Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Lianhua Qingwen for Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world since its outbreak, and there is no ascertained effective drug up to now. Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) has been widely used in China and overseas Chinese, which had some advantages in the treatment of COVID-19.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW for COVID-19 by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 12 electronic databases from their establishment to October 30, 2021. Note Express 3.2.0 was used for screening of trials, and the data was independently extracted in duplicate by 2 researchers. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed by using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively, followed by data analysis using RevMan 5.3. The RCTs or retrospective studies to treat COVID-19 using LHQW were included. The intervention measures in the experimental group were LHQW alone or combined with chemical drugs (LCWC), and that in the control group were chemical drugs (CDs). Outcome measures included computed tomography (CT) recovery rate, disappearance rates of primary (fever, cough, fatigue), respiratory, gastrointestinal and other symptoms, exacerbation rate and adverse reaction. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to whether LHQW was combined with CDs and the different treatment methods in the control group.

Results

Nine trials with 1,152 participants with COVID-19 were included. The CT recovery rates of LHQW and LCWC were 1.36 and 1.32 times of CDs, respectively (P<0.05). Compared with CDs, LCWC remarkably increased the disappearance rates of fever, cough, fatigue, expectoration, shortness of breath, and muscle soreness (P<0.05). LHQW also obviously decreased the exacerbation rate, which was 0.45 times of CDs alone (P<0.05). There was no obvious difference between LCWC and CDs in adverse reaction (P>0.05).

Conclusions

LHQW was more suitable for treating COVID-19 patients with obvious expectoration, shortness of breath and muscle soreness. LHQW had advantages in treating COVID-19 with no obvious exacerbation. (PROSPERO No. CRD42021235937).

SUBMITTER: Sun XH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:MethodsSeven English and Chinese databases were used to search for qualified experimental studies as of July 27, 2020. All data were extracted directly from the included studies, and no special conversion formula was used. The weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% confidence interval (CI), and odds ratio (OR) were used for evaluation.ResultsForty-two studies involving 3793 subjects met the qualification criteria. For common pneumonia, a short duration of flu-like symptoms (WMD = -1.81, 95% CI = -2.12 to -1.50, P < 0.001), sputum (WMD = -1.10, 95% CI = -1.50 to -0.70, P < 0.001), pulmonary rale (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI = -2.74 to -1.31, P < 0.001), pulmonary imaging improvement (WMD = -1.88, 95% CI = -2.28 to -1.47, P < 0.001), curative effect (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 2.81 to 4.76, P < 0.001), and healing period (WMD = -1.68, 95% CI = -2.62 to -0.74, P < 0.001) were associated with the Lianhua Qingwen group; subgroup analysis based on flu-like symptoms showed statistically significant improvements in fever and cough. For COVID-19 pneumonia, improvements in flu-like symptoms (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 2.36 to 4.29, P < 0.001), shortness of breath (OR = 10.62, 95% CI = 3.71 to 30.40, P < 0.001), curative effect (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.53, P < 0.001), healing period (WMD = -2.06, 95% CI = -3.36 to -0.75, P = 0.002), and conversion of severe cases (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.77, P = 0.003) were associated with the Lianhua Qingwen group; subgroup analysis indicated statistically significant improvements of fever, cough, fatigue, and muscle pain in the Lianhua Qingwen group compared to the conventional drug group. Regarding adverse reactions, no significant difference was detected for common pneumonia (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.05, P = 0.097).ConclusionsLianhua Qingwen combined with conventional drugs may be a promising therapy for treating common pneumonia and COVID-19 pneumonia.

Project description:BackgroundAn outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) which was infected by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is still spreading and has led to unprecedented health emergency over the world. Though no specific drug has been developed so far, emerging agents have been confirmed effective or potentially beneficial to restrain it. Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) is a commonly used Chinese medical preparation to treat viral influenza, including in the fight against SARS in 2002-2003 in China. Recent data also showed that LHQW played a vigorous role in COVID-19 treatment.PurposeThis review will elucidate the pre-clinical and clinical evidence of LHQW in lung protection and antiviral activities, and provide timely data delivery for the exploration of effective treatment strategies in the therapy of COVID-19.Study design and methodThe research data were obtained from the academic databases (up to August 8, 2020) including Pubmed, CNKI and Web of Science, on ethnobotany and ethno medicines. The search keywords for screening the literature information were "virus", "COVID-19", or "SARS-CoV-2", and "Lianhua Qingwen". The documents were filtered and summarized for final evaluation.ResultsThe collected evidence demonstrated that LHQW exhibited benefits against COVID-19. Impressively, LHQW in conjunction with conventional treatment could significantly improve COVID-19 patients as a synergetic strategy. The mechanisms were mainly involved the antiviral activity, and regulation of inflammation response as well as immune function.ConclusionAlthough the data were far from adequate, the latest advances had shown the benefits of LHQW in COVID-19, especially in combination with other antiviral drugs. This review provides comprehensive evidence of LHQW as a complementary strategy for treating COVID-19. Nevertheless, imperious researches should be conducted to clarify the unconfirmed effects, regulatory mechanisms and adverse reactions of LHQW in treating COVID-19 by means of well designed randomized controlled trials.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:As the global epidemic continues to spread, countries have tapped effective drugs to treat new coronavirus pneumonia. The therapeutic effect of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in this new coronary pneumonia epidemic has attracted attention from all walks of life, and relevant research reports continue to appear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) (referred to as "new coronary pneumonia"), and evaluated the overall level of research quality. METHODS:We searched seven databases and retrieved the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Vip Database (VIP), China Biomedicine (SinoMed), Wanfang Database and PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE from October 2019 to May 2020 Literature references. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia. The authors extracted data and independently assessed quality. We used Stata15.1 software to analyze the data of randomized trials. RESULTS:A total of 2 articles were identified, including 154 patients. All the participating patients were diagnosed with new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). The meta-analysis results showed that the disappearance rate of the main clinical symptoms of Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia was significantly higher than that of the control group [OR = 3.34, 95% CI (2.06, 5.44), P <0.001]; the disappearance rate of other clinical secondary symptoms is significantly higher than the control group [OR = 6.54, 95% CI (3.59, 11.90), P <0.001]. The duration of fever was significantly lower than that of the control group [OR = -1.04, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.49), P <0.001]. It is confirmed that the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen treatment improves the clinical effectiveness, and also has certain advantages in relieving cough and fever. CONCLUSION:The treatment of new pneumonia with traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague can be used as an effective therapy to improve the clinical symptoms of new coronary pneumonia. More rigorous design, multi-center, and prospective RCTs are necessary to further determine the effectiveness and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus decoction in the treatment of new pneumonia.

Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80-1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52-0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9-100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51-0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38-1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24, five RCTs), respectively.ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a type of pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that was identified in December 2019. Corticosteroid therapy was empirically used for clinical treatment in the early stage of the disease outbreak; however, data regarding its efficacy and safety are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP) databases were searched for studies. Data on clinical improvement, mortality, virus clearance time, adverse events (AEs), utilization of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and hospital stay were extracted by two authors independently. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model, and the quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.ResultsEleven cohort studies (corticosteroid group vs control group), two retrospective cohort studies (without control group), and seven case studies were identified. A total of 2840 patients were included. Compared with the control treatments, corticosteroid therapy was associated with clinical recovery (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.98, 1.72]) and a significantly shortened length of ICU hospitalization (RR = -6.50; 95% CI [-7.63 to -5.37]), but it did not affect the mortality ((RR = 1.59; 95% CI [0.69-3.66], I2 = 93.5%), utilization of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI [0.10, 1.18]), duration of symptoms (WMD = 1.69; 95% CI [-0.24 to 3.62]) or virus clearance time (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [-0.91 to 2.92], I2 = 57%) in COVID-19 patients. Treatment with corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 may cause mild adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.ConclusionThe findings of our study indicate that corticosteroid therapy is not highly effective, but it appears to improve prognosis and promote clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19.