Determination of the Effectiveness of Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19. 이산화염소와 코로나19

Determination of the Effectiveness of Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19

Insignares-Carrione Eduardo1

*, Bolano Gómez Blanca2 , Andrade Yohanny3 , Callisperis Patricia4 , Suxo Ana Maria5 Arturo Bernardo Ajata San Martín6 and Camila Ostria Gonzales7

1 LVWG Global Research Director, Liechtensteiner Verein für wissenschaft und Gesundheit, Liechtenstein, Switzerland (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9337-0884) 2 Director of the Research Department, Genesis Foundation, Colombia 3 Specialist in Medical Bioethics, Oncology Palliative Care Specialist, Spain 4 Director, Orthopedic and Traumatology Specialist, South clinic, La Paz, Bolivia,Spain 5 MSc, Training and Research Center - Bolivia Today Association, Epidemiologist, South Clinic, La Paz, Bolivia, Spain 6 Internal Medicine specialist, C Sorata 1146 V Victory, La Paz, Bolivia, Spain 7 La Paz, Bolivia, Spain (linkedin.com/in/camila-ostria-gonzales-96bb0514a

Abstract Introduction: The aim of this review is to determine the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatmentof COVID 19.

Methods: Research on the mechanism of action of chlorine dioxide on viruses, on the oral consumption ofwater-solubilized Cl02 and on its toxicity was reviewed; a quasi-experimental investigation wasconducted on the use of oral water-soluble chlorine dioxide in the treatment of 20 patients withactive COVID19 infection, compared to a control group of 20 patients not treated with chlorinedioxide.

Results: To compare the effect in the experimental group versus the control group, a test of comparison of proportions and their confidence intervals was performed for the general symptoms, and for the VAS and Likert criteria, a paired test using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (α: 95%) was performed . When comparing the experimental group with the control group on the seventh day after symptom manifestation, a significant difference was found in the experimental group with respect to the control group for the symptoms Fever (p: 0000), Cough (p: 0.0000), Chills (p: 0.0000) and Dyspnea (p: 0.0006). When performing the visual analogous comparison of pain in the control group and in the experimental group, it was found that in all the items that make up the scale decreased significantly in this group with respect to the control group (p: 0.0000; p:00017). On day 14 post-demonstration the difference was greater (p:0.000 ; p:0.0043). When evaluating both groups (Control and Experimental)

in the laboratories, a difference was found for the values of the parameters PC Reactive on day 7 (p: 0.0001) and DH Lactate (0.0036), with higher scores for the experimental group; Dimero-D on day 7 (p: 0.0194) and on day 14 (p:0.0029) ; difference was found in all parameters. The results overall (p <0.05) demonstrate the hypothesis that chlorine dioxide is effective in the treatment of COVID19.

Conclusion: Chlorine dioxide is effective in the treatment of COVID19 and the mechanisms of action by which it acts to achieve it are proposed in this work. We recommend doing more research. We recommend conducting double-blind studies and delving into studies of toxicological safety and therapeutic efficacy of chlorine dioxide in pathologies of epidemiological impact in the near future.

Results

Preliminary analysis of the parameters at study entry The characteristics of the patients in the experimental group at the time Eduardo IC, et al. of admission, after verification of the positive RT-PCR, generated the following data: By sex: 13 male patients (65%) and 7 female (35%).

The ages range between 36 years the minimum and 72 years the maximum. The average age for men is 47.6 years and for women 58 years of age. The general average age is 53.2 years. A parallel instrument was designed to record possible adverse effects of chlorine dioxide where the data of each patient and their adherence process are placed. In two patients, a slight sensation of gastritis was registered, 7 days after treatment, temporary, which resolved without intervention and did not require stopping the medication (Figure 6).

Characteristics of the control group The characteristics of the patients in the control group at the time of admission after verification of the positive RT-PCR generated the following data: By sex: 10 male patients (50%) and 10 female (50%).

The ages range between 44 years the minimum and 69 years the maximum. The average age for men is 55.6 years and for women 52 years of age. The general average age is 54.5 years (Figure 7).

Result of the comparison of the Experimental versus Control Group by means of a comparison of proportions test and their confidence intervals and Wilcoxon – Mann – Whitney test (α: 95%) To evaluate the effectiveness of the ClO₂, the results of each of the items were compared by means of a comparison of proportions test and their confidence intervals (general symptoms) and a Wilcoxon – Mann – Whitney test : 95%)(VAS and Likert) of the data obtained from the Experimental Group compared with the Control group in the Cohort points of Onset of Symptoms, 7 and 14 days after the first symptomatic manifestation.

Below we present the comparisons between the groups, for general symptoms, VAS and Likert (Table 1). Regarding general symptoms, on the day of onset of general symptoms, both groups (Control and Experimental) were the same for most of the items (p > 0.05). However, for the Chills the Experimental group had a higher Average Range (25.5) than that of the Control Group (15.5) (p : 0,0001).

These results confirm that in general for general symptoms, both groups had a similar behavior. When making the comparison on the seventh day post symptom manifestation, a significant difference was found in the Experimental group with respect to the control group for Symptoms Fever (p: 0000), Cough (p: 0.000 ), Chills (p: 0.000) and Dyspnea (p: 0.0006). At day 14 in the symptoms that had not disappeared, the difference was very significant, decreasing its manifestations in the Experimental group (Table 2).

For the VAS Scale, at the time of symptom manifestation, both groups reported the same subjective assessment of pain. When performing the same visual analogue comparison of pain in the control group and in the experimental group, it was found that all the items that make up the scale decreased significantly in this group with respect to the Control group on day 7 ( p: 0,0000 ; p:0,0017). The only painful symptom that remained similar was low back pain (P: 0,9633). On day 14 post manifestation the difference was greater (p: 0.000 ; P: 0,0043 y P: 0,0067) (Table 3).

When evaluating both groups (Control and Experimental), a difference was found for the values for the PC Reactive parameters (p: 0.0398) and Lactate DH (0.0422), the scores being higher for the experimental group; no difference was found in the rest of the parameters. When comparing the groups at 7 days post-initial manifestation, only the Lymphocytes and Leukocytes showed no difference between groups (p> 0.05), the other parameters significantly decreased in the Experimental group with respect to the Control.( p:0,0001; p: 0,0036 ; p: 0,0403; p: 0,0194; p: 0,0003). At day 14, all the biochemical parameters had decreased significantly in the experimental group with respect to the Control group (p < 0,05).

The results overall (p < 0.05) demonstrate the hypothesis that chlorine dioxide is effective in the treatment of COVID19.

Permanence of the intervention As we noted in previous lines, the design of the protocol did not include post-intervention follow-up beyond day 21, which was the limit that we set ourselves from the beginning. As a non-parameterized observational annotation, we can share that the group of researchers did clinical follow-up of the patients until approximately two months after the onset of the disease, verifying a satisfactory evolution with very few post-covid symptoms. Some of the patients noted some mild spinal discomfort and some degree of chronic fatigue