Traditional Chinese Medicine guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practice in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and provide timely clinical practice guidance. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with the World Health Organization rapid guideline process. The evidence on TCM for COVID-19 from published guidelines, direct and indirect published clinical evidence, first hand clinical data, and expert experience and consensus were collected. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) method was used to grade the evidence and make the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence, the guidelines recommended 17 Chinese medicines for COVID-19: 2 Chinese herbal granules, 7 Chinese patent medicines, and 8 Chinese herbal injections. CONCLUSION: As the literature search was conducted on March, any subsequent versions of these guidelines require an up-to-date literature review. We hope that the evidence summary in these will be helpful in global efforts to address COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine use and progression or prognosis of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been implicated in antiviral activity in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is still controversy about whether HCQ should be used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the conflicting results in different clinical trials. To systematically assess the benefits and harms of HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Data sources were systematically searched from Pubmed, Biorxiv, ChiCTR, Clinicalrials.gov , and the Cochrane library of RCTs for studies published from inception to June 1, 2020, to obtain any possible inclusion. This meta-analysis of inclusion criteria was directed on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Pooled studies by the title and abstract were screened and removed in the light of meta-analysis by two reviewers. Seven studies involving 851 participants with COVID-19 were eligible for analysis. There was no significant difference in RT-PCR negative conversion between HCQ group and standard treatment (ST) group (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.77-1.59, P = 0.591). The rate of exacerbated pneumonia on chest CT in HCQ group was lower than that in ST group (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94, P = 0.035). There was no statistical difference in progressed illness between the HCQ group and the ST group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.18-2.43, P = 0.530). Death (RR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.26-2.93, P = 0.003) was distinctly different in HCQ group compared with ST group in the treatment of COVID-19. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no robust evidence to support prescribing HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.