Role of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Management of Viral Pneumonia.

Viral pneumonia is one kind of acute respiratory tract infection caused by the virus. There have been many outbreaks of viral pneumonia with high contagiousness and mortality both in China and abroad, such as the great influenza in 1918, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus in 2003, the Influenza A (H1N1) virus in 2009, and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012 and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2019. These outbreaks and/or pandemic have significant impact on human life, social behaviors, and economic development. Moreover, no specific drug has been developed for these viruses. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plays an important role in the treatment of viral pneumonia during these outbreaks especially in SARS and SARS-CoV-2 because studies suggest that TCM formulations may target several aspects of the disease and may have lesser side effects than manufactured pharmaceuticals. In recent years, a lot of clinicians and researchers have made a series of in-depth explorations and investigations on the treatment of viral pneumonia with TCM, which have understood TCM therapeutic mechanisms more specifically and clearly. But critical analysis of this research in addition to further studies are needed to assess the potential of TCM in the treatment of viral pneumonia.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Based on Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials. METHODS: A preliminary list of outcomes was developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses, and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Then different stakeholders participated in a consensus meeting by video conference to vote. RESULTS: Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials. Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS included clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), and symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instruments/definitions were also recommended. CONCLUSION: Though there are some limitations for the research, such as insufficient patients and the public involvement, and the unbalanced stakeholders' region, the COS for COVID-19 may improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. It also should be updated with research progression.