ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Toxicological assessment of novel Anti-COVID traditional Chinese medicine formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102: a comprehensive study on safety and genotoxicity.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Renoprotective Effects of a Herbal Formulation Against Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Kidney Injury Through Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Activities.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in 2019, the virus continues to circulate globally, even years later. In Taiwan, the novel traditional Chinese medicine formulas, NRICM101 and NRICM102, have been extensively used to treat COVID-19, with Chinese medicine practitioners frequently prescribing them to manage the disease. According to data from the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, approximately 22% of COVID-19 patients opted for NRICMs' treatments between 2021 and 2022. Despite the widespread use and reported effectiveness of these treatments, it is critical to evaluate the potential risks associated with their prolonged or frequent use. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive toxicological assessment of NRICM101 and NRICM102. Acute oral toxicity was evaluated by administering a single 5 g/kg bw dose to ICR mice and SD rats. No mortality, sex-related differences, or clinical signs of toxicity were observed. Subchronic toxicity was assessed through a 28-day repeated oral administration study with doses of 1.6, 3.1, and 4.8 g/kg bw per day of NRICM101 or 102, which showed no treatment-related deaths or organ pathology. While some hematological changes were noted, they were generally within physiological ranges and showed no consistent dose-dependent trends. Genotoxicity was assessed using three standard assays. The Ames test revealed no mutagenic activity. The
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.