Qingjin Yiqi granules for post-COVID-19 condition: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Qingjin Yiqi granules (QJYQ) on post-COVID-19 condition (PCC). METHOD: Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to two groups, the QJYQ group received QJYQ combined with standard rehabilitation treatments (SRTs) and the control group only received SRTs. The treatment course was 14 days. The primary outcomes were modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale and Borg scale, while the secondary outcomes included symptoms score and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD). The safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients with PCC were enrolled and randomly assigned to the QJYQ group (n = 194) and the control group (n = 194). Compared to the controls, the mMRC scale was improved in the QJYQ group, which was better than that of the control group [ß (95%CI): -0.626 (-1.101, -0.151), p = 0.010]. A significant improvement in Borg scale was also observed in the QJYQ group compared to the control group [ß (95%CI): -0.395(-0.744, -0.046), p = 0.026]. There was no statistically significant difference in symptoms score and 6MWD between the two groups (p = 0.293, p = 0.724). No treatment-related adverse events were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: QJYQ can bring benefits to patients with PCC, mainly in the improvement of breathlessness and fatigue.

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.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COS-COVID).

Since its outbreak in December 2019, a series of clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered or carried out. However, the significant heterogeneity and less critical outcomes of such trials may be leading to a waste of research resources. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on COVID-19 in order to tackle the outcome issues. The study was conducted according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook: Version 1.0, a guideline for COS development. A research group was set up that included experts in respiratory and critical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), evidence-based medicine, clinical pharmacology, and statistics, in addition to medical journal editors. Clinical trial registry websites (www.chictr.org.cn and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to retrieve clinical trial protocols and outcomes in order to form an outcome pool. A total of 78 clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 were included and 259 outcomes were collected. After standardization, 132 outcomes were identified within seven different categories, of which 58 were selected to develop a preliminary outcome list for further consensus. After two rounds of Delphi survey and one consensus meeting, the most important outcomes for the different clinical classifications of COVID-19 were identified and determined to constitute the COS for clinical trials on COVID-19 (COS-COVID). The COS-COVID includes one outcome for the mild type (time to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity), four outcomes for the ordinary type (length of hospital stay, composite events, score of clinical symptoms, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), five outcomes for the severe type (composite events, length of hospital stay, arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), one outcome for critical type (all-cause mortality), and one outcome for rehabilitation period (pulmonary function). The COS-COVID is currently the most valuable and practical clinical outcome set for the evaluation of intervention effect, and is useful for evidence assessment and decision-making. With a deepening understanding of COVID-19 and application feedback, the COS-COVID should be continuously updated.