxis were included. On the contrary, HBVr was close to 0% in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, irrespective of antiviral prophylaxis. All RA patients experiencing HBVr in these studies were successfully managed with antiviral treatment and/or drug withdrawal.
CONCLUSION
Overall, anti-IL-6 treatment comes with a significant risk of HBVr in RA patients with CHB; risk is diminished when antiviral prophylaxis is used. In contrast, in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, the risk of HBVr seems to be extremely low. Large, well-designed studies (either controlled trials or multicentre/international observational studies) are warranted to further validate these results.
Topics: Humans; Child; Hepatitis B virus; Antiviral Agents; Virus Activation; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37871924
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead243 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2017Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective in treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection, but their cost and value have been debated. We performed a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective in treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection, but their cost and value have been debated. We performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses of DAAs, synthesized their results with updated drug prices, and calculated the maximum price at which DAA therapy for HCV genotype 1 infection is cost-effective (increased quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and increased cost that the society is willing to pay) and cost-saving (increased QALYs and decreased costs).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, EconLit, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts University databases for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 2011 through 2015. Our analysis included cost effectiveness of DAAs versus previous standard-of-care regimens (peginterferon and ribavirin, boceprevir and telaprevir), or no treatment, performed for patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. We excluded studies that were not written in English or those that did not report QALYs. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and treatment costs for each comparison were extracted; the threshold price was estimated for each analysis in which regimens were found to be cost-effective (ICER ≤$100,000/QALY) or cost-saving (ICER <$0), those that decreased costs and increased QALYs.
RESULTS
We identified 24 cost-effectiveness studies that reported 170 ICERs for combinations of 11 drugs, from 11 countries. Of those, 81 ICERs were determined for first-generation DAAs (boceprevir and telaprevir) and 89 ICERs were determined for second-generation DAAs (drugs approved after the first-generation DAAs) as a primary intervention. The median threshold prices at which first-generation and second-generation DAAs became cost-effective were estimated as $120,100 (interquartile range, $90,700-$176,800) and $227,200 (interquartile range, $142,800-$355,800), respectively. At the discounted price of $60,000, a total of 71% of the analyses found second-generation DAAs to be cost-saving and 22% to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review, we found treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection with second-generation DAAs to be cost-effective when they cost less than and $227,200; these drugs produced cost savings at current discounts.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cost Savings; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans
PubMed: 27650326
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to August Week 4, 2005), EMBASE (October 2003 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control medication or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For prophylaxis (prevention) trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI) or with confirmed influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever, length of hospital stay and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prophylaxis were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Neither drug affected the rate of viral shedding from the nose and the course of asymptomatic influenza.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable efficacy and effectiveness in relieving or treating symptoms of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. The effectiveness of both drugs in interrupting transmission is probably low. Routine use of both drugs should be discouraged and both drugs should only be used when all other measures fail.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Emergencies; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Virus Shedding
PubMed: 16625539
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001169.pub3 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jul 2020Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.
RESULTS
In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.
INTERPRETATION
To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.
Topics: Amides; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Chloroquine; Coronavirus Infections; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Indoles; Influenza, Human; Lopinavir; Observational Studies as Topic; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Pyrazines; Ribavirin; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32493740
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200647 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Mar 2014Duration of viral shedding following infection is an important determinant of disease transmission, informing both control policies and disease modelling. We undertook a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Duration of viral shedding following infection is an important determinant of disease transmission, informing both control policies and disease modelling. We undertook a systematic literature review of the duration of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus shedding to examine the effects of age, severity of illness and receipt of antiviral treatment. Studies were identified by searching the PubMed database using the keywords 'H1N1', 'pandemic', 'pandemics', 'shed' and 'shedding'. Any study of humans with an outcome measure of viral shedding was eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparisons by age, degree of severity and antiviral treatment were made with forest plots. The search returned 214 articles of which 22 were eligible for the review. Significant statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. The mean duration of viral shedding generally increased with severity of clinical presentation, but we found no evidence of longer shedding duration of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 among children compared with adults. Shorter viral shedding duration was observed when oseltamivir treatment was administered within 48 hours of illness onset. Considerable differences in the design and analysis of viral shedding studies limit their comparison and highlight the need for a standardised approach. These insights have implications not only for pandemic planning, but also for informing responses and study of seasonal influenza now that the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus has become established as the seasonal H1N1 influenza virus.
Topics: Age Factors; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Virus Shedding
PubMed: 24299099
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12216 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2019Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection poses a significant burden to public health worldwide. Most cases are clinically silent until late in the disease course. The main... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection poses a significant burden to public health worldwide. Most cases are clinically silent until late in the disease course. The main goal of current therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression to cirrhosis and liver failure, and consequently hepatocellular carcinoma development. The objective of this review is to provide a contemporary and comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment options.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature for randomized controlled trials involving treatment-naïve CHB adult population who received antiviral therapy. The endpoints were virologic response (VR), normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT norm), HBeAg loss, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBsAg loss for the HBeAg-positive population; and VR and ALT norm for the HBeAg-negative population. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of treatment.
RESULTS
Forty-two publications were selected. Twenty-three evaluated HBeAg-positive population, 13 evaluated HBeAg-negative population, and six evaluated both. We applied NMA to the efficacy outcomes of the two populations separately. Treatment strategies were ranked by the probability of achieving outcomes, and pairwise comparisons calculated from NMA were reported in odds ratios (OR). For HBeAg-positive population, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) were the best for VR; OR vs adefovir = 14.29, 95% CI 7.69-25 and 12.5, 95% CI 4.35-33.33 respectively. TAF was the best for achieving ALT norm (OR vs placebo = 12.5, 95% CI 4.55-33.33), HBeAg loss, and seroconversion (OR vs entecavir/TDF combination = 3.03, 95% CI 1.04-8.84 and 3.33, 95% CI 1.16-10 respectively). In the HBeAg-negative population, TDF and TAF were the best for VR (OR vs adefovir = 9.79, 95% CI 2.38-42.7 and 11.71, 95% CI 1.03-150.48 respectively). Telbivudine and TAF were the best for ALT norm. Certain nucleos(t)ide combinations also had high probability of achieving positive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results are consonant with current clinical guidelines and other evidence reviews. For both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative populations, TDF and TAF are the most effective agents for virologic suppression, and TAF is effective across all outcomes.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31426837
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1126-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Pityriasis Rosea; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31684696
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005068.pub3 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2017, as a traditional Chinese medicine, has been widely used both as a single herb and in compound prescriptions in Asia, mainly due to its heat-clearing and detoxifying... (Review)
Review
, as a traditional Chinese medicine, has been widely used both as a single herb and in compound prescriptions in Asia, mainly due to its heat-clearing and detoxifying effects. Modern pharmacology has proved possesses various therapeutic effects, both in vitro and in vivo, such as anti-inflammatory, antibacterial and antiviral activities. Up to now, three hundred and twenty-one compounds have been identified and sensitive analytical methods have been established for its quality control. Recently, the pharmacokinetics of and its bioactive compounds have been reported, providing valuable information for its clinical application. Therefore, this systematic review focused on the newest scientific reports on and extensively summarizes its phytochemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and standardization procedures, especially the difference between the two applied types-unripe and ripe -in the hope of providing a helpful reference and guide for its clinical applications and further studies.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antioxidants; Antiviral Agents; Drug Discovery; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Forsythia; Humans; Phytochemicals
PubMed: 28869577
DOI: 10.3390/molecules22091466