The use of Panax notoginseng saponins injections after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: As a bioactive metabolite preparation widely used in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), the efficacy and safety of Panax notoginseng saponins injections (PNSI) in patients with AIS after intravenous thrombolysis remain to be evaluated. Methods: This study included randomized controlled trials published before 26 April 2024 in 8 databases. AIS patients who received intravenous thrombolysis were included. The control group receiving conventional treatment and the treatment group receiving additional PNSI. Primary outcomes were selected as mortality, disability, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were selected as all-cause mortality, improvement of neurological deficit, quality of life, and cerebral injury indicators. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated for binary variables and continuous variables, respectively, based on a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 20 trials involving 1,856 participants were included. None of them reported mortality or disability. There was no significant difference in the adverse events [RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.81] and hemorrhagic transformation [RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.70] between the two groups. Compared to the control group, the treatment group had a better effect in neurological improvement assessed by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [MD: -2.91; 95% CI: -4.76 to -1.06], a better effect in activities of daily living changes in Barthel Index [MD: 9.37; 95% CI: 1.86 to 16.88], and a lower serum neuron-specific enolase level [MD: -2.08; 95% CI: -2.67 to -1.49]. Conclusion: For AIS patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis, the use of PNSI improved neurological deficits and enhanced activity of daily living in the short term without increasing the occurrence rate of adverse events. However, due to the moderate to very low certainty of evidence, it is advisable to conduct high-quality clinical trials to validate the findings of this study. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=466851, Identifier CRD42023466851.

Expert consensus on the use of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of common symptoms of post-COVID-19 short-term condition.

A proportion of patients who recovered from COVID-19 have ongoing, recurrent, or new symptoms with negative nucleic acid/antigen test results, which has become a new public health problem that needs to be concerned. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has shown its unique advantages in preventing, treating, and rehabilitating COVID-19. To further standardize clinician's clinical diagnosis and use of TCM for the treatment of common symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection following negative nucleic acid/antigen results, the front-line clinical experts were invited for discussion on the concepts, etiology, clinical manifestations of post-COVID-19 condition, and on treatment with TCM to form the consensus. Clinicians of TCM, Western medicine, or integration of both can use this consensus document for clinical practice and research purposes.

[Evaluation methods of clinical efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine].

Clinical efficacy is the basis for the development of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM), and the evaluation of clinical efficacy of TCM has always been the focus of attention. The technical and methodological difficulties in the evaluation process often restrict the generation of high-level evidence. Therefore, methodological research should be deepened and innovative practice should be carried out to study the application of scientific research methods in the evaluation of the advantages of TCM. After more than ten years of development, the clinical efficacy evaluation of TCM, on the basis of the initially classic placebo randomized controlled trials, has successively carried out a series of meaningful attempts and explorations in N-of-1 trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, real world studies, narrative medicine studies, systematic evaluation, and other aspects, laying the foundation for the transformation of TCM from "experience" to "evidence". This paper focused on the clinical efficacy evaluation of TCM, summarized the main connotation and development status of efficacy evaluation indicators, standards, and methods, and put forward corresponding countermeasures and suggestions for the problems of indicator selection, standard formulation, and methodology optimization in the research process. It is clear that scientific and objective evaluation of the efficacy of TCM is an urgent problem to be solved at present.

[Problems and thoughts in clinical safety evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine].

Amid the modernization and internationalization of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM), the safety of TCM has attracted much attention. At the moment, the government, scientific research teams, and pharmaceutical enterprises have made great efforts to explore methods and techniques for clinical safety evaluation of TCM. Although considerable achievements have been made, there are still many problems, such as the non-standard terms of adverse reactions of TCM, unclear evaluation indicators, unreasonable judgment methods, lack of evaluation models, out-of-date evaluation standards, and unsound reporting systems. Therefore, it is urgent to further deepen the research mode and method of clinical safety evaluation of TCM. Based on the current national requirements for the life-cycle management of drugs, this study focused on the problems in the five dimensions of clinical safety evaluation of TCM, including normative terms, evaluation modes, judgment methods, evaluation standards, and reporting systems, and proposed suggestions on the development of a life-cycle clinical safety evaluation method that conformed to the characteristics of TCM, hoping to provide a reference for future research.

Comorbidities and complications of COVID-19 associated with disease severity, progression, and mortality in China with centralized isolation and hospitalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes life-threatening with the high-fatality rates and spreads with high-infectious disease worldwide. We aimed to systematically review the comorbidities and complications of COVID-19 that are associated with various disease severity, progression, and mortality in China, to provide contemporary and reliable estimates in settings with centralized isolation and hospitalization. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched four main English language databases, and four main Chinese language databases for observational studies published from inception to January 2022, to identify all the related comorbidities and complications of COVID-19, in the China region with centralized isolation and hospitalization, with disease severity, progression, and mortality. Literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers. We used the generalized linear mixed model to estimate pooled effect sizes for any comorbidities and complications, and subgroup in gender ratio was done to further address the potential heterogeneity. Results: Overall, 187 studies describing 77,013 patients, namely, 54 different comorbidities and 46 various complications of COVID-19, were identified who met our inclusion criteria. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension [20.37% 95% CI (15.28-26.63), 19.29% (16.17-22.85), 34.72% (31.48-38.10), and 43.94% (38.94-49.06)] and diabetes [7.84% (5.78-10.54), 8.59% (7.25-10.16), 17.99% (16.29-19.84), and 22.68% (19.93-25.69)] in mild, moderate, severe, and critical cases. The most prevalent complications were liver injury [10.00% (1.39-46.72), 23.04% (14.20-35.13), and 43.48% (39.88-47.15)] in mild, moderate, and severe cases, and acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS; 94.17% (20.78-99.90)] and respiratory failure [90.69% (28.08-99.59)] in critical cases. Renal insufficiency [odds ratio (OR) 17.43 (6.69-45.43)] in comorbidities and respiratory failure [OR 105.12 (49.48-223.33)] in complications were strongly associated in severe/critical than in mild/moderate cases. The highest estimated risk in intensive care unit (ICU) admission, progression, and mortality was an autoimmune disease, nervous system disease, and stroke in comorbidities, shock, and ARDS in complications. Conclusion: Comorbidities and complications in inpatients with COVID-19 were positively associated with increased risk in severe and critical cases, ICU admission, exacerbation, and death during centralized isolation and hospitalization. Prompt identification of comorbidities and complications in inpatients with COVID-19 can enhance the prevention of disease progression and death and improve the precision of risk predictions.

Efficacy and safety of zhibitai in the treatment of hyperlipidemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zhibitai (ZBT) in the treatment of patients with hyperlipidemia (HLP). Methods: A search of 8 electronic databases was conducted to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ZBT for the treatment of HLP. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials 2.0 (RoB 2.0). The primary outcomes were the levels of triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). The total effective rate served as the secondary outcome. The incidence of adverse events was considered the safety outcome. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct meta-analyses. Data were pooled by random-effects or fixed-effects model to obtain the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: There were 28 eligible RCTs with a total of 2,952 participants. Overall, we verified that ZBT plus conventional therapy (CT) was superior to CT for the treatment of HLP [TC: MD = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.80, -0.19); TG: MD = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.49, -0.27); LDL-C: MD = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.69, -0.31); HDL-C: MD = 0.17, 95% CI (0.11, 0.24); total effective rate: OR = 4.26, 95% CI (2.28, 7.95)]. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes between ZBT alone vs. CT (p > 0.05). For safety, the ZBT group (with CT or alone) outperformed the CT group [ZBT alone: RR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.32, 0.81); ZBT plus CT: RR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.30, 0.89)]. For each outcome, the subgroups and the sensitivity analysis matched the overall results. Conclusion: ZBT may be safe and beneficial to HLP patients, especially for serum lipid management. ZBT can be used along with CT for the treatment of HLP. However, it is necessary to conduct more rigorous RCTs to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42022316251].

Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Honghua Injection in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease Angina Pectoris.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of honghua injection combined with western medicine in the treatment of coronary heart disease angina pectoris. Methods: Computer extensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China Biomedical Archives (SinoMed), China Knowledge Network (CNKI), Chinese Journal Full-text Database (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform (Wanfang), and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of honghua injection combined with western medicine in the treatment of coronary heart disease angina pectoris. Use Review Manager5.3 software for meta-analysis. Results: 21 RCTs were included, involving 1894 participants. Meta-analysis shows that honghua injection combined with western medicine can significantly improve the clinical efficacy (OR = 4.03, 95% CI[2.96,5.49]), electrocardiographic efficacy (OR = 3.39, 95%CI[2.44, 4.70]), can significantly reduce total cholesterol (TC) levels (MD = -0.39, 95% CI[-0.47, -0.31]), triacylglycerol (TG) levels (MD = -0.45, 95% CI[-0.51, -0.39]), increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (MD = 0.29,95%CI[0.26,0.32]), reduce low-density lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD = -0.59, 95%CI[-0.79, -0.38]). Five articles reported adverse reactions. Conclusion: Honghua injection combined with western medicine is more effective than western medicine alone in patients with coronary heart disease angina pectoris. More multicenter, large sample, high-quality RCTs are needed to provide evidence.

Traditional Chinese Medicine for COVID-19: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

To compare the efficacy of different traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and provide a higher level of evidence in the form of network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review. We searched the studies from the following databases: CNKI, VIP, WanFang, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from the establishment of the respective database until December 2021. Relevant studies were screened according to the pre-established inclusion criteria. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were assessed using the risk of bias (ROB) tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), respectively. R software 4.1.1 and Stata 13.1 were used for data analysis and mapping. A total of 34 studies were included in this network meta-analysis that tested 24 TCM interventions and included 3443 patients. Using cluster analysis of time to negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the length of hospital stay and composite events, we found that Jinyinhua oral liquid (JYH, 120 mL) + conventional Western medicine (CWM) has the highest SUCRA value at 88.64%, 85.61% and 84.24%. The traditional meta-analysis results revealed that Qingfei Paidu decoction + CWM were significantly different compared with CWM alone for the score of clinical symptoms (MD =-0.75, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.47]). Nine studies reported 57 adverse reactions (ADRs) and 3 adverse events (ADEs) in TCM + CWM groups, and eight studies reported 33 ADRs and 8 ADEs in CWM groups. In conclusion, the combination of TCM and CWM approaches may enhance the efficacy of CWM in COVID-19 patients. Based on the NMA result, JYH (120 mL) + CWM may be a more effective treatment and deserves further investigation. However, the differences in many comparisons between TCM interventions did not reach statistical significance; therefore, further high-quality studies are required to validate these findings.

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.

Developing a core outcome set on traditional Chinese medicine (COS-TCM) for chronic heart failure (CHF): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious and advanced stage of various cardiovascular diseases and portends poor prognosis. An increase in clinical studies has reported the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). For example, intravenous Chinese medicine can significantly improve cardiac function and biomarkers in patients with CHF. However, there exists inconsistency, lack of practicality and unclear reporting of outcomes in these clinical trials causing difficulty in the comparison of results across similar studies during data synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) can help in the standardisation of outcomes reported across studies from the same healthcare area. The aim of this study is to develop a COS on TCM for CHF (COS-TCM-CHF) to reduce heterogeneity in reporting and improve quality assessment in clinical trials to support data synthesis in addressing the effectiveness of TCM treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will include constructing an outcome pool which will identify potential outcomes through systematic reviews of TCM randomised clinical trials, two clinical registry databases, semi-structured interviews of patients and the clinicians' questionnaire. According to the characteristics of TCM and a taxonomy recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, all outcomes in the outcome pool will be classified into different domains. A preliminary list of outcomes which will then be used in the Delphi survey is generated using a certain criteria based on the length of the pool. The Delphi survey will include two rounds with seven key stakeholder groups to select candidate items for a consensus meeting. A final COS-TCM-CHF will be developed at a face-to-face consensus meeting involving representatives from the different stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval of this study has been granted by Evidence-based Medicine Centre of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Ethics Committee (TJUTCMEC201200002). We will disseminate our research findings of the final COS on the website of Chinese Clinical Trials for Core Outcome Set, with open access publications and present at international conferences to reach a wide range of knowledge users. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1486.

Efficacy and safety of Reduning injection in the treatment of COVID-19: a randomized, multicenter clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Reduning injection is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with known efficacy against a variety of viral infections, but there is no data about its efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: To explore the efficacy and safety of Reduning injection in the treatment of COVID-19, a randomized, open-labeled, multicenter, controlled trial was conducted from 12 general hospitals between 2020.02.06 and 2020.03.23. Patients with COVID-19 who met the diagnostic criteria of the "Diagnosis and Treatment Program for Novel Coronavirus Infection Pneumonia (Trial Fifth Edition)". Patients were randomized to routine treatment with or without Reduning injection (20 mL/day for 14 days) (ChiCTR2000029589). The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving clinical symptom recovery on day 14 of treatment. RESULTS: There were 77 and 80 participants in the Reduning and control groups. The symptom resolution rate at 14 days was higher in the Reduning injection than in controls [full-analysis set (FAS): 84.4% vs. 60.0%, P=0.0004]. Compared with controls, the Reduning group showed shorter median time to resolution of the clinical symptoms (143 vs. 313.5 h, P<0.001), shorter to nucleic acid test turning negative (146.5 vs. 255.5 h, P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (14.1 vs. 18.1 days, P<0.001), and shorter time to defervescence (29 vs. 71 h, P<0.001). There was no difference in AEs (3.9% vs. 8.8%, P=0.383). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary trial suggests that Reduning injection might be effective and safe in patients with symptomatic COVID-19.

[Differential analysis of different study types in clinical safety evaluation of Xuebijing Injection].

This study aimed to comprehensively analyze and compare the differences of different clinical study types currently published in the safety evaluation of Xuebijing Injection. Six databases, namely the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang database, were electronically retrieved to collect all types of studies on the safety of Xuebijing Injection, including randomized controlled trials, case-controlled studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and centralized monitoring studies of clinical safety(hospital), in order to comprehensively and objectively evaluate the safety of Xuebijing Injection, and analyze the differences of different research results. A total of 211 literatures were included, involving a total of 46 384 patients treated with Xuebijing Injection, and 423 adverse reactions(ADRs) occurred. They included 191 randomized controlled trials, 3 cohort studies, 15 systematic reviews, and 2 centralized monitoring studies of clinical safety(hospital), and the incidence of adverse reactions was 2.54%(common), 2.31%(common), 0.95%(occasionally), and 0.50%(occasionally). More than half of the 423 cases of ADRs occurred in skin and adnexal system(151 cases) and gastrointestinal system(65 cases), including such manifestations as rash, skin itching, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea. The degree of ADRs was mild. Randomized controlled trials showed that the incidence of ADR was the highest when Xuebijing Injection was used for malignant tumor and multiple organ failure. And the systematic evaluation showed that the incidence of ADR was the highest when Xuebijing Injection was used for spontaneous peritonitis of liver cirrhosis. In conclusion, different study types could lead to significant differences in the results of drug safety evaluation. Sample size, study type, and quality control are the main factors for biased results. Due to large sample size and high-quality, centralized monitoring studies become the better clinical safety evaluation model of drugs at present, and full life cycle management could more objectively reflect drug safety and guide clinical rational drug use.

[Systematic review of efficacy and safety of Compound Danshen Injection combined with Western medicine in treatment of vascular dementia].

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Compound Danshen Injection combined with Western medicine in the treatment of vascular dementia. Databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, Wanfang Data were electronically retrieved for collecting randomized controlled trial(RCT)about vascular dementia treated with Western medicine alone or combined with Compound Danshen Injection from the year of database establishment to January 2020. Two researchers independently screened out li-teratures, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias for inclusion in the study. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 5 RCTs were included, involving 588 patients, with 299 in treatment group and 289 in control group. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with Western medicine alone, Compound Danshen Injection combined with Western medicine was better in the effective rate(RR=1.23,95%CI[1.14,1.33],P<0.000 01), MMSE score(MD=3.54,95%CI[3.01,4.06],P<0.000 01), ADL score(MD=11.49,95%CI[8.05,14.93],P<0.000 01), the level of CRP(MD=-0.72,95%CI[-1.25,-0.20],P=0.007) and the level of IL-6(MD=-7.64,95%CI[-9.65,-5.63],P<0.000 01). Adverse reactions mainly included rash and skin prick, which did not affect the treatment effect. Based on the findings, the combination of Compound Danshen Injection in the treatment of vascular dementia could improve the effective rates, relieve the mental state damage and improve the daily living ability, with mild adverse reactions and a low incidence. However, due to the low quality of the included literatures, high-quality and large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further verification.

Evidence for the medicinal value of Squama Manitis (pangolin scale): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Squama Manitis (pangolin scale) has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years. However, its efficacy has not been systematically reviewed. This review aims to fill the gap. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), WanFang Database and SinoMed from inception to May 1, 2020. Search terms included "pangolin", "Squama Manitis", "Manis crassicaudata", "Manis javanica", "Malayan pangolins", "Manis pentadactyla", "Ling Li", "Chuan Shan Jia", "Shan Jia", "Pao Jia Zhu", "Jia Pian" and "Pao Shan Jia". The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case control studies (CCSs). RESULTS: After screening, 15 articles that met the inclusion criteria were finally included. There were 4 randomized controlled trials, 1 case control study, 3 case series and 7 case reports. A total of 15 different diseases were reported in these studies, thus the data could not be merged to generate powerful results. Two RCTs suggested that Squama Manitis combined with herbal decoction or antibiotics could bring additional benifit for treating postpartum hypogalactia and mesenteric lymphadenitis. However, this result was not reliable due to low methodological quality and irrational outcomes. The other two RCTs generated negative results. All the non-RCTs did not add any valuable evidence to the efficacy of Squama Manitis beacause of small samples, incomplete records, non-standardized outcome detection. In general, currently available evidence cannot support the clinical use of Squama Manitis. CONCLUSION: There is no reliable evidence that Squama Manitis has special medicinal value. The removal of Squama Manitis from Pharmacopoeia is rational.

[Whole-process prevention and treatment model of traditional Chinese medicine for coronavirus disease 2019 epidemics].

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has a long history in treating infectious diseases, and the form of intervention varies with different medical conditions and disease types. "The battle field of Chinese doctor for anti-epidemic" was formed in fighting against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemics in China, and from the battle, valuable experiences of using TCM for prevention and treatment had been obtained. During responding to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, we followed the principle of keeping summary and perfection while treament. And a whole process of TCM pattern or a model was organized, including early prevention in communities, cluster intervention in isolated places, comprehensive intervention in mobile cabin hospitals, centralized treatment in designated hospitals and rehabilitation support in rehabilitation posts. Thus, the innovation of whole process of TCM intervention was involved in the "trench warfare" strategy and platform system for prevention and treatment of new infectious COVID-19 epidemics. At different stages or conditions, different TCMs were used to play advantageous roles to solve various problems and elevate the effects of prevention and treatment of the disease. The construction of TCM mobile cabin hospitals was an innovation of organization form that might offset the constraints in technology and scale of simple community isolation or simple hospital treatment, exploring a new way for TCM to cope with public health emergencies.

Tongue features of patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been widely used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Tongue features should be referred for diagnosis and treatment of diseases in TCM. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the tongue features of the patients suffered from COVID-19. METHODS: COVID-19 Symptom Database (established by Evidence-based Medicine Center of Tianjin University of TCM) was searched for eligible tongue pictures. The tongue pictures were assessed by TCM experts to extract the data of tongue color, coating color, tongue body shape and coating proper feature. The relationship between tongue features and patient's condition was analyzed. RESULTS: Patients diagnosed as mild and moderate COVID-19 commonly had light red tongue and white coating. Severe patients had purple tongue and yellow coating. The proportion of critical patients with tender tongue increased to 75%. Greasy coating was a significant characteristic of patients with COVID-19. The proportions of greasy coating were 53.33%, 73.30%, 83.67 and 87.5% in disease category of mild, moderate, severe and critical. In addition, the thick coating proportion increased from mild (24.89%) to critical (50.00%). CONCLUSIONS: Tongue features have certain relationship with the category of COVID-19. Tongue features can serve as potential indicators for the evaluation of patient's condition and prognosis. Further studies are needed to enhance the quantification of tongue features and develop standards.

Chinese medical drugs for coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Integration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19. METHOD: A literature search was performed in six databases from injection to June 2020. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered as eligible. The quality of included RCTs were assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to do meta-analysis. RESULT: Eleven studies with 1259 patients were included in this study. CMD included herbal decoction and Chinese patent medicine. The methodological quality was evaluated as generally unclear. The results of meta-analysis showed that the integration of CMD and WM had better efficacy than WM in number of patients turned to severe and critical type (RR = 0.47, 95% CI=[0.32, 0.69], P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD= -7.95, 95% CI=[-14.66, -1.24], P = 0.02), defervescence time (MD= -1.20, 95% CI=[-2.03, -0.38], P = 0.004), cough resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.15, 1.64], P = 0.0004), fatigue resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.02, 1.83], P = 0.04), and tachypnea resolution rate (RR = 2.20, 95% CI=[1.11, 4.39], P = 0.02). As for safety, there was no significant difference between two groups. CONCLUSION: CMD may bring potential benefit to patients suffered from COVID-19. However, the quality of included trials is not good enough. High quality study with core outcome set are still required.

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.