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: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: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: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: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:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.
| S-EPMC7273516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heparin thromboprophylaxis is routinely administered during hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to the immune stimulation related to COVID-19, there is ongoing concern regarding a heightened incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and, medRxiv database to identify studies that reported clinical and laboratory characteristics and/or the incidence of HIT in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim was to systematically review the clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with confirmed HIT. The secondary objective was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of HIT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 7 studies including 5,849 patients revealed the pooled incidence of HIT in COVID-19 of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-3.2%; I2 = 89%). The estimated incidences were 1.2% (95%CI, 0.3-3.9%; I2 = 65%) versus 0.1% (95%CI, 0.0-0.4%; I2 = 0%) in therapeutic versus prophylactic heparin subgroups, respectively. The pooled incidences of HIT were higher in critically ill COVID-19 patients (2.2%, 95%CI, 0.6-8.3%; I2 = 72.5%) compared to non-critically ill patients (0.1%, 95%CI, 0.0-0.4%: I2 = 0%). There were 19 cases of confirmed HIT and one with autoimmune HIT for clinical and laboratory characterization. The median time from heparin initiation to HIT diagnosis was 13.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 10.75, 16.25) days. Twelve (63%) developed thromboembolism after heparin therapy. In conclusion, the incidence of HIT in COVID-19 patients was comparable to non-COVID-19 medical patients, with higher incidences with therapeutic anticoagulation and in critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC8455241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly developed into a pandemic. Increased levels of ferritin due to cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were found in severe COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the role of ferritin in COVID-19.MethodsStudies investigating ferritin in COVID-19 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, and WANFANG. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the ferritin level between different patient groups: non-survivors versus survivors; more severe versus less severe; with comorbidity versus without comorbidity; ICU versus non-ICU; with mechanical ventilation versus without mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 52 records involving 10 614 COVID-19-confirmed patients between December 25, 2019, and June 1, 2020, were included in this meta-analysis, and 18 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The ferritin level was significantly increased in severe patients compared with the level in non-severe patients [WMD 397.77 (95% CI 306.51-489.02), P < .001]. Non-survivors had a significantly higher ferritin level compared with the one in survivors [WMD 677.17 (95% CI 391.01-963.33), P < .001]. Patients with one or more comorbidities including diabetes, thrombotic complication, and cancer had significantly higher levels of ferritin than those without (P < .01). Severe acute liver injury was significantly associated with high levels of ferritin, and its level was associated with intensive supportive care, including ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsFerritin was associated with poor prognosis and could predict the worsening of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7595919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily causes lung infection, but recent studies have shown that cardiac involvement is associated with a worse prognosis.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias detected by the electrocardiogram and their relationships with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.MethodsPubMed and Google were searched for studies that reported on cardiac arrhythmias and/or examined the relationship between arrhythmias and adverse outcomes.ResultsThirty studies with 12,713 participants were included in the systematic review, and 28 studies (n = 12,499) in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 61.3 ± 16.8 years; 39.3% were female. In 25 studies with 7578 patients, the overall prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4%-12.3%). The most common arrhythmias documented during hospitalization were supraventricular arrhythmias (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.4%-8.1%) followed by ventricular arrhythmias (2.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-3.1%). The incidence of cardiac arrhythmias was higher among critically ill patients (relative risk [RR]: 12.1, 95% CI: 8.5-17.3) and among non-survivors (RR: 3.8, 95%, CI: 1.7-8.7). Eight studies reported changes in the QT interval. The prevalence of QTc > 500 ms was 12.3% (95% CI: 6.9%-17.8%). ST-segment deviation was reported in eight studies, with a pooled estimate of 8.7% (95% CI: 7.3% to 10.0%).ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed that QTc prolongation, ST-segment deviation, and various other cardiac arrhythmias were observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The presence of cardiac arrhythmias was associated with a worse prognosis.
| S-EPMC8250376 | biostudies-literature