[Traditional Chinese medicine treatment of asymptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2].

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been infected rapidly and is generally susceptible to population. Moreover, it has become the most serious public health problem in the world. In the process of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention has achieved positive efficacy and which is widely recognized. However, the COVID-19 epidemic is still very serious, especially due to the characteristics of asymptomatic infection such as concealment, limitations and subjective symptoms, which has increased the difficulty of prevention and control. In view of asymptomatic infection, isolation is the main management. There is little mention of specific treatment options in each version of COVID-19 treatment plan. Through systematic study of TCM theory, we explored the way of diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic infections. Based on the theory of latent evil, clearing away latent pathogens to truncate the course of disease and reduce the incidence. Based on the theory of prevention of disease, strengthen the lung and stomach to protect the place from pathogen and prevent the transmission of disease evil. It is supplemented by accurate treatment according to individual, timing and local conditions, in order to provide reference for the treatment of asymptomatic infection.

Comparative efficacy of Chinese herbal injections for treating severe pneumonia: A protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Severe pneumonia (SP) has a high mortality and is responsible for significant healthcare cost. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) have been widely used in China as a novel and promising treatment option for SP. Therefore, this study will assess and rank the effectiveness of CHIs to provide more sights for the selection of SP treatment. METHOD: Seven databases will be searched, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) from their inception up to October, 2021. The literatures screening, data extraction and the quality assessment of included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Then Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) will be performed by WinBUGS 14.0 and STATA 14.0 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values will be applied to rank the examined treatments. The risk of bias of each included study will be evaluated using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2). Publication bias will be reflected by a funnel plot. RESULTS: The results of this NMA will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication. CONCLUSION: Our study findings maybe reveal which CHI or CHIs will be better in the treatment of SP and provide more therapy strategies for clinical practitioners and patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021244587. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can integrate direct evidence with indirect evidence of severe pneumonia treated by Chinese herbal injections to generate a clinically useful ranking of these regimens. This NMA will address Chinese herbal injections for SP and its findings may help to provide more sights for selection of SP treatment. Evidence drawn from an NMA is limited and should be interpreted with caution. We only included studies in Chinese and English languages, which may increase the publication bias.

Comparative Efficacy of Chinese Herbal Injections for Treating Severe Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Severe pneumonia (SP) has a high mortality rate and is responsible for significant healthcare costs. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) have been widely used in China as a novel and promising treatment option for SP. Therefore, this study assessed and ranked the effectiveness of CHIs to provide more sights for the selection of SP treatment. Method: Seven databases were searched from their inception up to April 1, 2021. The methodological quality of included study was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Then, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by OpenBUGS 3.2.3 and STATA 14.0 software. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the examined treatments. A clustering analysis was utilized to compare the effect of CHIs between two different outcomes. Results: A total of 64 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5,904 participants were identified for this analysis. Six CHIs including Xuebijing injection (XBJ), Tanreqing injection (TRQ), Reduning injection (RDN), Xiyanping injection (XYP), Shenfu injection (SF), and Shenmai injection (SM) were included. The results of the NMA showed that XBJ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.24, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.19, 0.30], TRQ (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.37), RDN (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.94), and SM (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.63) combined with conventional Western medicine (WM) improved the clinical effective rate more significantly than WM alone. Based on SUCRA values, TRQ + WM (SUCRA: 66.4%) ranked the highest in improving the clinical effective rate, second in four different outcomes, and third in only one. According to the cluster analysis, TRQ + WM exerted a positive effect on improving the efficacy of SP. As for safety, less than 30% (18 RCTs) of the included studies reported adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs), including 14 RCTs of XBJ, 3 RCTs of TRQ, and 1 RCT of RDN. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study found that the CHIs as co-adjuvant therapy could be beneficial for patients with SP. TRQ + WM showed an outstanding improvement in patients with SP considering both the clinical effective rate and other outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021244587].

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.