Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Corona virus disease (COVID-19) has now spread to all parts of the world and almost all countries are battling against it. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine (Hereinafter referred to as "Integrated Medicine") to COVID-19. We searched six major Chinese and English databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCSs) of Integrated Medicine on COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened, identified studies, and extracted data. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included RCTs and CCSs, respectively. Stata (version 13.0; StataCorp) was used to perform meta-analyses with the random-effects model. Risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous data while the weighted mean difference (WMD) was adopted for continuous variables as effect size, both of which were demonstrated in effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 11 studies were included. Four were RCTs and seven were CCSs. The sample size of including studies ranged from 42 to 200 (total 982). The traditional Chinese medicine included Chinese medicine compound drugs (QingFei TouXie FuZhengFang) and Chinese patent medicine (e.g. Shufeng Jiedu Capsule, Lianhua Qingwen granules). Compared with the control group, the overall response rate [RR?=?1.230, 95%CI (1.113, 1.359), P?=?0.000], cure rate [RR?=?1.604, 95%CI (1.181, 2.177), P?=?0.002], severity illness rate [RR?=?0.350, 95%CI (0.154, 0.792), P?=?0.012], and hospital stay [WMD?=?-1.991, 95%CI (-3.278, -0.703), P?=?0.002] of the intervention group were better. In addition, Integrated Medicine can improve the disappearance rate of fever, cough, expectoration, fatigue, chest tightness and anorexia and reduce patients' fever, and fatigue time (P?

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7211759 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Ming M Gao Ya Y Yuan Yuan Y Yang Kelu K Shi Shuzhen S Zhang Junhua J Tian Jinhui J

Pharmacological research 20200511

Corona virus disease (COVID-19) has now spread to all parts of the world and almost all countries are battling against it. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine (Hereinafter referred to as "Integrated Medicine") to COVID-19. We searched six major Chinese and English databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies (CCSs) of Integrated Medicine on COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened, i ...[more]

PMID: 32438037

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIntegrated therapy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) has gradually been applied to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recently published studies have provided a wealth of data and information about the effectiveness of combination treatments, but high-quality evidence-based meta-analysis on this issue is not available yet. This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the efficacy and safety of the integrated therapy for RA.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of integrative TCM-WM with WM alone for RA were included. The outcome measures contained therapeutic effects (TEs), tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), duration of morning stiffness (DMS), grip strength (GS), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic peptide containing citrulline (anti-CCP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and adverse events (AEs) to assess the efficacy and safety of different treatments.ResultsA total of 20 RCTs with 2269 patients met the inclusion criteria. TCM used in these studies included Chinese herbal decoctions and tablets or capsules made from herbs and their extracts, while WM included disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucocorticoids (GC). Compared with patients receiving WM treatment alone, patients with integrative TCM-WM treatment showed better TEs (OR = 3.03, 95% CI [2.36, 3.88]). The integrative treatment group showed reductions in TJC (MD = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.12, -0.21]), SJC (MD = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.10]), DMS (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.41]), DAS28 (MD = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.29]), RF (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-0.91, -0.27]), anti-CCP (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.06]), ESR (MD = -8.36, 95% CI [-12.60, -4.12]), and CRP (MD = -6.73, 95% CI [-9.38, -4.08]), and increment in GS (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.87]). AEs, especially gastrointestinal disorders, abnormal liver function, leukopenia, skin allergies and rashes, headaches and dizziness, and alopecia, significantly decreased (OR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.29, 0.47]) in the integrative treatment group.ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis indicate that integrative TCM-WM could obtain effective and safe results in the treatment of RA. Using TCM as an adjunctive therapy in RA has great prospects for further development.

Project description:BackgroundInfant bronchiolitis has a high death rate in severe cases. In China, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is commonly used to treat infant bronchiolitis. However, it has not received enough international attention.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of integrated TCM and Western medicine for treating infant bronchiolitis.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review through 7 databases that included randomized controlled trials on integrated TCM and Western medicine for treating bronchiolitis, published in English or Chinese before February 4, 2021. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Collaboration tool was employed to determine the quality of the included studies. We investigated clinical efficacy endpoints, hospitalization time, rates of recurrence, and adverse reactions and meta-analyzed the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and relative risk (RR), respectively. We assessed the overall certainty of the effect estimates using the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245294). Ethical approval is not required.ResultsForty-six studies (6427 children) were available for inclusion. We used 41 (5490 participants), 11 (1350 participants), 5 (1083 participants), and 11 (1295 participants) studies to analyze clinical efficacy endpoints (OR: 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.93, 3.74; P < .5), hospitalization time (MD: -2.10; 95% CI: -2.87, -1.34; P < .5), recurrence rate (RR: 0·41; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.56; P < .01), and adverse reaction rate (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.55, 1.39; P = .57), respectively.ConclusionsIntegrated TCM and Western medicine is superior to Western medicine alone for treating bronchiolitis in terms of clinical efficacy, hospitalization time, and recurrence rate, with no increase in the adverse reaction rate. TCM is useful as an alternative therapy for viral bronchiolitis. Although further studies are needed to establish specific protocols for the use of TCM in clinical practice, these results may strengthen guideline recommendations regarding the use of TCM.

Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:Background: Integrated Chinese and Western medicine (integrated medicine) is routinely used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. In this study, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of integrated medicine therapy for patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), and Wanfang databases from inception to April 12, 2021, to identify RCTs of integrated medicine in the treatment of COVID-19. The quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan v5.3 and Stata software packages were used for statistical analysis. Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 1,853 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared with patients treated by conventional Western medicine (CWM), patients treated by integrated medicine have a higher overall effective rate [RR = 1.17, 95% CI: (1.10, 1.26), p < 0.00001], fever disappearance rate [RR = 1.25, 95% CI: (1.04, 1.50), p = 0.02], fatigue disappearance rate [RR = 1.28, 95% CI: (1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05], and chest CT improvement rate [RR = 1.24, 95% CI: (1.14, 1.34), p < 00001]. Beneficial effects of the integrated medicine therapy were also seen in C-reactive protein (CRP) level [WMD = -4.14, 95% CI: (-6.38, -1.91), p = 0.0003] and white blood cell (WBC) count [WMD = 0.35, 95% CI: (0.11, 0.58), p = 0.004]. Subgroup analyses showed that, when the treatment time is <2 weeks, the effect of integrated medicine treatment is more obvious in improving the overall effective rate, clinical symptoms (fever, fatigue, and cough), the CRP level, and WBC count compared with that of the CWM treatment. For patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19, integrated medicine is more effective in improving fever and cough symptoms and WBC count than using CWM alone. Conclusion: The results of the current meta-analysis suggested that the integrated medicine can improve the clinical symptoms, chest CT and infection indicators of COVID-19 patients. Even if the treatment time is <2 weeks, the effect of integrated medicine in improving symptoms is more obvious compared with the treatment of CWM. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the heterogeneity among the studies.

Project description:IntroductionAs the global epidemic continues to spread, countries have tapped effective drugs to treat new coronavirus pneumonia. The therapeutic effect of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in this new coronary pneumonia epidemic has attracted attention from all walks of life, and relevant research reports continue to appear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) (referred to as "new coronary pneumonia"), and evaluated the overall level of research quality.MethodsWe searched seven databases and retrieved the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Vip Database (VIP), China Biomedicine (SinoMed), Wanfang Database and PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE from October 2019 to May 2020 Literature references. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia. The authors extracted data and independently assessed quality. We used Stata15.1 software to analyze the data of randomized trials.ResultsA total of 2 articles were identified, including 154 patients. All the participating patients were diagnosed with new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). The meta-analysis results showed that the disappearance rate of the main clinical symptoms of Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia was significantly higher than that of the control group [OR = 3.34, 95% CI (2.06, 5.44), P <0.001]; the disappearance rate of other clinical secondary symptoms is significantly higher than the control group [OR = 6.54, 95% CI (3.59, 11.90), P <0.001]. The duration of fever was significantly lower than that of the control group [OR = -1.04, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.49), P <0.001]. It is confirmed that the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen treatment improves the clinical effectiveness, and also has certain advantages in relieving cough and fever.ConclusionThe treatment of new pneumonia with traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague can be used as an effective therapy to improve the clinical symptoms of new coronary pneumonia. More rigorous design, multi-center, and prospective RCTs are necessary to further determine the effectiveness and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus decoction in the treatment of new pneumonia.

Project description:Objective: In order to offer possible therapeutic treatment evidence for diabetes-associated cognitive decline (DACD), we thoroughly evaluated the effectiveness and safety of combining Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Western Medicine (WM) in the current study. Methods: The present study employed a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases, namely, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), to identify relevant articles published until July 2023. Subsequently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of integrating TCM with WM for the treatment of DACD. The literature included in this study was assessed using the GRADE criteria and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: A total of 20 RCTs involving 1,570 patients were ultimately included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that the integration of TCM and WM therapy significantly enhanced the overall effectiveness rate compared to WM therapy alone [OR = 4.94, 95% CI (3.56, 6.85), p < 0.00001]. Additionally, the combination therapy resulted in reductions in fasting blood glucose [MD = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.49, -0.10), p = 0.003], HbA1c [MD = -0.71, 95%CI (-1.03, -0.40), p < 0.00001], TNF-α levels [MD = -8.28, 95%CI (-13.12, -3.44), p = 0.0008], and TCM Syndrome Score [MD = -5.97, 95%CI (-9.06, -2.88), p = 0.0002]. Meanwhile, the combination therapy had a positive effect on MoCA Score [MD = 2.52, 95% CI (1.75, 3.30), p < 0.00001], and MMSE Score [MD = 2.31, 95% CI (1.33, 3.29), p < 0.00001]. In addition, the safety of the combination therapy was comparable to that of the WM alone [OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.12, 1.31), p = 0.13]. Conclusion: The integration of TCM and WM therapy outperformed WM alone in DACD treatment. Simultaneously, the combination therapy could improve the therapeutic effect on blood glucose, cognitive function, and inflammation to a certain extent with few adverse effects. However, given the constraints imposed by the quality limitations of the incorporated studies, as well as the potential presence of reporting bias, it is imperative that our findings be substantiated through rigorous, large-scale, randomized controlled trials of superior quality in the future.

Project description:Sepsis is a clinically critical disease. However, it is still controversial whether the combined use of traditional Chinese medicine Xuebijing injections (XBJI) and western medicine can enhance curative efficacy and ensure safety compared with western medicine alone. Thus, this research consisted of a systematic review of the curative efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine XBJI combined with ulinastatin for treating sepsis in the Chinese population.A total of 8 databases were retrieved: 4 foreign databases, namely, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science; and 4 Chinese databases, namely, Sino Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, and Wangfang Data. The time span of retrieval began from the establishment of each database and ended on August 1, 2017. Published randomized controlled trials about the combined use of traditional Chinese medicine XBJI and western medicine were included, regardless of language. Stata12.0 software was used for statistical analysis.Finally, 16 papers involving 1335 cases were included. The result of meta-analysis showed that compared with the single use of ulinastatin, traditional Chinese medicine XBJI combined with ulinastatin could reduce the time of mechanical ventilation, shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, improve the 28-day survival rate, and decrease the occurrence rate of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, case fatality rate, procalcitonin (PCT) content, APACKEII score, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-? level, and interleukin (IL)-6 level.On the basis of the common basic therapeutic regimen, the combined use of traditional Chinese medicine XBJI and ulinastatin was compared with the use of ulinastatin alone for treating sepsis in the Chinese population. It was found that the number of adverse events of combination therapy is not significantly increased, and its clinical safety is well within the permitted range. However, considering the limitations of this conclusion due to the low-quality articles included in the present research, it is necessary to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets