ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%);shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs);increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine (Q-14) plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adult with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Study DESIGN Single-center, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China, February 27 to March 27, 2020. PARTICIPANTS 204 patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were randomised in to treatment group and control group, which was 102 patients each group. INTERVENTIONS In treatment group, Q-14 was administrated at 10g (granules), twice daily for 14 days and plus standard care. In control group, patients were given standard care alone for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The primary outcome was conversion time of SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. Adverse events were analyzed in the safety population. RESULTS Among 204 patients, 195 were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. There were 149 patients (71 vs. 78 in treatment group and control group respectively) turning to negative via SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. No statistically significance showed in conversion time between treatment group and control group (FAS: Median (IQR): 10.00 (9.00-11.00) vs. 10.00 (9.00-11.00); Mean rank: 67.92 vs. 81.44; P=0.051.). Time to recovery of fever was shorter in treatment group as compared in control group. The disappearance rate of symptom in cough, fatigue, chest discomfort was significantly higher in treatment group. In chest computed tomography (Chest CT) examinations, overall evaluation of chest CT examination after treatment compared with baseline showed more patients improved in treatment group .There were no significant differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION Administration of Q-14 on standard care for COVID-19 was useful for improvement of symptoms (such as fever, cough, fatigue and chest discomfort), while did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. No serious adverse events were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION ChiCTR2000030288