Dataset Information

Role of herbal medicines in the management of patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim

The management of the worldwide spreading COVID-19 consists of amelioration of its symptoms but no cure is yet available. Herbal medicines supplemented with the Western medicine have been applied for COVID-19 treatment in India, China, Iran, and other countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluates the effect and safety of herbal intervention in the management of COVID-19.

Experimental procedure

RCTs from databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Science Direct, CTRI, AYUSH Research Portal, India, were reviewed and the data were extracted for study sample demographics, intervention details, clinical effect, inflammatory markers and safety monitoring. Outcomes were expressed as Risk-ratio (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data, and Mean-Difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data.

Result and conclusion

From the 32 eligible studies, a total of 3177 COVID-19 patients were included in the review. Herbal intervention as an adjuvant to Western medicine causes significantly higher improvement compared to Western medicine alone [Fever (RR = 1.09 CI 1.03, 1.15), Cough (Risk-Ratio = 1.22 CI 1.08, 1.37), Fatigue (Risk-Ratio = 1.27 CI 1.11, 1.44), Chest CT Improvement (Risk-Ratio = 1.15 CI 1.08, 1.23)]. The laboratory parameters were also better in the herbal medicine group compared to standard care group only WBC (MD = 0.36 CI 0.16, 0.55), Lymphocyte percentage (MD = 5.48 CI 3.05, 7.92), Absolute lymphocyte count (MD = 0.23 CI 0.07, 0.39), CRP (MD = -5.66 CI -7.96, -3.37). However, duration of hospital stays (MD = -1.82 CI -3.84, 0.21); IL-6 (MD = -3.67 CI -8.76, 1.43), ESR Level (MD = -10.38 CI -25.96, 5.21) were statistically insignificant. No significant adverse events for herbal medications were noted in the included RCTs, during the time of the studies. (n = 665, RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.76, 1.14).

SUBMITTER: Kumar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8747767 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhether the addition of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in routine western medicines for post-stroke depression yields additional therapeutic effects still remains to be controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of combination of CHM with routine western medicines versus routine western medicines alone in patients with post-stroke depression (PSD).MethodsElectronic databases such as PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched from inception till October 2019. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and that investigated the therapeutic effects of CHM plus routine western medicines (CHM group) versus routine western medicines alone (control group) in PSD patients were eligible. The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the categories and continuous data using random-effects model. Software STATA was applied to perform statistical analysis (Version 10.0; StataCorp, TX,).ResultsA total of 18 RCTs involving a total of 1,367 PSD patients were selected for final analysis. The effective rate in CHM group was significantly higher than that in control group (RR: 1.18; 95%CI: 1.12-1.24; P < .001). Moreover, patients in CHM group showed association with lower Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (WMD: -3.17; 95%CI: -4.12 to -2.22; P < .001) and Scandinavian Stroke Scale (WMD: -3.84; 95%CI: -5.73 to -1.96; P < .001) than those in control group. Furthermore, patients in CHM were associated with high level of Barthel Index than those in control group (WMD: 11.06; 95%CI: 4.01 to 18.10; P = .002). Finally, patients in CHM group had lower risk of gastrointestinal (RR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.31-0.77; P = .002) and neurological (RR: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; P = .001) adverse events than those in control group.ConclusionsThe study findings revealed that addition of CHM to routine therapies could improve the therapeutic effects and reduce gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The studies on the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) in treating liver fibrosis (LF) were not consistent. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of CHM on treating LF patients. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, TCMOnline, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese Medical Current Contents were searched up to March 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving LF patients receiving CHM, Western medicine, combined CHM and Western medicine compared with placebo, Western medicine or no intervention were included. LF markers including serum hyaluronic acid (HA), laminin (LN), procollagen type III (PC-III), type IV collagen (IV-C), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP) were measured as primary outcomes. Liver biochemistry, including alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartarte aminotransferase (AST), and improvement of related clinical symptoms were measured as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 2123 participants were analyzed in subgroups of types of comparison and study quality. Fifteen studies were graded as good quality. CHM alone and combined with Western medicine showed significant improvements in HA, LN, PC-III and IV-C compared with Western medicine alone. However, there were no significant differences observed between CHM and placebo treatments. CONCLUSION: The current inconclusive results in determining the effectiveness of CHM treatment on LF, due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity of the studies, suggests that large RCTs using standardized Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis and CHM formulae with longer follow-up are required for further evaluation.

Project description:Background/Aim: Since 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating disease affecting global health to a great extent. Some countries have added on herbal medicines as a complementary treatment for combating COVID-19 due to the urgency of stopping the spread of this viral disease. However, whether these herbal medicines are effective is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA Statement and without language restrictions. Seven databases were searched from inception through December 2021. All selected studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy with conventional western medicine, including improvement of clinical symptoms, chest CT images, viral conversion rate, C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6. Cochrane criteria were applied to examine the methodological quality of the enrolled trials; and meta-analysis software (RevMan 5.4.1) was used for data analysis. Results: In total, the data of 5,417 participants from 40 trials were included in this systematic review; and 28 trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The trials had medium-to-high quality based on GRADE system. Meta-analysis showed that combining herbal medicine vs conventional treatment in 1) coughing (1.43 95% CI:1.21, 1.71, p = 0.0001), 2) fever (1.09 95% CI:1.00, 1.19, p = 0.06), 3) fatigue (1.21 95% CI:1.10, 1.33, p = 0.0001); 4) CT images (1.26 95% CI:1.19, 1.34, P ≤ 0.00001), 5) viral conversion rates (1.22 95% CI:1.06, 1.40, p = 0.005) and 6) viral conversion times (-3.72 95% CI: -6.05, -1.40, p = 0.002), 7) IL6 change (1.97 95% CI: -0.72, 4.66, p = 0.15) and 8) CRP change (-7.92 95% CI: -11.30, -4.53, P ≤ 0.00001). Conclusion: Herbal medicine combined therapy significantly reduces COVID-19 clinical symptoms, improving CT images and viral conversion rates. Reported adverse events are mild. However, for certain biases in the included studies, and the need for further study on effective components of herbal medicine. Further large trials with better randomized design are warranted to definite a more definite role of herbal medicine.

Project description:Acupoint herbal patching (AHP), which involves local point stimulation with a herbal medicine patch, has long been used to treat patients with asthma in East Asian countries. However, its evidence is equivocal. This systematic review aims to summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy and safety of AHP for asthma.A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for studies published on or before April 2014, which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining AHP therapy by itself or in combination with other treatments in asthma patients. Trials needed to report pulmonary function outcomes to be included in analyses. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. For statistical pooling, risk ratio, mean difference (MD), or standardized MD was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model.We ultimately included 16 RCTs with 1287 asthmatic patients in analyses. Treatment with AHP improved forced expiratory volume in 1?second (FEV1) by 13% (MD?=?12.99%, 95% CI 5.17%-20.81%) and asthmatic symptoms by 60% (risk ratio of unchanged or getting worse symptoms with AHP?=?0.4, 95% CI 0.27-0.58) over that observed with placebo. However, evidence is limited due to the heterogeneity and paucity of data. When added to conventional therapies, AHP significantly improved the FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio by 11.6% (95% CI 8.49%-14.79%) and reduced the risk of asthmatic symptoms by 69% (95% CI 0.16-0.58). Compared with conventional medication, AHP significantly improved FEV1 (standardized MD?=?0.46, 95% CI 0.05-0.87), but a substantial heterogeneity was detected (I?2=?53%). When added to Chinese herbal medicine, there were no additional benefits of AHP on pulmonary function or global symptom improvement. No serious adverse events were associated with AHP.Evidence for AHP efficacy is encouraging, but not conclusive, because of clinical diversity and the high risk of bias in the examined studies. Further clinical and basic research is needed to determine the role of AHP in lung function and symptom improvement in patients with asthma.

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Project description:BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a major global health problem. The prevalence of the disease appears to be increasing. There is no curative therapy for IPF except lung transplantation. Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are showing promise for treatment of IPF. However, their effectiveness and safety are still unclear and deserve further investigation. The aim of this systematic review is to access the efficacy and safety of CHMs in treating IPF.MethodsThe protocol of this review is registered at PROSPERO. We searched seven main databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on CHMs for IPF from their inception to June 4, 2018. The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All trials included were analyzed according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook. Review Manager 5.3, R-3.5.2 software, and Grade pro GDT web solution were used for data synthesis and analysis.ResultsThirteen randomized clinical trials enrolling 733 patients were included. All trials included had clear outcome indicators. The methodological quality of included trials was generally "poor." Few trials reported methods of randomization. One trial on Xuefu-zhuyu capsule assessed rate of acute exacerbation and mortality after treatment for 72 weeks and found no statistically significant difference between two groups. This meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in QOL of IPF patients when CHMs was applied or combined with conventional medicine treatment. 6MWT was significantly improved in IPF patients after using CHMs or combined with conventional medicine treatment. CHMs treatment also had a certain improvement in TLC and DLCO, but the effect on FVC was not significant. Besides, CHMs failed to provide benefits in terms of PaO2. The reported adverse events were not obvious and severe.ConclusionsSome CHMs seem effective and safe as alternative remedies for patients with IPF, suggesting that further study of CHMs in the treatment of IPF is warranted. Although this systematic review suggests that CHMs may have positive effect on quality of life, 6-minute walk test distance, and lung function (TLC, DLOC%) and seem to be relatively safe during the course of treatment, the results must be treated with great caution because of the methodological flaws of the included trials. Long-term and high-quality trials are needed in the future to provide clear evidence for the use of CHMs.