Coadministration of AYUSH 64 as an adjunct to Standard of Care in mild and moderate COVID-19: A randomised, controlled, multicentric clinical trial

Patients

Voluntary hospitalized patients suffering from mild and moderate symptomatic COVID-19 were selected and after signing informed consent were screened for eligibility. Patients were jointly examined throughout the study by a modern medicine and Ayurveda physician (study investigator). All patients were managed for COVID-19 by an attending physician designated by the hospital at study site and who remained blinded to the treatment allocation in the trial (assessor blind). Patients and study personnel were aware of the treatment allocation (open label).

Adult patients with a typical clinical phenotype of COVID-19 illness and a laboratory confirmation test for SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR on a nasal and/or throat swab) were selected. Patients with severe symptomatic COVID-19 were excluded after fulfilling at least two criteria (i) respiratory distress at room ambience (ii) Oxygen saturation (SpO₂) at rest ≤ 93% (iii) known COVID-19 complication. Full details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria can be accessed in the protocol registered at CTRI website (26).

Trial Procedures

Patients at each site were randomized to a SOC arm or AYUSH 64 (investigational product) along with SOC (AYUSH plus) in 1:1 ratio on a first come first serve basis. A central randomization schedule was prepared by a biostatistician (SS) using a standard statistical software (WinPepi) and in blocks of 20 participant each. The randomized blocks were provided online with restricted access only to the principal investigator at each site as per the allotted sample size.

Standard of care

All patients were begun on SOC soon after hospital admission as per the clinical judgement of the attending hospital physician. The concomitant use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, corticosteroids, antibiotics, ivermectin, zinc, vitamin C, antiplatelet agents was as per the national guidelines of India but there were some local instructions as well (3). All patients were closely monitored on a daily basis as per standard COVID-19 protocol and which included respiration and peripheral arterial oxygen saturation, body temperature and blood pressure (3).

Investigational drug

Each 500 mg tablet of AYUSH 64 contained aqueous extracts (100 mg each) of Alstonia scholaris (bark), Picrorhiza kurroa (rhizome), Swertia chirata (whole plant) and Caesalpinia crista (200 mg seed powder). The dose was two 500 mg tablets twice daily to be taken with a glass of water soon after a meal and this dosage remained fixed. Patients assigned to the AYUSH 64 arm continued the drug following clinical recovery till study completion (12 weeks). AYUSH 64 was procured from Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL), Uttarakhand, India under arrangements with CCRAS, New Delhi. The manufacturing facility was certified ISO 9001 facility (2008) and followed guidelines of good manufacturing practice Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India. Details of composition, quality standards and features of chemistry, manufacturing and controls are described in the Supplementary File S1 (Table S1.1, Table S1.2, Table S1.3, Fig S1.1).

The assessment of general physical health, psychosocial health, and QOL was carried out by using the standard World Health Organization QOL BREF questionnaire (27) and a recently developed Health Related-Behaviour Habit and Fitness Questionnaire (HR-BHF CRD, Pune 2020 version).

The WHO QOL-BREF had 27 questions classified into 4 domains-physical health (Q 7-35), psychological health (Q 6-30), social relationships (Q 6-15) and environmental well-being (Q 8-40); range of score shown in parenthesis. Each question was answered on a 5-item categorical response; We used manually calculated raw scores (summation) for each domain and a higher score meant better health.

HR-BHF contains nine questions pertained to general health, anxiety, fatigue, energy level, bowel habits, stress, happiness, sleep and appetite (food). Each question was answered on a 100 mm horizontal visual analogue scale (VAS) which was anchored at either end (0 and 100 mm) for the worst or best outcomes. We used individual question scores (0-100) and total score (0-900) for analysis in this study.

A comprehensive description of WHO QOL BREF (Text Box S2.1) and HR-BHF questionnaire including pre-study validation (Text Box S2.2, Text box S 2.3) is provided in the Supplementary File S2.

Standard procedures as described by ICH-GCP and India guidelines were followed to classify, record and monitor, and assign causality to all adverse events (AE) (23,24). Safety was assessed in case of all patients who were randomized and included all those withdrawn for whatever reason. Other than clinical evaluations, routine laboratory measures (including haematocrit, metabolic hepatic and renal profile, urinalysis) were also carried out. Electrocardiography was recorded during screening, hospital discharge and study completion.

Skiagram chest was carried out on screening, discharge from hospital and study completion. Data was collected on a daily basis till discharge from the hospital following clinical recovery. Subsequently, the data was collected as per the predetermined follow up schedule at 4, 8 and 12 weeks shown in Fig 1. Data was recorded in study case report forms at point of care and later entered into a central electronic data base by designated study personnel under supervision of the site co-ordinator and an appointed CRO (contract research organization).

Patients were counselled about post-COVID care. A specially designed software program for mobile application called ‘COVID KAVACH’ was used to track the patients for any kind of symptom or untoward event on a daily basis after discharge from the hospital (28).

Outcome measures

The primary efficacy measure was (i) the mean duration (days) from baseline randomization to day one of clinical recovery (CR) (ii) Proportion of patients showing clinical recovery within a time framework of 28 days. Clinical recovery was accepted when all of the following criteria were met with for least 48 hours under medical supervision of the attending physician (a) normal body temperature (≤36.6°C axilla or ≤37.2°C oral) (b) absence of any cough requiring any form of regular medication (c)absence of breathlessness on routine daily self-care activities and respiratory rate less than 30 breaths per minute without supplemental oxygen (d) absence of any other symptom/sign attributed to COVID-19 illness and requiring continuous treatment (e) normal SpO2 by standard peripheral oximetry device (above 94 percent)(f) negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 from nasal and throat swab. There were several secondary efficacy measures pertaining to (i) time lines such as mean duration from onset of symptoms to CR, mean duration from hospitalization to CR (ii) COVID-19 related blood assay biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), D-Dimer, Ferritin, interleukin-6.

Study Withdrawals

Patients worsening clinically and requiring prolonged oxygen and/or intensive care was withdrawn from the study and continued routine management in the hospital. All patients who were withdrawn were thoroughly questioned and evaluated to determine the reason for withdrawal. However, patients were permitted to withdraw without assigning any reason.

Statistical Analysis

A convenience study sample of 140 participants was finalized by AC and SS and considered adequate to address the study research questions. The data were analysed for central tendencies (mean, median), range, standard error, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were tabulated and graphically shown using standard format and MS Excel. Statistical tests were carried out to compare treatment groups as per the distribution (normality) Student’s T test (normative), Mann-Whitney statistic (non-parametric), Chi-square statistic (categorical), ANOVA. 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the difference between mean of the study arms was calculated for efficacy measures; significance at p < 0.05 (two sided). Both intent-to-treat and per protocol completer analysis were performed when appropriate. Standard statistical software programs were used (GraphPad InStat Version 3.6 and Confidence Interval Analysis software analysis, BMJ Group, London, 2003). The study arm of ‘AYUSH 64 plus SOC’ is referred to as ‘AYUSH plus’ and ‘SOC alone’ is referred to as ‘SOC’ in the current paper.

Randomization Baseline

Both the study groups were well matched for several demographic, clinical and laboratory variables as shown in Table 1. Most participants were men in the age range 30 -55 years. COVID-19 was classified mild in 80% participants. Common comorbid disorders were hypertension, known diabetes or first-time detected hyperglycaemia (fasting blood sugar > 120 mg/dl).

The study arms were well matched for several timelines at randomization baseline such as’ onset of symptom to hospital admission’ (−1.34 to 1.72),’ hospital admission to randomization’ (−0.17 to 0.39) and ‘symptom onset to randomization’ (−1.08 to 1.98); 95% CI of the difference between the group means (days) shown in parenthesis (Table 1). Site specific data for selected timelines, including related to RT-PCR assay, is shown in Supplementary File S3, Table S3.2. Some of these timelines are likely to have influenced the primary efficacy measure (time period from randomization baseline to clinical recovery)

Importantly, the study arms were well matched for individual SOC drug intervention (Table 1); drug dosage (Table S 3.1) and site-specific data (Table S3.2) is shown in Supplementary File S3. Skiagram of chest was reported (by radiologist) normal in 47% patients, mild abnormalities in 51% patients and moderate abnormalities in 2% patients in the AYUSH plus; correspondingly 46%, 41% and 13% in the SOC.

Efficacy

Four participants started AYUSH 64 after 36 hours of randomization and were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis; addition of their data did not materially change the outcome (data not shown).

The mean duration (days) for complete recovery (primary efficacy) from the randomization baseline was significantly superior in AYUSH 64 (6.5±2.4 days) as compared to SOC (8.3±4.4 days) and the 95% CI of the difference in means was -3.03 to -0.59 days (Table 2). The latter improvement was observed at each of the study site. A higher proportion of patients in the AYUSH 64 (69.75%) showed complete recovery as compared to SOC (52.9% patients) during the first week following randomization (p=0.046, Chi-square statistic).

The earlier recovery in the AYUSH 64 plus was also observed in case of ‘time to clinical recovery from onset of symptom’ but this was not significant compared to SOC (Table 2).

In both the study arms there was a significant reduction in COVID-19 serum biomarkers but there were no significant differences at randomization, clinical recovery and study completion (Table 3).

At the time of clinical recovery/hospital discharge, skiagram of chest were reported normal in all except for mild abnormalities 22% patients AYUSH plus and 21% patients SOC; findings consistent with COVID-19. None of the patients with radiological abnormalities complained of fever, persistent cough or breathlessness during the post hospital discharge follow up. There were no clinical diagnosed post-COVID lung complications diagnosed on study completion; skiagrams for several patients were reported normal.

In comparison to SOC, AYUSH 64 plus showed significant improvement in several domains (physical health, psychological health, social relationship and environmental well-being) in the WHO QOL BREF and the total HR-BHF score on clinical recovery and during pre-determined follow up evaluations (Table 4). Of note was a significant superior improvement (Table S2.1) in AYUSH 64 in fatigue, stress, anxiety, appetite and happiness as compared to SOC using HR-BHF questionnaire and shown in Supplementary File S2.

Safety and related issues

A total of 49 AEs were recorded in 28 patients in the AYUSH plus and 52 AE in 29 patients in the SOC group: no significant differences (Table 5). Additional data on AE as per pre-determined study time points in each of the treatment arms is shown in Supplementary File S4, Table S4.1.

Several mild AE such as fever, myalgias, fatigue, breathlessness, loss of taste and or smell were considered related to COVID-19 and seems to persist in several participants at week 4 follow up. None of the AE were considered causally related to AYUSH 64 or any other drug used in the study. However, a higher number of gut related AE were reported in patients continuing AYUSH 64 after clinically recovery though definite causality could not be established. Only 3 patients in the SOC arm suffered from SAE which were not related to any drug. All other AE were considered mild and treated symptomatically; patients with naïve hyperglycaemia or dyslipidaemia were treated by specialist physicians. One patient in the SOC group developed mild peripheral polyneuritis following recovery which was later diagnosed Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS); patient recovered completely.

Repeated routine laboratory assays remained within normal limits in the two arms and there were no significant differences in the treatment arms (Supplementary File S5, Table S5.1). Electrocardiography was reported normal at baseline, hospital discharge and on study completion.

Study Implications

The national India policy regarding management of mild and moderate COVID-19 has shifted predominantly towards isolation in home or quarantine (31). The latter was meant to ‘free’ hospital beds for severe and critical cases. Several repurposed modern medicines (such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) that were extensively used earlier in the pandemic are no longer favoured (4, 7). The oral treatment is largely empirical (1,2,3). The current AYUSH 64 drug trial needs to be viewed against this perspective.

The current study demonstrated early clinical recovery (COVID-19) when AYUSH 64 was combined with SOC. AYUSH 64 also showed good safety and persistent improvement in health over 12 weeks of use. Undoubtedly, AYUSH 64 can be recommended for use in domiciliary and quarantine setting but with a caveat. It needs to be medically supervised and patients suitably counselled as was done in the current study. It is difficult to predict severe COVID-19 (32). A small proportion of mild cases develop severe disease (32, 33). However, mild and moderate cases may develop post COVID-19 complications (34).

Provision of timely critical care in a hospital is a pivotal component for successful management of the pandemic. In our experience, despite sound medical advice, a large proportion of mild and moderate uncomplicated cases are admitted in the hospital and clog the system. AYUSH 64 plus SOC seemed to have significantly reduced the duration of hospitalization. A similar reduction in the length of hospital stay was reported in a meta-analysis of controlled drug trials of co-administration of Chinese herbal medicine with conventional western medicine in COVID-19 (95 % CI of the mean difference was -3.28 to -0.70 days) (8). COVID-19 is a dreadful disease with a huge burden of psychosocial disorders (35). A meta-analysis from India reported several psychological comorbidities ranging from 26% (anxiety and depression) to 40% (poor sleep quality) of study participants (36). The results of the current study were reassuring. Several patients reported early and persistent improvement that was superior in the AYUSH plus arm-reduced anxiety and stress, improved energy and general health and sleep, and more happiness (Table 4 and Supplementary File S2, Table S2.1). In our experience, patients found it easier to answer visual analogue scale-based questions in the HR-BHF dealing with mental and QOL issues as compared to the somewhat cumbersome standard WHO QOL BREF instrument.

The current study lends credence to the therapeutic potential of AYUSH 64. The plant ingredients are mentioned in ancient Ayurveda texts and have been traditionally used to treat a wide variety of illnesses and medical disorders in several Southeast Asian countries, China, Europe and North America (37, 38, 39, 40, 41). Several experimental biological effects described for these plants seem to be of clinical relevance to the present study (42, 43, 44). Recently, an impressive inhibition of a key replication protease enzyme in SARS-CoV-2 by AYUSH 64 ingredient was demonstrated in an in-silico molecular docking study (45).

Strengths and Limitations

The current study repurposed a standardized Ayurvedic polyherbal formulation in popular Ayurveda (India) practise for over three decades to improve the efficacy of SOC treatment in COVID-19. The plant ingredients of AYUSH 64 have been in traditional ancient medicinal use in India and several countries.

In the current study, patients were directly observed on a daily basis in a hospital setting leading to good compliance and robust data capture. Despite serious concerns, the study arms were well matched on several measures including SOC. The results of primary outcome and safety were consistently in favour of AYUSH plus at each study site. AE were generally mild and not shown to be definitely caused by AYUSH 64. Importantly, patients showed persistent improvement in physical and mental health and quality of life. None of the patients in AYUSH plus arm worsened and there were no deaths in the study cohort We believe that the current study has boldly addressed the need for evidence-based medicine to treat mild and moderate COVID-19.

Several limitations were imposed by the chaotic and tragic pandemic situation. We encountered uncertainties and often contradictory advice regarding SOC and other COVID-19 related health matters in the social and news media. During the first pandemic year, the patients were reluctant to seek medical care for fear of being stigmatized and this probably delayed the treatment for several patients as shown by the timelines in Table 1. Though, the primary efficacy was assessed by the attending physician in a blinded manner, a placebo response to some extent cannot be ruled out. Ayurveda is endearing to the Indian community. In view of absence of a-priori data, we settled for a convenience sample size for this study.

Other Studies

Several drug trials using Ayurveda and other CAM therapies in COVID-19 were registered in the clinical trial registry of India but a few are published (36, 46). A large effort has been put in by the Ministry of AYUSH, GOI, to validate these drugs (21). A randomized placebo controlled short term study attempted to show a reduction in viral load using a well-designed Ayurvedic regimen (oral drugs and nasal application) in asymptomatic and mild cases of COVID-19; clinical improvement was not properly defined (47). A small sample size uncontrolled observational study showed good resolution of symptoms by AYUSH 64 in patients suffering from influenza like illness (48).

Recently a cocktail use of monoclonal antibodies (MAB) have been demonstrated in controlled drug trials to show a substantial reduction in the viral load and clinical improvement in patients suffering from early COVID-19 and none of the study participants progressed to severe disease (49,50). The latter studies required MAB intervention within 24-48 hours of the illness onset and a firm diagnosis. This and several other restrictions described in the drug trial studies are likely to complicate widespread acceptance and clinical use, and more so in settings such as ours with several limitation in socioeconomics and medical care (49,50). Oral drugs like AYUSH 64 are a much more attractive proposition.

The recent data on the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in hospital patients with COVID-19 did not make any mention of herbal drugs or other CAM therapies (51). It is likely that the use of Ayurveda and other CAM therapies such as AYUSH 64, both in the hospital and community setting, was several folds more and we need more suitable data (18).

Future Research

AYUSH 64 needs to be evaluated in a suitable designed phase III drug trial. The latter study should also evaluate the likely role of AYUSH 64 to block progression to severe disease and reduce post COVID-19 complications. Experimental evidence is required to validate its anti-viral and salubrious effect on health and QOL.