Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Medicine for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
American Journal of Chinese Medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-03 DOI:10.1142/S0192415X22500136
Hanting Wu, Rongchen Dai, Xiaqiu Wu, Qiushuang Li, Hanti Lu, Junchao Yang, Wei Mao, Peijie Hei, Juan Liang, Conghua Ji
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Medicine for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hanting Wu,&nbsp;Rongchen Dai,&nbsp;Xiaqiu Wu,&nbsp;Qiushuang Li,&nbsp;Hanti Lu,&nbsp;Junchao Yang,&nbsp;Wei Mao,&nbsp;Peijie Hei,&nbsp;Juan Liang,&nbsp;Conghua Ji","doi":"10.1142/S0192415X22500136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19 treatment with a focus on the benefits of symptomatic relief and time-related indexes. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) were systematically searched from their beginning to April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients using Western therapy (WT) alone and those using additional Chinese medicine (WT [Formula: see text] CM) were included. Primary outcomes included overall efficacy, lung recovery, and time to viral assay conversion. Secondary outcomes included time and rate of individual symptom recovery, laboratory indicators, and adverse events. Overall, 15 RCTs, including 1469 participants, were included in this review. WT [Formula: see text] CM significantly improved overall efficacy (risk ratio, RR [Formula: see text] 1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and lung recovery (RR [Formula: see text] 1.30; 95% CI:1.19 to 1.42; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and shortened the time to viral assay conversion (weighted mean differences, WMD [Formula: see text]1.38; 95% CI: -1.98 to -0.78; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and duration of chest distress (WMD [Formula: see text] 2.41; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.83; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) compared to WT alone. There was no difference in safety between the WT [Formula: see text] CM and WT groups (RR [Formula: see text] 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.39; [Formula: see text] 0.76). In conclusion, the synthesized evidence from 15 RCTs showed that additional Chinese medication may improve treatment efficacy, relieve symptoms, promote lung recovery, and reduce the inflammatory response against COVID-19, while not increasing the risk of adverse events compared with conventional Western medication alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":50814,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Chinese Medicine","volume":"50 2","pages":"333-349"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Chinese Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X22500136","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19 treatment with a focus on the benefits of symptomatic relief and time-related indexes. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) were systematically searched from their beginning to April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients using Western therapy (WT) alone and those using additional Chinese medicine (WT [Formula: see text] CM) were included. Primary outcomes included overall efficacy, lung recovery, and time to viral assay conversion. Secondary outcomes included time and rate of individual symptom recovery, laboratory indicators, and adverse events. Overall, 15 RCTs, including 1469 participants, were included in this review. WT [Formula: see text] CM significantly improved overall efficacy (risk ratio, RR [Formula: see text] 1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and lung recovery (RR [Formula: see text] 1.30; 95% CI:1.19 to 1.42; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and shortened the time to viral assay conversion (weighted mean differences, WMD [Formula: see text]1.38; 95% CI: -1.98 to -0.78; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) and duration of chest distress (WMD [Formula: see text] 2.41; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.83; [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] 0.01) compared to WT alone. There was no difference in safety between the WT [Formula: see text] CM and WT groups (RR [Formula: see text] 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.39; [Formula: see text] 0.76). In conclusion, the synthesized evidence from 15 RCTs showed that additional Chinese medication may improve treatment efficacy, relieve symptoms, promote lung recovery, and reduce the inflammatory response against COVID-19, while not increasing the risk of adverse events compared with conventional Western medication alone.

中药治疗COVID-19的疗效和安全性:系统评价和meta分析。
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估中药治疗COVID-19的有效性和安全性,重点关注症状缓解和时间相关指标的获益。系统检索了7个电子数据库(PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、中国国家知识基础设施、重庆VIP、万方数据和中国临床试验注册中心),检索时间从数据库开始至2021年4月。仅纳入比较单独使用西药(WT)和附加使用中药(WT[公式:见文本]CM)的患者的随机对照试验(rct)。主要结局包括总体疗效、肺恢复和病毒检测转化时间。次要结局包括个体症状恢复的时间和率、实验室指标和不良事件。本综述共纳入15项随机对照试验,共1469名受试者。WT[公式:见文本]CM显著提高总疗效(风险比,RR[公式:见文本]1.21;95% CI: 1.12 ~ 1.30;[公式:见文][公式:见文]0.01)、肺恢复(RR[公式:见文]1.30;95% CI:1.19 ~ 1.42;[公式:见文][公式:见文]0.01),缩短了病毒检测转化时间(加权平均差异,WMD[公式:见文]1.38;95% CI: -1.98 ~ -0.78;[公式:见文][公式:见文]0.01)和胸闷持续时间(WMD[公式:见文]2.41;95% CI: -2.99 ~ -1.83;[公式:见文本][公式:见文本]0.01)与单独WT相比。WT[公式:见文]CM组与WT组的安全性无差异(RR[公式:见文]0.94;95% CI: 0.64 ~ 1.39;[公式:见正文]0.76)。综上所述,15项随机对照试验的综合证据显示,与单用常规西药相比,加用中药可提高治疗效果,缓解症状,促进肺部恢复,降低COVID-19的炎症反应,同时不增加不良事件的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Chinese Medicine
American Journal of Chinese Medicine 医学-全科医学与补充医学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
8.80%
发文量
159
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, which is defined in its broadest sense possible, publishes original articles and essays relating to traditional or ethnomedicine of all cultures. Areas of particular interest include: Basic scientific and clinical research in indigenous medical techniques, therapeutic procedures, medicinal plants, and traditional medical theories and concepts; Multidisciplinary study of medical practice and health care, especially from historical, cultural, public health, and socioeconomic perspectives; International policy implications of comparative studies of medicine in all cultures, including such issues as health in developing countries, affordability and transferability of health-care techniques and concepts; Translating scholarly ancient texts or modern publications on ethnomedicine. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine will consider for publication a broad range of scholarly contributions, including original scientific research papers, review articles, editorial comments, social policy statements, brief news items, bibliographies, research guides, letters to the editors, book reviews, and selected reprints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信