Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

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.

Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

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.

Qing-Wen-Jie-Re Mixture Ameliorates Poly (I:C)-Induced Viral Pneumonia Through Regulating the Inflammatory Response and Serum Metabolism.

Qing-Wen-Jie-Re mixture (QWJR) has been used in the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. However, the protective mechanisms of QWJR on viral pneumonia remain unclear. In the present study, we first investigated the therapeutic effects of QWJR on a rat viral pneumonia model established by using polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid (poly (I:C)). The results indicated that QWJR could relieve the destruction of alveolar-capillary barrier in viral pneumonia rats, as represented by the decreased wet/dry weight (W/D) ratio in lung, total cell count and total protein concentration in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). Besides, QWJR could also down-regulate the expression of inflammatory factors such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-1ß and IL-6. More M1-type macrophage polarization was detected by calculating CD86+ cells and CD206+ cells and validated by the decline of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and elevated arginase-1 (Arg-1) in lung. Finally, serum untargeted metabolomics analysis demonstrated that QWJR might take effect through regulating arginine metabolism, arachidonic acid (AA) metabolism, tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, nicotinate and nicotinamide metabolism processes.

[Proposal of Living Evidence-based Guideline for Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treatment of COVID-19].

In order to standardize the clinical diagnosis and treatment decision-making with traditional Chinese medicine for pa-tients of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) and put the latest clinical study evidence into clinical practice, the international trust-worthy traditional Chinese medicine recommendations( TCM Recs) working group started the compilation of Living Evidence-based Guideline for Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treatment of COVID-19 on the basis of the standards and re-quirements of WHO handbook, GRADE and RIGHT. This proposal mainly introduces the formulation methods and processes of the living guidelines in details, such as the composition of the working group, the collection and identification of clinical issues and out-comes, the production of the living systematic review and the consensus of recommendations. The guidelines will continue to monitor the clinical study evidences of TCM in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, and conduct regular evidence updating, retrieval and screening. When there is new study evidence, the steering committee will evaluate the possibility of the evidence to change clinical practice or previous recommendations, so as to decide whether the recommendations for the guidelines shall be implemented or upda-ted. The main criteria considered in the guideline updating are as follows:(1) There are new high-quality randomized controlled trial(RCT) evidences for TCM uninvolved in the previous edition of the guidelines;(2) as for the TCM involved in the guidelines, living sys-tematic review shows that new evidence may change the direction or strength of the existing recommendations. The specific implementation of the living evidence-based guidelines will take this proposal as the study basis and framework, in order to ensure the standardization of the formulation process and methods. This will be the first exploration of the methodology for living guidelines in the field of TCM.

Integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19: A living evidence-based guideline (version 1).

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Living evidence-based guideline. METHODS: This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS: The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. CONCLUSION: This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

[A multicenter prospective cohort study of Xuebijing injection in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Xuebijing injection on the improvement of pneumonia severity index (PSI) and prognosis in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study was designed. Adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of 28 designated COVID-19 hospitals in 15 provinces and cities of China from January to March 2020 were enrolled. All patients were treated according to the standard treatment plan of COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. They were divided into Xuebijing group and standard treatment group according to whether they received Xuebijing injection or not. In the standard treatment group, routine medical care measures such as antiviral, respiratory support, circulatory support and symptomatic treatment were taken. In the Xuebijing group, on the basis of standard treatment, Xuebijing was used within 12 hours of admission to the ICU, 100 mL each time, twice daily. The minimum duration of Xuebijing administration was 1 day. The improvement rate of PSI risk rating on the 8th day and clinical outcome on the 28th day were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 276 COVID-19 patients were screened continuously, and the data of 144 severe patients who met PSI risk rating III-V were analyzed. Seventy-two cases were involved each in standard treatment group and Xuebijing group. The average age of the standard treatment group and Xuebijing group were (65.7±7.9) years old and (63.5±10.9) years old, and male accounted for 75.0% (54/72) and 70.8% (51/72), respectively. There were no significant differences in general conditions, comorbidities, PSI risk rating and score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory support mode and other baseline indicators between the two groups. Compared with the standard treatment group, the improvement rate of PSI risk rating in Xuebijing group on the 8th day after admission was significantly improved [56.9% (41/72) vs. 20.8% (15/72), between-group difference and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 36.1% (21.3% to 50.9%), P < 0.01], PSI score, SOFA score and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved [PSI score: 83.7±34.8 vs. 108.2±25.6, between-group difference (95%CI) was -24.5 (-34.9 to -14.1); SOFA score: 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 7.0 (4.0, 10.0), between-group difference (95%CI) was -3.5 (-5.0 to -2.0); PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 289.4±111.6 vs. 188.5±98.1, between-group difference (95%CI) was 100.9 (65.3 to 136.5); all P < 0.01]. The 28-day discharge rate of Xuebijing group was 44.5% higher than that of standard treatment group [66.7% (48/72) vs. 22.2% (16/72), P < 0.01], and the 28-day survival rate was 9.8% [91.7% (66/72) vs. 81.9% (59/72), P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the combination of antiviral drugs, antibiotics, anticoagulants and vasopressor drugs between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Xuebijing group and standard treatment group [41.7% (30/72) vs. 43.1% (31/72), P > 0.05], and no serious adverse events and adverse reactions of Xuebijing were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Standard treatment combined with Xuebijing injection can significantly improve the PSI risk score and clinical prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19 without increasing drug safety risk.

Evaluating the methodology of studies conducted during the global COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic evidence collected from well-designed studies is needed to help manage the global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evaluating the quality of therapeutic data collected during this most recent pandemic is important for improving future clinical research under similar circumstances. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality and variability in implementation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treating COVID-19, and to analyze the support that should be provided to improve data collected during an urgent pandemic situation. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and Chongqing VIP, and the preprint repositories including Social Science Research Network and MedRxiv were systematically searched, up to September 30, 2020, using the keywords "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)," "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)," "severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)," "novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP)," "randomized controlled trial (RCT)" and "random." INCLUSION CRITERIA: RCTs studying the treatment of COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of published RCTs for inclusion and data extraction were each conducted by two researchers. Analysis of general information on COVID-19 RCTs was done using descriptive statistics. Methodological quality was assessed using the risk-of-bias tools in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). Variability in implementation was assessed by comparing consistency between RCT reports and registration information. RESULTS: A total of 5886 COVID-19 RCTs were identified. Eighty-one RCTs were finally included, of which, 45 had registration information. Methodological quality of the RTCs was not optimal due to deficiencies in five main domains: allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Comparisons of consistency between published protocols and registration information showed that the 45 RCTs with registration information had common deviations in seven items: inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, outcomes, research sites of recruitment, interventions, and blinding. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of COVID-19 RCTs conducted in early to mid 2020 was consistently low and variability in implementation was common. More support for implementing high-quality methodology is needed to obtain the quality of therapeutic evidence needed to provide positive guidance for clinical care. We make an urgent appeal for accelerating the construction of a collaborative sharing platform and preparing multidisciplinary talent and professional teams to conduct excellent clinical research when faced with epidemic diseases of the future. Further, variability in RCT implementation should be clearly reported and interpreted to improve the utility of data resulting from those trials.

The RIGHT Extension Statement for Traditional Chinese Medicine: Development, Recommendations, and Explanation.

Nowadays, the number of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines is constantly increasing, but its reporting quality remains unsatisfactory. One of the main reasons is that there is a lack of suitable reporting standard to guide it. In response to this long-standing problem, the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) Working Group has invited a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists and epidemiology, and developed the RIGHT Extension Statement for TCM (RIGHT-TCM) through a multi-staged development process, including systematic review, reporting quality evaluation and online Delphi expert consensus. The RIGHT-TCM extends two sections of the RIGHT Statement, includes basic information and recommendations section. Seven strong recommendation sub-items were added to RIGHT Statement and formed the final RIGHT-TCM. The group hopes that the RIGHT-TCM may assist TCM guideline developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering TCM guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a TCM guideline. This article will introduce its background, development, recommendations and explanation.

Cardiac injury associated with severe disease or ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac injury is now a common complication of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but it remains unclear whether cardiac injury-related biomarkers can be independent predictors of mortality and severe disease development or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. METHODS: Two investigators searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv databases for articles published through March 30, 2020. Retrospective studies assessing the relationship between the prognosis of COVID-19 patients and levels of troponin I (TnI) and other cardiac injury biomarkers (creatine kinase [CK], CK myocardial band [CK-MB], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], and interleukin-6 [IL-6]) were included. The data were extracted independently by two investigators. RESULTS: The analysis included 23 studies with 4631 total individuals. The proportions of severe disease, ICU admission, or death among patients with non-elevated TnI (or troponin T [TnT]), and those with elevated TnI (or TnT) were 12.0% and 64.5%, 11.8% and 56.0%, and 8.2% and. 59.3%, respectively. Patients with elevated TnI levels had significantly higher risks of severe disease, ICU admission, and death (RR 5.57, 95% CI 3.04 to 10.22, P < 0.001; RR 6.20, 95% CI 2.52 to 15.29, P < 0.001; RR 5.64, 95% CI 2.69 to 11.83, P < 0.001). Patients with an elevated CK level were at significantly increased risk of severe disease or ICU admission (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.61, P < 0.001). Patients with elevated CK-MB levels were at a higher risk of developing severe disease or requiring ICU admission (RR 3.24, 95% CI 1.66 to 6.34, P = 0.001). Patients with newly occurring arrhythmias were at higher risk of developing severe disease or requiring ICU admission (RR 13.09, 95% CI 7.00 to 24.47, P < 0.001). An elevated IL-6 level was associated with a higher risk of developing severe disease, requiring ICU admission, or death. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients with elevated TnI levels are at significantly higher risk of severe disease, ICU admission, and death. Elevated CK, CK-MB, LDH, and IL-6 levels and emerging arrhythmia are associated with the development of severe disease and need for ICU admission, and the mortality is significantly higher in patients with elevated LDH and IL-6 levels.

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.