Chinese herbal medicine ("3 medicines and 3 formulations") for COVID-19: rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To evaluate the evidence behind claims that Chinese Herbal Medicine, specifically "three medicines and three formulations" (3M3F, comprising Jinhua Qinggan, Lianhua Qingwen, Xuebijing, Qingfei Paidu, Huashi Baidu, and Xuanfei Baidu), is an effective treatment for COVID-19.Methods
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE and CNKI databases, preprint servers, clinical trial registries and supplementary sources for Chinese- or English-language randomized trials or non-randomized studies with comparator groups, which tested the constituents of 3M3F in the treatment of COVID-19 up to September 2020. Primary outcome was change in disease severity. Secondary outcomes included various symptoms. Meta-analysis (using generic inverse variance random effects model) was performed when there were two or more studies reporting on the same symptom.Results
Of 607 articles identified, 13 primary studies (6 RCTs and 7 retrospective non-randomized comparative studies) with 1467 participants met our final inclusion criteria. Studies were small and had significant methodological limitations, most notably potential bias in assessment of outcomes. No study convincingly demonstrated a statistically significant impact on change in disease severity. Eight studies reported sufficiently similar secondary outcomes to be included in a meta-analysis. Some statistically significant impacts on symptoms, chest CT manifestations, laboratory variables and length of stay were demonstrated, but such findings were sparse and many remain unreplicated.Conclusions
These findings neither support nor refute the claim that 3M3F alters the severity of COVID-19 or alleviates symptoms. More rigorous studies are required to properly ascertain the potential role of Chinese Herbal Medicine in COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Wang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8657519 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundChinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).PurposeThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook.ResultsOverall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.80-3.29, I2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low.ConclusionThe combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.
| S-EPMC7831541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with and without Western medicine (WM) for different severity of COVID-19.MethodsCNKI, PubMed, Wanfang Database, ClinicalTrails.gov, Embase, ChiCTR and ICTRP were searched from 01 Jan, 2020 to 30 Jun, 2021. Two authors independently assessed all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for trial inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate. Secondary outcomes included improvements in symptom improvement and total adverse event rate. Different severity of COVID-19 patients was assessed in subgroup analysis. This study was registered with INPLASY, INPLASY202210072.Results22 high quality RCTs involving 1789 participants were included. There were no trial used CHM alone nor compare placebo or no treatment. Compared with WM, combined CHM and WM (CHM-WM) treatment showed higher total effectiveness rate, lower symptom scores of fever, cough, fatigue, dry throat and pharyngalgia, shorter mean time to viral conversion, better Computerized Tomography (CT) image and blood results, fewer total adverse events and worse conditions (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the total effectiveness rate of combined CHM-WM group was significantly higher than WM group, especially for mild and moderate patients. No significant differences in mortality and adverse events were found between combined CHM-WM and WM treatment. No serious adverse events and long-term outcomes were reported.ConclusionCurrent evidence supported the therapeutic effects and safety of combined CHM-WM treatment on COVID-19, especially for patients with mild and moderate symptoms. Long-term effects of therapy are worthy in further study.
| S-EPMC9210065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA new type of coronavirus, novel coronavirus (COVID-19), is causing an increasing number of cases of pneumonia and was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization on 30 January 2020. The virus first appeared in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine is being used for its treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess studies of the effects of traditional Chinese herbal medicine in COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe will search electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang database using keywords related to COVID-19 and traditional Chinese herbal medicine. Reference lists of relevant trials and reviews will be searched. We will manually search gray literature, such as conference proceedings and academic degree dissertations, and trial registries. Two independent reviewers will screen studies (XL and DZ), extract data (YL and LG), and evaluate risk of bias (YL and DZ). Data analysis will be conducted using the Review Manager software (version 5.3.5) and R software (version 3.6.1). Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard chi-square test with a significance level of P < 0.10. Biases associated with study size (e.g., publication bias) will be investigated using funnel plots, Egger's test and Begg's test, and Trim and Fill analysis.DiscussionThis study will provide a high-quality synthesis of the effects of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19. The use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for treatment or prevention of these novel viral infections affecting the pneumonia will be investigated.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020168004.
| S-EPMC7138957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aims: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) was used to prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in clinical practices. Many studies have demonstrated that the combination of CHM and Western medicine can be more effective in treating COVID-19 compared to Western medicine alone. However, evidence-based studies on the prevention in undiagnosed or suspected cases remain scarce. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of CHM in preventing recurrent, new, or suspected COVID-19 diseases. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search using ten databases including articles published between December 2019 and September 2023. This search aimed to identify studies investigating the use of CHM to prevent COVID-19. Heterogeneity was assessed by a random-effects model. The relative risk (RR) and mean differences were calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The modified Jadad Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were employed to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, respectively. Results: Seventeen studies with a total of 47,351 patients were included. Results revealed that CHM significantly reduced the incidence of COVID-19 (RR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.11-0.53, p = 0.0004), influenza (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.18-0.76, p = 0.007), and severe pneumonia exacerbation rate (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05-0.64, p = 0.009) compared to non-treatment or conventional control group. Evidence evaluation indicated moderate quality evidence for COVID-19 incidence and serum complement components C3 and C4 in randomized controlled trials. For the incidence of influenza and severe pneumonia in RCTs as well as the ratio of CD4+/CD8+ lymphocytes, the evidence quality was low. The remaining outcomes including the disappearance rate of symptoms and adverse reactions were deemed to be of very low quality. Conclusion: CHM presents a promising therapeutic option for the prevention of COVID-19. However, additional high-quality clinical trials are needed to further strengthen evidential integrity.
| S-EPMC10693348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectivesour study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews.Methodology/principal findingsWe performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database.ConclusionsNow CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.
| S-EPMC3235143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a global pandemic since its outbreak in Wuhan, China. It is an urgent task to prevent and treat COVID-19 effectively early. In China's experience combating the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played an indispensable role. A large number of epidemiological investigations have shown that mild to moderate COVID-19 accounts for the largest proportion of cases. It is of great importance to treat such COVID-19 cases, which can help control epidemic progression. Many trials have shown that CHM combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 was superior to conventional therapy alone. This review was designed to evaluate the add-on effect of CHM in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19.MethodsEight electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Clinical Trials.gov website, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine (CBM) were searched from December 2019 to March 2021 without language restrictions. Two reviewers searched and selected studies, and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria independently. Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs. Review Manager 5.3.0 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsTwelve eligible RCTs including 1393 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Our meta-analyses found that lung CT parameters [RR = 1.26, 95% CI (1.15, 1.38), P<0.00001] and the clinical cure rate [RR = 1.26, 95%CI (1.16, 1.38), P<0.00001] of CHM combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 were better than those of conventional therapy. The rate of conversion to severe cases [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.32, 0.73), P = 0.0005], TCM symptom score of fever [MD = -0.62, 95%CI (-0.79, -0.45), P<0.00001], cough cases [RR = 1.43, 95%CI (1.16, 1.75), P = 0.0006], TCM symptom score of cough[MD = -1.07, 95%CI (-1.29, -0.85), P<0.00001], TCM symptom score of fatigue[MD = -0.66, 95%CI (-1.05, -0.28), P = 0.0007], and CRP[MD = -5.46, 95%CI (-8.19, -2.72), P<0.0001] of combination therapy was significantly lower than that of conventional therapy. The WBC count was significantly higher than that of conventional therapy[MD = 0.38, 95%CI (0.31, 0.44), P<0.00001]. Our meta-analysis results were robust through sensitivity analysis.ConclusionChinese herbal medicine combined with conventional therapy may be effective and safe in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed in the future.
| S-EPMC8378756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have been widely used in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) based on their empirical effectiveness and safety. Herein, we reviewed and evaluated the clinical evidence of the efficacy and safety of CHMs for CGD.MethodsAmong the relevant studies published in 11 electronic databases up to December 2021, only randomised controlled trials were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, and the strength of evidence for the main outcomes was evaluated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system.ResultsAll 35 included randomised controlled trials with 3,862 participants were conducted with six types of modified CHM and four types of active controls. More than half of the included studies were of low quality because of the high risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions. CHM plus active control was more effective in the treatment of CGD than active control alone. CHM plus anti-vertigo drugs, CHM plus manual therapy, CHM plus acupuncture therapy, and CHM plus manual and acupuncture therapy were all effective in treating CGD, with CHM plus manual and acupuncture therapy showing the most reliable effect. All CHMs were effective for specific patterns of CGD when administered with active controls, with Dingxuan Tang and Yiqi Congming Tang demonstrating the most reliable effects. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.ConclusionThe current evidence suggests that CHM may enhance the treatment of CGD when combined with other treatments without serious adverse events. Further high-quality evidence is needed to draw definitive conclusions.
| S-EPMC9110151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for the treatment of aspirin resistance (AR).MethodsA comprehensive research of seven electronic databases was performed for comparative studies evaluating CHM for AR. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data wasere synthesized by using RevMan 5.3 software. (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42015020182).Results18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,460 patients were included. 15 RCTs reported significant difference in the reduction of platelet aggregation rate (PAR) induced by adenosine diphosphate (ADP) (P<0.05), and 11 reported significant effect of CHM plus aspirin to reduce PAR induced by arachidonic acid (AA) (P<0.05) compared with aspirin 100mg/d treatment. The pooling data of 3 RCTs showed the thromboxane B2 (TXB2) in patients with CHM plus aspirin versus aspirin were significantly reduced (Random Effect model (RE), Standard Deviation (SD) = -95.93, 95% Confidential Interval (CI)[-118.25,-73.61], P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that TXB2 (Fixed Effect model (FE), SD = -89.23, 95%CI[-121.96,-56.49], P<0.00001) had significant difference in Tongxinluo capsule plus aspirin versus aspirin. 2 RCTs reported the clinical effective rate, and the meta-analysis result showed a significant difference in intervention and control group (FE, Relative Risk (RR) = 1.67, 95%CI[1.15, 2.42], P = 0.007<0.05). In 4 trials, CHM plus aspirin had better effects of reducing the reoccurrence of cerebral infarction than aspirin (FE, RR = 0.24, 95%CI [0.11, 0.49], P<0.0001). And one trial showed that CHM plus aspirin could decrease the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NHISS) score (P<0.05) and increase the Barthel Index (BI) score (P<0.05). 4 trials stated that there were no adverse effects occurred in intervention group, and analysis showed significant difference of CHM or CHM plus aspirin in reducing the occurrence of adverse events (FE, RR = 0.22, 95%CI[0.13, 0.39], P<0.00001). 5 trials claimed that the CHM monotherapy and CHM adjunctive therapy for AR did not add the risk of bleeding (FE, RR = 0.50, 95%CI[0.20, 1.22], P = 0.13>0.05).ConclusionsCHM may be effective and safe as an alternative and collaborative therapy for AR. However, the current evidence and potential promising findings should be interpreted with caution due to poor and varying methodological quality of included studies and the heterogeneity of interventions. Thus, further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered RCTs is warranted.
| S-EPMC4859478 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8696086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) in symptom management for cancer palliative care is very common in Chinese populations but clinical evidence on their effectiveness is yet to be synthesized. To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to summarize results from CHM randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on symptoms that are undertreated in conventional cancer palliative care.Five international and 3 Chinese databases were searched. RCTs evaluating CHM, either in combination with conventional treatments or used alone, in managing cancer-related symptoms were considered eligible. Effectiveness was quantified by using weighted mean difference (WMD) using random effect model meta-analysis. Fourteen RCTs were included. Compared with conventional intervention alone, meta-analysis showed that combined CHM and conventional treatment significantly reduced pain (3 studies, pooled WMD: -0.90, 95% CI: -1.69 to -0.11). Six trials comparing CHM with conventional medications demonstrated similar effect in reducing constipation. One RCT showed significant positive effect of CHM plus chemotherapy for managing fatigue, but not in the remaining 3 RCTs. The additional use of CHM to chemotherapy does not improve anorexia when compared to chemotherapy alone, but the result was concluded from 2 small trials only. Adverse events were infrequent and mild. CHM may be considered as an add-on to conventional care in the management of pain in cancer patients. CHM could also be considered as an alternative to conventional care for reducing constipation. Evidence on the use of CHM for treating anorexia and fatigue in cancer patients is uncertain, warranting further research.
| S-EPMC4998628 | biostudies-other