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, Rongchen Dai, Xiaqiu Wu, Qiushuang Li, Hanti Lu, Junchao Yang, Wei Mao, Peijie Hei, Juan Liang, 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.
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.