1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Hydrogen-rich water alleviates inflammation and fatigue in COVID-19: A pilot study

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editor, Molecular hydrogen (H2) has been recently put forward as a possible adjunct therapeutics in COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory and pulmo-protective effects. 1,2 An open-label randomized trial in 44 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from seven hospitals in China demonstrated that 3-day hydrogen inhalation resulted in significantly more patients with improved disease severity and reduced dyspnea comparing to patients who received standard-of-care treatment. 3 The authors suggested that the clinical benefits were likely due to the ability of hydrogen to decrease the inspiratory efforts that consequently reduces chest distress and pain in COVID-19 patients. A recent report suggested that the administration of H2 dissolved in water to patient with COVID-19-like symptoms improves oxygen levels and exercise tolerance. 4 However, whether the amelioration of respiratory symptoms after hydrogen administration was accompanied by other clinican- and patient-reported outcomes remained undetermined. In this case series, we evaluated the effects of drinking hydrogen-rich water (HRW) on various patient-reported outcomes, oxygen saturation, and biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation in COVID-19 patients. A total of 24 COVID-19 patients (age 46.7 ± 10.6 years, 15 women) with mild to moderate disease severity (no hospital admission required at the enrolment) and no other co-morbidities were allocated to drink 1.5 L of HRW per day for 14 days in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled design, with super-saturated HRW (hydrogen level 8 ppm) administered three times per day. Molecular hydrogen in HRW was produced by the following reaction Mg + H2O —> H2 + Mg(OH)2 and placebo drink was normalized for total magnesium amount and effervescent appearance. Both study participants and research personal were blinded to the treatment assignment. The primary outcomes (patient-reported symptoms and oxygen saturation) were assessed at baseline (pre-intervention) and at every 24-h interval during the duration of the trial; the secondary outcomes (circulatory biomarkers) were assessed at baseline and at 14-day follow-up. The study design was approved by the local IRB at the University of Novi Sad (# 2-CFHRW/2020 46–06-01/2020-1e1), with the study systematized following the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference of Harmonization Efficacy Guidelines E6. All patients were enrolled as soon as possible after a positive COVID-19 test, and the average delay for initiating the intervention was 3.1 ± 1.6 days (95% CI from 2.4 to 3.8 days), and the duration of the intervention was 13.4 ± 2.3 days (95% CI from 12.4 to 14.4 days). Regarding hospital admissions, bilateral severe pneumonia was developed in one patient (male, 62 years) from the control group who eventually was hospitalized; one patient from HRW group (woman, age 54) was hospitalized due to a COVID-induced relapse of thrombophlebitis. A two-way mixed ANOVA (treatment vs. time interaction) revealed no significant differences for patient-reported outcomes (e.g., cough, dyspnea, headache, chest pain) and oxygen saturation (p > 0.05), except for an attenuated fatigue after HRW intervention (p = 0.01). HRW significantly affected prothrombin time (12.9 ± 0.94 s at baseline vs. 13.4 ± 1.1 s at follow-up; p = 0.01) and INR (international normalized ratio) (0.97 ± 0.08 vs 1.01 ± 0.09; p = 0.01). Serum interleukin six dropped for 5.8% after HRW intervention and increased for 16.2% in the control group (p = 0.04) (Figure 1); the levels were reduced in all female patients after HRW intervention (10 out of 10 patients), and in 60.0% of women (3 out of 5 patients) in the control group (p = 0.02). No significant differences were found between interventions for other circulatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, tumor necrosis factor alpha, fibrinogen, D-dimer). No patients reported any side effects from any intervention or disturbances in liver and kidney function. Figure 1. Percent changes in biochemical markers during the study. Error bars indicate standard error. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences at p < 0.05 between baseline and follow-up for each intervention. This pilot case series with a convenient sample suggests possible beneficial effects and favorable safety of hydrogen-rich water in COVID-19 patients. Since placebo drink was normalized for total magnesium amount in this trial, the effects demonstrated in the HRW group (hydrogen plus magnesium) are likely due to biological effects of hydrogen owing to the fact that no significant effects were seen in the placebo group (magnesium only). It appears that HRW alleviates disease-related fatigue and modulates blood coagulation biomarkers, with possible anti-inflammatory effects being gender specific. Interleukin-6 dropped significantly after HRW intake which perhaps indicates an anti-inflammatory potential of the intervention. However, the changes in inflammatory response during COVID-19 are complex, and whether drop in interleukin-6 is beneficial by itself remains to be addressed. Our results are in line with previous studies showing anti-fatigue potential of HRW after sleep deprivation, heavy exertion, and other stress-related conditions. 5 Still, we recruited here a rather small number of COVID-19 patients, with gender disbalance (e.g., women were 1.5 times as many as men), limited age range (e.g., no younger people or elderly were included), along with a short list of biochemical indicators related to inflammation and fatigue monitored in this pilot trial. Future research with magnesium-derived HRW should also address possible confounding effects of magnesium on viral RNA and protein synthesis, and perhaps assess the effects of magnesium-free HRW in this clinical population. Therefore, additional long-term well-sampled studies in COVID-19 cohorts are highly warranted to corroborate these initial findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Hydrogen/oxygen mixed gas inhalation improves disease severity and dyspnea in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 in a recent multicenter, open-label clinical trial

          Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in more than 8.7 million laboratory-confirmed cases and 0.46 million deaths globally (1). Few therapies, if any, have been shown to rapidly ameliorate the respiratory symptoms and prevent against the disease progression. An important mechanism contributing to dyspnea and disease progression in patients with COVID-19 might be the increased work of breathing because of the heightened airway resistance (2). Inhalation of hydrogen/oxygen mixed gas (H2-O2) might have a role in the treatment of COVID-19 given the decreased resistance compared with room air when passing through the airways. Methods Recently, we conducted an open-label multicenter clinical trial, between January 21st and March 23rd, 2020, among patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from seven hospitals in China. The patients were aged 18–85 years, and had dyspnea both on hospital admission and at enrollment [See Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057) for patient sources, inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures]. Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, No. NCT04378712. Randomization was not applied because of the urgency to deal with the outbreak. Patients were assigned to treatment group and control group at the discretion of attending clinicians. On the basis of standard-of-care (3), patients in treatment group inhaled H2-O2 (66% hydrogen; 33% oxygen) at 6 L/min via nasal cannula by using the Hydrogen/Oxygen Generator (model AMS-H-03, Shanghai Asclepius Meditec Co., Ltd., China) daily until discharge [see Figure E1 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)]. Patients in control group received standard-of-care (with oxygen therapy each day) alone until discharge. Clinical assessments included the five-category ordinal scale [see Panel 1 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)], four-category ordinary scale of dyspnea, coughing, chest distress and chest pain (0: None; 1: Mild; 2: Moderate; 3: Severe; 4: Very severe) and adverse events, performed on admission, at enrollment, at days 2 and 3, and the day before discharge (end-of-treatment). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with improved disease severity (by at least one scale). Secondary endpoints comprised the change from baseline in oxygen saturation and symptom scales. Analyses of the full-analysis set were performed with R software version 3.5.1. Count (percentage) was adopted for summarizing categorical variables, and compared with Chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact test. The relative risk (RR) along with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated to reflect the likelihood of the event in treatment group. Continuous variables were presented with mean ± standard deviation, and compared with independent t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All testing was two-sided, with P 0.999 1 (0.9, 1.2) n* 43 46 – – – 43 46 – – – 43 46 – – – Patients with improvement in chest distress scale (%) 51.2 23.9 0.015 2.1 (1.2, 3.9) 76.7 47.8 0.01 1.6 (1.1, 2.3) 81.4 63 0.063 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) n* 44 46 – – – 44 46 – – – 44 46 – – – Patients with improvement in chest pain scale (%) 40.9 0 <0.001 NA NA 45.5 2.2 <0.001 20.9 (2.9, 149.2) 54.6 6.5 <0.001 8.4 (2.7, 25.8) n* 44 46 – – – 44 46 – – – 44 46 – – – Patients with improvement in cough scale (%) 45.5 13 0.002 3.5 (1.5, 7.9) 59.1 30.4 0.012 1.9 (1.2, 3.2) 79.6 60.9 0.089 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) n* 34 34 – – – 34 34 – – – 34 34 – – – Mean improvement in resting oxygen saturation** (%) 1.6 0.5 0.003 – (0.4, 1.8) 2.6 0.8 <0.001 – (0.9, 2.7) 4.1 2 0.001 – (0.9, 3.3) Count (percentage) was adopted for summarizing categorical variables, and compared with Chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact test. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Continuous variables were presented with mean ± standard deviation, and compared with independent t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The median duration of hydrogen inhalation was 64 h (interquartile range, 24–175) h in treatment group, corresponding to 7.7 (interquartile range, 6.0–18.3) h per day. Oxygen therapy in control group lasted for a median of 24 (interquartile range, 22.6–24.0) h per day. *, denotes number of patients evaluated; **, mean difference at Day 2: 1.1; at Day 3: 1.8; at the End of the Treatment: 2.1. NA, not applicable. Similar findings were found when analyzing the outcome measures as the continuous variables [all P<0.05, Table E3 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)]. In the H2-O2 treatment group, the dyspnea scale improved more significantly at end-of-treatment regardless of baseline disease severity [Table E4 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)]. Patients who inhaled H2-O2 for less than the median duration (64 h) still presented with consistently significant improvements [Table E5 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)]. The most common adverse events were worsening of cough (6.8% in treatment group; 8.7% in control group) and chest distress (2.3% in treatment group; 21.7% in control group). Abnormal laboratory findings were rare (2.3% in treatment group; 13.0% in control group). No serious adverse events were reported [Table E6 in Online Supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2020-057)]. Discussion This is the first multicenter randomized clinical trial that verifies the efficacy and safety of H2-O2 inhalation in patients with COVID-19. The clinical benefits were likely to be attributable to the ability of H2-O2 to decrease the inspiratory efforts due to the significantly lower resistance when passing through the respiratory tract compared with room air (previously verified with impulse oscillometry) (4). Patients with COVID-19 frequently presented with dyspnea, coughing, chest pain and distress, and oxygen desaturation (5), which cannot be rapidly ameliorated with other existing therapies (including oxygen therapy). The therapeutic effects of H2-O2 became significant as early as days 2 and 3 and the amelioration of most respiratory symptoms persisted till the end-of-treatment, which again cannot be readily interpreted by miscellaneous supportive therapies including oxygen therapy. Heliox inhalation reportedly resulted in amelioration of dyspnea and decreased respiratory tract resistance in adults and children (6,7). However, due to the lower cost-effectiveness, heliox has not been recommended for routine clinical use. H2-O2 could be generated via direct electrolysis of water using commercially available instrument which has made it possible for clinical application at home and in hospital settings (particularly in medical facilities critically lacking oxygen supplies). The safety profiles have rendered H2-O2 inhalation particularly suitable for relieving dyspnea and other respiratory symptoms in patients with COVID-19, regardless of the disease severity. Our study was limited by the open-label design and variable duration of H2-O2 inhalation due to the urgency. We neither randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 due to the emergency nor matched the patients with propensity scores, which could have resulted in selection bias. The protocol for H2-O2 inhalation was established empirically and might warrant optimization. Nonetheless, H2-O2 inhalation might be considered useful to patients with dyspnea or those in facilities without sufficient oxygen supplies. Supplementary The article’s supplementary files as 10.21037/jtd-2020-057
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Clinical Application of Hydrogen as a Medical Treatment.

            In recent years, it has become evident that molecular hydrogen is a particularyl effective treatment for various disease models such as ischemia-reperfusion injury; as a result, research on hydrogen has progressed rapidly. Hydrogen has been shown to be effective not only through intake as a gas, but also as a liquid medication taken orally, intravenously, or locally. Hydrogen's effectiveness is thus multifaceted. Herein we review the recent research on hydrogen-rich water, and we examine the possibilities for its clinical application. Now that hydrogen is in the limelight as a gaseous signaling molecule due to its potential ability to inhibit oxidative stress signaling, new research developments are highly anticipated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COVID-19 and molecular hydrogen inhalation

              Recent public reports by China’s National Health Commission and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended effective oxygen therapy measures as an element of general treatment in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). 1,2 Both documents disclosed a rather exotic ratio of hydrogen and oxygen (66.6% H2 to 33.3% O2) as the composition of the gas mixture for inhalation. While high oxygen levels are administered due to apparent lung dysfunction in COVID-19, blending with hydrogen gas for a breathing mixture remains puzzling. Hydrogen is most likely added as an inert part of the breathing gas but it may have beneficial effects by itself. A recent study suggested that hydrogen gas inhibits airway inflammation in patients with asthma, 3 an effect that might improve the condition of inflammatory cytokines storm seen in COVID-19. 4 Two multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with inhalational hydrogen for COVID-19 are listed in the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical trials registry in February and March 2020 yet no evidence to back up this approach is available as yet. Another factor must also be taken into consideration: the potential of high-concentration hydrogen to cause explosion ignited by static electricity. Like other promising (and urgently needed) therapeutics for COVID-19, gaseous hydrogen thus requires accelerated yet attentive research and approval pathways, with sufficient efficacy and safety guarantees. 5 Cutting off the corners for the simplest molecule in the Universe may be a step back for the hydrogen research community beyond this particular coronavirus.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                speji
                EJI
                European Journal of Inflammation
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2058-7392
                April 2022
                5 April 2022
                5 April 2022
                : 20
                : 1721727X221094197
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Medicine, Ringgold 84981, universityUniversity of Novi Sad; , Serbia
                [2 ]universityCommunity Health Center; , Novi Sad, Serbia
                [3 ]FSPE Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Ringgold 84981, universityUniversity of Novi Sad; , Serbia
                [4 ]Department of Nutrition and Public Health, universityUniversity of Agder; , Norway
                Author notes
                [*] *Sergej M Ostojic, Department of Nutrition and Public Health, University of Agder, Universitetsveien 25, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway. Email: sergej.ostojic@ 123456uio.no
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7270-2541
                Article
                10.1177_1721727X221094197
                10.1177/1721727X221094197
                8990574
                bc422a05-3730-43e2-82c3-82e702ad38c5
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor
                Custom metadata
                ts10
                January-December 2022

                Comments

                Comment on this article