Chinese medical drugs for coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Integration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19.Method
A literature search was performed in six databases from injection to June 2020. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered as eligible. The quality of included RCTs were assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to do meta-analysis.Result
Eleven studies with 1259 patients were included in this study. CMD included herbal decoction and Chinese patent medicine. The methodological quality was evaluated as generally unclear. The results of meta-analysis showed that the integration of CMD and WM had better efficacy than WM in number of patients turned to severe and critical type (RR = 0.47, 95% CI=[0.32, 0.69], P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD= -7.95, 95% CI=[-14.66, -1.24], P = 0.02), defervescence time (MD= -1.20, 95% CI=[-2.03, -0.38], P = 0.004), cough resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.15, 1.64], P = 0.0004), fatigue resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.02, 1.83], P = 0.04), and tachypnea resolution rate (RR = 2.20, 95% CI=[1.11, 4.39], P = 0.02). As for safety, there was no significant difference between two groups.Conclusion
CMD may bring potential benefit to patients suffered from COVID-19. However, the quality of included trials is not good enough. High quality study with core outcome set are still required.
SUBMITTER: Pang W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7385501 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram.ResultsWe included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg - 10 days) ranked best, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.
| S-EPMC8477589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCellular immune responses including lymphocyte functions and immune effector cells are critical for the control of coronavirus infection. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) potentially has a therapeutic effect for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Nevertheless, there are limited clinical practice suggestions on immunogenicity of the CHM against SARS-CoV-2. To assess the effect of oral CHM on immunogenicity and whether oral CHM improves the clinical parameters through the immunity profile during COVID-19, we performed the present study.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, 11 databases were searched for relevant studies assessing oral CHM for COVID-19 on November 20, 2020 (updated March 9, 2021). Primary outcomes mainly included immunity profiles. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality; the remission time of fever, cough, chest tightness, and fatigue. The random effect was used to estimate the heterogeneity of the studies. Summary relative risks, weight mean difference and standardized mean difference were measured with 95% confidence intervals. Modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, respectively. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.ResultsWe analyzed findings from 3,145 patients in 30 eligible studies. Compared with routine treatment, oral CHM, as an adjuvant medicine, improved lymphocyte counts, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio with low quality of evidence; improved CD3+ with moderate quality of evidence; and reduced TNF-α with low certainty of evidence. Besides, oral CHM, as an adjuvant medicine reduced the time to clinical symptoms remission with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with routine treatment alone.ConclusionCHM may be recommended as an adjuvant immunotherapy for disease modification and symptom relief in COVID-19 treatment. However, large RCTs objectively assessing the efficacy of CHM on immune responses in COVID-19 are needed to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC8814103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aim to systematically review the characteristics of asymptomatic infection in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed and EMBASE were electronically searched to identify original studies containing the rate of asymptomatic infection in COVID-19 patients before 20 May 2020. Then mate-analysis was conducted using R version 3.6.2. A total of 50 155 patients from 41 studies with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection is 15.6% (95% CI, 10.1%-23.0%). Ten included studies contain the number of presymptomatic patients, who were asymptomatic at screening point and developed symptoms during follow-up. The pooled percentage of presymptomatic infection among 180 initially asymptomatic patients is 48.9% (95% CI, 31.6%-66.2%). The pooled proportion of asymptomatic infection among 1152 COVID-19 children from 11 studies is 27.7% (95% CI, 16.4%-42.7%), which is much higher than patients from all aged groups. Abnormal CT features are common in asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. For 36 patients from 4 studies that CT results were available, 15 (41.7%) patients had bilateral involvement and 14 (38.9%) had unilateral involvement in CT results. Reduced white blood cell count, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and increased C-reactive protein were also recorded. About 15.6% of confirmed COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. Nearly half of the patients with no symptoms at detection time will develop symptoms later. Children are likely to have a higher proportion of asymptomatic infection than adults. Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients could have abnormal laboratory and radiational manifestations, which can be used as screening strategies to identify asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC7404334 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8379002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) plus conventional western medicine (CWM) in comparison with CWM against COVID-19.MethodsWe searched eight electronic databases and three trial registers spanning from January 1, 2020 to May 18, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness and safety of CHM plus CWM and CWM against COVID-19 in our study. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB2) was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. Statistical analysis was implemented in R version 4.1.2.ResultsOur study included 50 RCTs involving 11,624 patients. In comparison with sole CWM, CHM plus CWM against COVID-19 significantly enhanced clinical effective rate (RR = 1.18, 95% CI [1.13, 1.22]), improved chest image (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.11, 1.28]), inhibited clinical deterioration (RR = 0.45, 95% CI [0.33, 0.60]), lowered mortality (RR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.40, 0.70]), and reduced the total score of TCM syndrome (SMD = -1.24, 95% CI [-1.82, -0.66]). SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid conversion time (MD = -2.66, 95% CI [-3.88, -1.44]), duration of hospitalization (MD = -2.36, 95% CI [-3.89, -0.82]), and clinical symptom (fever, cough, fatigue, and shortness of breath) recovery times were shorter in CHM plus CWM groups than in CWM groups. Further, CHM plus CWM treatment was more conducive for some laboratory indicators returning to normal levels. No statistical difference was found in the incidence of total adverse reactions between the two groups (RR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.88, 1.07]). We assessed the risk of bias for 246 outcomes, and categorized 55 into "low risk", 151 into "some concerns", and 40 into "high risk". Overall, the certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low.ConclusionsPotentially, CHM listed in this study, as an adjunctive therapy, combining with CWM is an effective and safe therapy mode for COVID-19. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to draw more accurate conclusions.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=293963.
| S-EPMC10387529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether asthma has an influence on contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or having worse outcomes from COVID-19 disease.ObjectiveTo explore the prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and the relationship between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.MethodsThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. The pooled effect size (ES) was used to evaluate the association between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.ResultsThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 worldwide was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.6-9.0) based on 116 articles (119 studies) with 403,392 cases. The pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with reduced risk of poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06). Similarly, the pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with the reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05). However, the pooled ES based on adjusted effect estimates indicated that asthma was significantly associated with reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86).ConclusionThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 was similar to that in the general population, and asthma might be an independent protective factor for the death of patients with COVID-19, which suggests that we should pay high attention to patients co-infected asthma and COVID-19 and take locally tailored interventions and treatment. Further well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to verify our findings.
| S-EPMC7889465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial.Research questionWhat is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group.ResultsA total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens.InterpretationOur results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids.
| S-EPMC7598533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe proportion of COVID-19 patients having active pulmonary tuberculosis, and its impact on COVID-19 related patient outcomes, is not clear. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the proportion of patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis among COVID-19 patients, and to assess if comorbid pulmonary tuberculosis worsens clinical outcomes in these patients.MethodsWe queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies providing data on (a) proportion of COVID-19 patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis or (b) severe disease, hospitalization, or mortality among COVID-19 patients with and without active pulmonary tuberculosis. We calculated the proportion of tuberculosis patients, and the relative risk (RR) for each reported outcome of interest. We used random-effects models to summarize our data.ResultsWe retrieved 3,375 citations, and included 43 studies, in our review. The pooled estimate for proportion of active pulmonary tuberculosis was 1.07% (95% CI 0.81%-1.36%). COVID-19 patients with tuberculosis had a higher risk of mortality (summary RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.56-2.39, from 17 studies) and for severe COVID-19 disease (summary RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.05-2.02, from 20 studies), but not for hospitalization (summary RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91-3.81, from four studies), as compared to COVID-19 patients without tuberculosis.ConclusionActive pulmonary tuberculosis is relatively common among COVID-19 patients and increases the risk of severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related mortality.
| S-EPMC8530351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged with a high transmissibility rate and resulted in numerous negative impacts on global life. Preventive measures such as face masks, social distancing, and vaccination helped control the pandemic. Nonetheless, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as Omega and Delta, as well as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection, raise additional concerns. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the overall prevalence of reinfection on global and regional scales.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across three databases, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest Central, including all articles pertaining to COVID-19 reinfection without language restriction. After critical appraisal and qualitative synthesis of the identified relevant articles, a meta-analysis considering random effects was used to pool the studies.ResultsWe included 52 studies conducted between 2019 and 2022, with a total sample size of 3,623,655 patients. The overall prevalence of COVID-19 reinfection was 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-4.8%; n = 52), with high heterogeneity between studies. Africa had the highest prevalence of 4.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.5%; n = 3), whereas Oceania and America had lower estimates of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.4%; n = 1) and 1% (95% CI: 0.8-1.3%; n = 7), respectively. The prevalence of reinfection in Europe and Asia was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.5%; n = 8) and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.4-4.3%; n = 43), respectively. Studies that used a combined type of specimen had the highest prevalence of 7.6% (95% CI: 5.8-9.5%; n = 15) compared with those that used oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs only that had lower estimates of 6.7% (95% CI: 4.8-8.5%; n = 8), and 3.4% (95% CI: 2.8-4.0%; n = 12) respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19 reinfection occurs with varying prevalence worldwide, with the highest occurring in Africa. Therefore, preventive measures, including vaccination, should be emphasized to ensure control of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10140730 | biostudies-literature