scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heping Wang ◽  
Bowen Xu ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Yuanyuan Duan ◽  
Ruike Gao ◽  
...  

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.

Transfusion ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lunan Wang ◽  
Le Chang ◽  
Yunzheng Xie ◽  
Chengyin Huang ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei Han ◽  
Jingbo Zou ◽  
Wenguang Tian ◽  
Xiaoyu Wei ◽  
Yang Zhou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus in China (COVID-19) represents a significant and urgent threat to global health. We report here five cases of COVID-19 infection patients in our clinical practices who are medically stable and presumed to successfully “cleared” the virus after antiviral treatments. Case presentation: The clinical evaluation depends on the viral nucleic acid test in respiratory specimens by real-time PCR reverse transcription (RT-PCR) assays according to the authorized guidance. We found that the stool samples of these cured patients remain positive in RT-PCR assay while the virus is undetectable in respiratory specimens. RT-PCR molecular diagnostic assay was designed to specifically detect the presence of viral RNA. Thus, the positive result in the fecal specimens implies the existence of viable virions with the patients. Conclusions: This highlights the importance to look closely at the assessment standard of medical treatment, as well as the need for reevaluation of the criteria for the initial screening, prevention, and care of patients with this emerging infection.


Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (48) ◽  
pp. e27933
Author(s):  
Yanru Cui ◽  
Jilin Wang ◽  
Gaofeng Wang ◽  
Xiuguo Xie ◽  
Lizhen Tian

2021 ◽  
pp. 131138
Author(s):  
Yinhuan Wu ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Hai-tao Li ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Yi Dong ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 597 ◽  
pp. 113672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangyuan Zheng ◽  
Sufang Li ◽  
Sunan Wang ◽  
Tao Feng ◽  
Zejun Jiang ◽  
...  

Hepatology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 1208-1209
Author(s):  
Trana Hussaini ◽  
Mel Krajden ◽  
Robert A. Mitchell ◽  
Eric M. Yoshida

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document