Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of herbal medicine (Lianhuaqingwen) for treating COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lianhuaqingwen (LH) has been proven effective for influenza. However, the promotion of LH for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 remains controversial. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen (LH) in treating patients with COVID-19 by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We conducted the literature search using six electronic databases from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2020. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of case control studies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality checklist was used to assess the quality of case series. All analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed were performed a descriptive analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 924 patients were included. Three studies were RCTs, three were case control studies, and two were case series. The quality of the included studies was poor. Compared with patients treated by conventional treatment, patients treated by LH combined with conventional treatment have a higher overall effective rate (RR = 1.16, 95%CIs: 1.04∼1.30, P = 0.01) and CT recovery rate (RR=1.21, 95%CIs: 1.02∼1.43, P = 0.03). Patients of LH groups have a lower incidence of diarrhea (5.6% vs.13.4%), and have statistically significant (P = 0.026). But the rate of abnormal liver function in the combined medication group is higher than that in the single LH group.

Conclusion

LH combined with conventional treatment seems to be more effective for patients with mild or ordinary COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7441862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Although vaccines have been launched, COVID-19 has not been effectively curbed, and the number of infections is increasing. Compared with western medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine has made some achievements in the treatment of COVID-19, which should be paid attention to and play a greater role. As a classical Chinese medicine prescription for treating pestilence, Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) has gone to many countries with the Chinese medical team to participate in the local fight against the epidemic, which has been widely recognized. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Chchrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Information Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Wanfang Database from inception up to November 24, 2021, which formed the basis for evidence used to formulate recommendations. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1896 patients were enrolled. LHQW is a traditional Chinese medicine compound preparation, which contains 13 traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) components. Two dosage formulations of LHQW were included: granule and capsule. The most commonly used dosage formulation was granule (15/17, 88.24%), followed by capsule (2/17, 11.76%). Conclusion This systematic review and Meta analysis suggested that, in the treatment of COVID-19, LHQW Capsule (Granule) could not only significantly improve the fever symptoms, shorten the fever time, but also reduce the cough and fatigue symptoms, improve the clinical efficiency, improve the lung CT, significantly reduce the number of patients with mild to severe diseases, and have certain anti-inflammatory effect. And there is no server adverse events which support the safety of LHQW Capsule (Granule) for the treatment of COVID-19. As a classic formula of TCM, LHQW Capsule (Granule) could be used as potential candidates for COVID-19 in this battle.

Project description:Background In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 caused a series of acute atypical respiratory diseases worldwide. However, there is still a lack of drugs with clear curative effects, and the clinical trial research of vaccines has not been completely finished. Purpose LH capsules are approved TCM patent medicine that are widely used for the treatment of respiratory tract infectious diseases caused by colds and flu. On April 12, 2020, LH capsules and granules were officially repurposed by the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for patients with mild COVID-19 based on their safety and efficacy demonstrated through multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trials. We hope to conduct a comprehensive review of it through modern pharmacy methods, and try to explain its possible mechanism. Methods Using the full names of LH capsules Lianhuaqingwen, Lianhua Qingwen andSARS-COV-2, COVID-19 as the keywords of the search terms, systemically search for existing related papers in various databases such as Web of Science and PubMed. And completed the collection of clinical data in ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Last but not least, we have sorted out the anti-inflammatory and antiviral mechanisms of LH capsules through literature and Selleck. Results This review systematically sorted out the active ingredients in LH capsules. Furthermore, the related pharmacological and clinical trials of LH capsule on SARS-CoV-2, IAV and IBV were discussed in detail. Moreover, the present review provides the first summary of the potential molecular mechanism of specific substances in LH capsules involved in resistance to SARS-COV-2 infection and the inhibition of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) caused by IL-6. Conclusion This review summarizes the available reports and evidence that support the use of LH capsules as potential drug candidates for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. However, TCM exerts its effects through multiple targets and multiple pathways, and LH capsules are not an exception. Therefore, the relevant mechanisms need to be further improved and experimentally verified. Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract

Project description:Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group" was adopted for controlled pre-post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre-post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -4.78 days, 95% CI: -5.79 to -3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = -7.95 days, 95% CI: -14.66 to -1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = -1.51 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.09), cough (MD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.36) and chest CT (MD = -2.23 days, 95% CI: -2.46 to -2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP. Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Project description:Introduction: The effectiveness and safety of the Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) Xiao Yao San (XYS) used for treating anxiety disorders are still unknown. Thus, we conducted this systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine its safety and efficacy. Methods: We searched 12 databases for relevant studies from the inception of each database till 10 August 2023. We selected randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of XYS (including XYS only and XYS + anxiolytics) to those of anxiolytics in patients with anxiety. Results: We found 14 trials with 1,256 patients in total that met the requirements for inclusion. We assessed the majority of studies (8 out of 14) as being at high risk of bias; 6 were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias. Three trials compared oral XYS to anxiolytic medication, and 11 trials compared oral XYS plus anxiolytics to anxiolytic treatment alone. The pooled results showed that the efficacy of treatment in the XYS + anxiolytics groups was significantly higher than that of the anxiolytics alone group (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.26]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0) and the adverse event rates in the XYS + anxiolytics groups were significantly lower than those in the anxiolytics alone group (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: [0.28, 0.82]; p = 0.001 < 0.05; I2 = 13). The efficacy of treatment in the XYS alone groups was also significantly higher than that of the anxiolytics alone groups (RR = 5.41; 95% CI: [2.23, 13.11]; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0). However, there was no statistical difference between the adverse events of the XYS alone group and the anxiolytics alone group, although the incidence of adverse events in the XYS alone group was lower than that in the anxiolytics alone group. The results of the TSA confirmed the above findings. Conclusion: The use of XYS combined with anxiolytics for treating anxiety was found to be safe and effective. However, although XYS alone is effective in the treatment of anxiety disorder, more large-scale research is needed to investigate adverse events. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=350358, identifier CRD42022350358.

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:Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable. Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis. Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results. Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

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.