Trial reportAdvances in therapy2021
Resuscitative Effect of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Prospective, Multi-centric, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel, Saline Controlled Phase II Safety and Efficacy Study of PMZ-2010 as a Resuscitative Agent for Hypovolemic Shock to be Used Along With Standard Shock Treatment.
A Multicentric, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Centhaquine as an Adjuvant to the Standard of Care in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
A Multi-Centric, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase-III Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of Centhaquine as a Resuscitative Agent to be Used as an Adjuvant to Standard Treatment of Hypovolemic Shock
A Prospective, Multi-centric, Open-labeled, Phase-IV Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of LYFAQUIN™ (Centhaquine Citrate) as a Resuscitative Agent for Hypovolemic Shock to be Used as an Adjuvant to Standard Treatment of Shock
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Haemodynamic effects of selective venoconstriction with centhaquine in spontaneously breathing patients with mixed hypovolaemic-vasodilatory shock.Experimental physiology · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Centhaquine Increases Stroke Volume and Cardiac Output in Patients with Hypovolemic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Centhaquine on the Coagulation Cascade in Normal State and Uncontrolled Hemorrhage: A Multiphase Study Combining Ex Vivo and In Vivo Experiments in Different Species.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Evolutionary Unmasking Resuscitative Therapeutics Potential of Centhaquin Citrate in Hypovolemic Shock.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2024Review
- Controls of Central and Peripheral Blood Pressure and Hemorrhagic/Hypovolemic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Practice Patterns and Management Protocols in Trauma across Indian Settings: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023Article
- Role of adrenergic receptors in shock.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCenthaquine (Lyfaquin
methodsA prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II study was conducted in male and female patients aged 18-70 years with hypovolemic shock having systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the control or centhaquine group. The control group received 100 ml of normal saline infusion over 1 h, while the centhaquine group received 0.01 mg/kg of centhaquine in 100 ml normal saline infusion over 1 h. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days.
resultsFifty patients were included, and 45 completed the trial: 22 in the control group and 23 in the centhaquine group. The demographics of patients in both groups were comparable. No adverse event related to centhaquine was recorded in the 28-day observation period. The baseline, Injury Scoring System score, haemoglobin, and haematocrit were similar in both groups. However, 91% of the patients in the centhaquine group needed major surgery, whereas only 68% in the control group (p = 0.0526). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 0/23 in the centhaquine group and 2/22 in the control group. The percent time in ICU and ventilator support was less in the centhaquine group than in the control group. The total amount of vasopressors needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation was lower in the centhaquine group than in the control group (3.12 ± 2.18 vs. 9.39 ± 4.28 mg). An increase in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline through 48 h was more marked in the centhaquine group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, blood lactate level was lower by 1.75 ± 1.07 mmol/l in the centhaquine group on day 3 of resuscitation. Improvements in base deficit, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were greater in the centhaquine group than in the control group.
conclusionWhen added to SOC, centhaquine is a well-tolerated and effective resuscitative agent. It improves the clinical outcome of patients with hypovolemic shock.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT04056065.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.