Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19: Current evidence with systematic review and meta-analysis / 中西医结合学报

BACKGROUND@#There is currently no drug or therapy that cures COVID-19, a highly contagious and life-threatening disease.@*OBJECTIVE@#This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized contemporary studies that report the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) to treat COVID-19.@*SEARCH STRATEGY@#Six electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched from their beginning to May 15, 2020 with the following search terms: traditional Chinese medicine, Chinese medicine, Chinese herbal medicine, COVID-19, new coronavirus pneumonia, SARS-CoV-2, and randomized controlled trial.@*INCLUSION CRITERIA@#Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from peer-reviewed journals and non-reviewed publications were included. Further, included RCTs had a control group that was given standard care (SC; such as conventional Western medicine treatments or routine medical care), and a treatment group that was given SC plus CHM.@*DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS@#Two evaluators screened and collected literature independently; information on participants, study design, interventions, follow-up and adverse events were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed. The primary outcomes included scores that represented changes in symptoms and signs over the course of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the level of inflammatory markers, improvement of pneumonia confirmed by computed tomography (CT), and adverse events. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI); where time-to-event analysis was used, outcomes were expressed as odds ratio with 95% CI. Continuous data were expressed as difference in means (MD) with 95% CI, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was used when different outcome scales were pooled.@*RESULTS@#Seven original studies, comprising a total of 732 adults, were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to SC alone, CHM plus SC had a superior effect on the change of symptom and sign score (-1.30 by SMD, 95% CI [-2.43, -0.16]; 3 studies; n = 261, P = 0.03), on inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP, mg/L; -11.82 by MD, 95% CI [-17.95, -5.69]; 5 studies; n = 325, P = 0.0002), on number of patients with improved lung CT scans (1.34 by risk ratio, 95% CI [1.19, 1.51]; 4 studies; n = 489, P < 0.00001). No significant adverse events were recorded in the included RCTs.@*CONCLUSION@#Current evidence shows that CHM, as an adjunct treatment with standard care, helps to improve treatment outcomes in COVID-19 cases.

Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19: Current evidence with systematic review and meta-analysis / 中西医结合学报

BACKGROUND@#There is currently no drug or therapy that cures COVID-19, a highly contagious and life-threatening disease.@*OBJECTIVE@#This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized contemporary studies that report the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) to treat COVID-19.@*SEARCH STRATEGY@#Six electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched from their beginning to May 15, 2020 with the following search terms: traditional Chinese medicine, Chinese medicine, Chinese herbal medicine, COVID-19, new coronavirus pneumonia, SARS-CoV-2, and randomized controlled trial.@*INCLUSION CRITERIA@#Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from peer-reviewed journals and non-reviewed publications were included. Further, included RCTs had a control group that was given standard care (SC; such as conventional Western medicine treatments or routine medical care), and a treatment group that was given SC plus CHM.@*DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS@#Two evaluators screened and collected literature independently; information on participants, study design, interventions, follow-up and adverse events were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed. The primary outcomes included scores that represented changes in symptoms and signs over the course of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the level of inflammatory markers, improvement of pneumonia confirmed by computed tomography (CT), and adverse events. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI); where time-to-event analysis was used, outcomes were expressed as odds ratio with 95% CI. Continuous data were expressed as difference in means (MD) with 95% CI, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was used when different outcome scales were pooled.@*RESULTS@#Seven original studies, comprising a total of 732 adults, were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to SC alone, CHM plus SC had a superior effect on the change of symptom and sign score (-1.30 by SMD, 95% CI [-2.43, -0.16]; 3 studies; n = 261, P = 0.03), on inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP, mg/L; -11.82 by MD, 95% CI [-17.95, -5.69]; 5 studies; n = 325, P = 0.0002), on number of patients with improved lung CT scans (1.34 by risk ratio, 95% CI [1.19, 1.51]; 4 studies; n = 489, P < 0.00001). No significant adverse events were recorded in the included RCTs.@*CONCLUSION@#Current evidence shows that CHM, as an adjunct treatment with standard care, helps to improve treatment outcomes in COVID-19 cases.

Discussions on real-world acupuncture treatments for chronic low-back pain in older adults / 中西医结合学报

Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common pain conditions. Current clinical guidelines for low-back pain recommend acupuncture for CLBP. However, there are very few high-quality acupuncture studies on CLBP in older adults. Clinical acupuncture experts in the American Traditional Chinese Medicine Association (ATCMA) were interested in the recent grant on CLBP research announced by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The ATCMA experts held an online discussion on the subject of real-world acupuncture treatments for CLBP in older adults. Seven participants, each with more than 20 years of acupuncture practice, discussed their own unique clinical experience while another participant talked about the potential mechanism of acupuncture in pain management. As a result of the discussion, a picture of a similar treatment strategy emerged across the participants for CLBP in older adults. This discussion shows that acupuncture may have complicated mechanisms in pain management, yet it is effective for the treatment of chronic pain involving maladaptive neuroplasticity; therefore, it should be effective for CLBP in older adults.

Acupuncture price in forty-one metropolitan regions in the United States: An out-of-pocket cost analysis based on OkCopay.com / 中西医结合学报

Few studies have focused on the cost of acupuncture treatments although acupuncture has become popular in the United States (U.S.). The purpose of the current study was to examine the out-of-pocket costs incurred from acupuncture services based on an online website, OkCopay.com. We examined descriptive statistics (range, median and 20% intervals) for the cost of acupuncture "first-time visits" and "follow-up visits" in 41 metropolitan regions in the U.S. The acupuncture prices of 723 clinics throughout 39 metropolitan regions were included, except for Birmingham, Alabama and Detroit, Michigan as there was no online data available at the time of the study for these two regions. The cost range for a first-time acupuncture visit was $15-400; the highest median was $150 in Charleston, South Carolina, while the lowest was $45 in St. Louis, Missouri. The top 10 cities for the highest median were: Baltimore, Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland and Indianapolis, with the median $120, while the median for all 723 clinics was $112. For the follow-up visits, the cost range was $15-300; the highest median was $108 in Charleston, South Carolina, and the lowest $40 in Miami, Florida. The 10 cities with highest median follow-up acupuncture visit costs were: New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Boston and Atlanta, with the median $85, while for all 723 clinics the median price was $80. The estimation of the average gross annual income of each acupuncturist from the regions studied was $95,760, while the total annual cost of patients seeking acupuncture services in the U.S. was about $3.5 billion in 2018.