Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization declared on March 11, 2020, that the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) has escalated from epidemic into pandemic. As the initial outbreak area, China has taken multiple active measures to deal with the epidemic. Updated versions of diagnosis and treatment guideline for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients have been issued, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine has been recommended as a treatment. The objective of this study will be to summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines about the use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19 patients. We will also evaluate and report on the methodological and reporting quality of these guidelines.MethodsIn this systematic review, we will search for guidelines, expert consensuses, and policy documents published since December 2019 in electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese databases) and on websites of governments or organizations (e.g., The National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], Guidelines International Network [GIN], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN], and WHO). Eligible documents will be independently selected, and relevant data will be independently extracted by two reviewers. We will also independently evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement, respectively. Any discrepancies will be discussed and resolved through discussion among the reviewers. We will use the extracted information to summarize their recommendations for traditional Chinese herbal formulae and Chinese patent medicine for COVID-19 patients and to summarize the strength and quality of these recommendations with reference to the results of AGREE II and RIGHT tools.DiscussionThis review will summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines and provide insight into the implementation strategies for traditional Chinese herbal medicine in COVID-19 patients.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179205.

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.

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.

Project description:Background: In January, national guidelines were developed and recommended for use throughout China to fight coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) was also included as part of the treatment plans at various stages of COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized, controlled trial in patients with severe COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Eligible adult patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either CHM plus standard care or standard care alone for 7 days. The primary outcome was the change in the disease severity category of COVID-19 after treatment. Results: Between Jan 31, 2020, and Feb 19, 2020, 42 out of 100 screened patients were included in the trial: 28 in the CHM plus standard care group and 14 in the standard care alone group. Among 42 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age 60.43 years [12.69 years]), 21 (21/42, 50%) were aged ≥65 years, 35 (35/42, 83%) were women, and 42 (42/42, 100%) had data available for the primary outcome. For the primary outcome, one patient from each group died during treatment; the odds of a shift toward death was lower in the CHM plus group than in the standard care alone group (common OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.148-2.352, P = 0.454). Three (two from the CHM plus group and one from the standard care alone group) patients progressed from severe to critical illness. After treatment, mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 disease accounted for 17.86% (5/28) vs. 14.29% (2/28), 71.43% (20/28) vs. 64.29% (9/28), and 0% (0) vs. 7.14% (1/28) of the patients treated with CHM plus standard care vs. standard care alone. Conclusions: For the first time, the G-CHAMPS trial provided valuable information for the national guideline-based CHM treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The effects of CHM in COVID-19 may be clinically important and warrant further consideration and studies. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx. Uniqueidentifier: ChiCTR2000029418.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to summarise the current evidence from randomised control trials (RCTs) concerning treatment of patients with resistant hypertension with Chinese herbal medicine (CHM).DesignSeven databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP, CBM and Wanfang, were systematically searched from their inception to March 2014 for RCTs investigating treatment of resistant hypertension in which CHM was used either as a monotherapy or in combination with conventional medicine versus placebo, no intervention or conventional medicine.ResultsFive trials containing 446 hypertensive patients were identified. The methodological quality of most trials was evaluated as generally low. All included trials compared CHM plus antihypertensive drugs with antihypertensive drugs alone for resistant hypertension. Formulations of CHM included tablet, decoction and injection. It was found that, compared with antihypertensive drugs alone, CHM (tablet) plus antihypertensive drugs resulted in clinically, but not statistically, significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP; weighted mean difference (WMD)=-10.32 mm Hg; 95% CI -21.10 to 0.46; p=0.06) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; WMD=-3.30 mm Hg; 95% CI -7.66 to 1.06; p=0.14). CHM (decoction) plus antihypertensive drugs also produced a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, reduction in SBP (WMD=-12.56 mm Hg; 95% CI -26.83 to 1.71; p=0.08), and did significantly decrease DBP (WMD=-7.89 mm Hg; 95% CI -11.74 to -4.04; p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in SBP (WMD=-3.50 mm Hg; 95% CI -8.95 to 1.95; p=0.21) and DBP (WMD=1.00 mm Hg; 95% CI -1.39 to 3.39; p=0.41) between CHM (injection) plus the antihypertensive drugs group and antihypertensive drugs alone. The safety of CHM remained uncertain.ConclusionsNo definite conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of CHM for resistant hypertension could be drawn. More rigorously designed trials are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundTreatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited by suboptimal efficacy.MethodsFrom January 30, 2020 to March 23, 2020, we conducted a non-randomised controlled trial, in which all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were assigned to three groups non-randomly and given supportive treatments: Group A, Lopinavir-Ritonavir; Group B, Huashi Baidu Formula (a Chinese medicineformula made by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences to treat COVID-19, which is now in the clinical trial period) and Lopinavir-Ritonavir; and Group C, Huashi Baidu Formula. The use of antibiotics, antiviruses, and corticosteroids was permitted in Group A and B. Traditional Chinese medicine injections were permitted in Group C. The primary outcomes were clinical remission time (interval from admission to the first time the patient tested negatively for novel coronavirus or an obvious improvement was observed from chest CT) and clinical remission rate (number of patients whose clinical time was within 16 days/total number of patients).ResultsA total of 60 adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled at sites in Wuhan, China, and the sample size of each group was 20. In Groups A, B and C, the clinical remission rates were 95.0%%(19/20), 100.0%%(20/20) and 100.0%%(20/20), respectively. Compared with Groups A and B, the clinical remission time of Group C was significantly shorter (5.9 days vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.05; 5.9 days vs. 9.7 days, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among Groups A, B, and C in terms of the time taken to be released from quarantine. The clinical biochemical indicators and safety indexes showed no significant differences among the three groups.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that Lopinavir-Ritonavir has some efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, and the Huashi Baidu Formula might enhance this effect to an extent. In addition, superiority was displayed in the treatment of COVID-19 through a combination of the Huashi Baidu Formula and traditional Chinese medicine injection. In future, well-designed prospective double-blinded randomised control trials are required to confirm our findings.

Dataset Information

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Experts' Consensuses for Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients with Chinese Herbal Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets