A Single-Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled Study to Evaluate the Benefits and Safety of Endourage Targeted Wellness Formula C Sublingual +Drops in People with Post-Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes a wide range of symptoms, including death. As persons recover, some continue to experience symptoms described as Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS). The objectives of this study were to measure the efficacy of Formula C™, a cannabidiol (CBD)-rich, whole-flower terpene-rich preparation in managing PACS symptoms. Materials and Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind, open-label crossover study was conducted in 2021. Informed consent was obtained from participants, and they were randomized to two treatment groups. Group 1 ( n =15) received blinded active product for 28 days, and Group 2 ( n =16) received blinded placebo for 28 days (Treatment Period 1). Both groups crossed over to open-label active product for 28 days (Treatment Period 2) with a safety assessment at day 70. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ) scores and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score were used to assess primary and secondary objectives. Safety assessments were also done at each visit. Results: Twenty-four participants completed study, with 8 withdrawals, none related to study product. PGIC and PROMIS scores improved across both groups at day 28. This raised questions about the placebo. A reanalysis of the placebo confirmed absence of CBD and unexpected medical concentration of terpenes. The study continued despite no longer having a true placebo. The improved scores on outcome measures were maintained across the open label treatment period. There were no safety events reported throughout the study. Discussion: For persons with PACS who are nonresponsive to conventional therapies, this study demonstrated symptom improvement for participants utilizing Formula C. In addition, the benefits seen in Group 2 suggest the possibility that non-CBD formulations rich in antioxidants, omega-3, and omega-6 fatty acids, gamma-linoleic acid, and terpenes may also have contributed to the overall improvement of the partial active group through the study. Conclusion: Given that both groups demonstrated improvement, both formulations may be contributing to these findings. Limitations include the small number of participants, the lack of a true placebo, and limited time on study products. Additional studies are warranted to explore both CBD-rich hemp products and hempseed oil as treatment options for PACS. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04828668.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".